January 11, 2005

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Highberger, and Schauner present.  Commissioner Hack was absent.

With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of January 10 – 17^th as “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Week.”

Mayor Rundle recognized Rev. Leo Barbee, Rev. Paul Winn, Jr., and Rev. William A. Dulin, for their dedication to the Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations.

CONSENT AGENDA

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of December 14, 2004, December 21, 2004, and December 28, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of December 6, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 400 vendors in the amount of $2,420,313.14 and payroll from December 26, 2004 to January 8, 2005 in the amount of $1,387,849.02.  Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Louise’s West, 1307 West 7^th Street; Jack Flanigan’s Bar & Grill, 804 West 24^th Street; West Coast Saloon, 2222 Iowa; Dons’ Steakhouse, 2176 E 23^rd; the Retail Liquor License for Discount Liquor, 1805 West 2^nd Street; the Taxi Cab Licenses for Affordable Limousine, 1109 Prescott; Matada Manjunath, 2600 West 6^th; and Midwest Transportation, 792 North 2nd.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Stephen Horton to the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board to a term which will expire July 1, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a TV Inspection Van for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

                        Budgeted Amount                                           $105,000

                        Cobra Technologies                                       $112,650

                        Cues                                                               $116,520

                        Utilities Maintenance Contractors                   $108,005

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid to Utilities Maintenance Contractors for $108,005.  Motion carried unanimously.(1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with KDOT for Authority to Award Contract and Commitment of City Funds in the amount of $72,923.02 for the 7^th and Kentucky Traffic Signal Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase from Shawnee Mission Ford for eleven Crown Victoria police cars off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $20,976 each, totaling $230,736.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                  (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for comprehensive housing rehabilitation for the Neighborhood Resources Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  2236 E Dr.                              811 E 11th     

General Construction, Inc.                              $32,722.00                              $33,777.00

Penny Construction, Inc.                                $28,011.00                              $17,971.00

Old Home Store                                              $27,511.17                              $23,909.85

Staff Estimate                                                $27,192.50                              $22,500.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid for 2236 East Drive to Old Home Depot in the amount of $27,511.17 and the bid for 811 East 11^th Street to Penny Construction in the amount of $17,971.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                    (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6576, authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount of $75,000 to fund the 7^th and Kentucky Traffic Signal Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-11-33-04) for QuikTrip Store No. 167, a replat of a portion of lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Co-op Subdivision, generally described as being located at the northeast corner of East 23^rd Street and Haskell Avenue; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1) Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

2) Submittal of Public Improvement Plans (deceleration lane, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer) to Public Works Department prior to submittal of the final plat for recordation; and

3) Pinning of the lot in accordance with Section 21-302.2.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the site plan (SP-08-51-04) for the redevelopment of commercial buildings at 642-646 Locust Street and an additional parking lot at 645 Locust Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:

a. “No occupancy will be allowed until site improvements are completed.”

2. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:

a. Update the project site and site calculations, per the final plat approval.

b. Provide the proposed phasing of the project.

c. Update parking calculations, based upon proposed phasing of project.

d. List the number and types of apartments.

e. List the Net Square Feet of commercial space that will be available.

3. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.

4. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works for street, sidewalks, and stormwater improvements.

5. Filing of Final Plat prior to release of the Site Plan to Neighborhood Resources.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to take no action to consider alternatives to improve safety at the intersection of Kasold Drive and Riverview Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                             (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request to establish “no parking” along the west side of 4^th Street between Lincoln and Perry Streets.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                               (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Elroy Washington, 909 New York.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                     (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Shirley Rea, 222 Summertree Lane.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                    (11)                             (21)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

During the City Manager’s report, Molly Mangerich, Waste Reduction/Recycling Operations Supervisor, was present to report on the memo submitted from the Recycling and Resources Conservation Advisory Board (RRCAB) on a series of recommendations concerning energy conservation and sustainability opportunities for the City of Lawrence per City Commission direction.  She said within that memo, the RRCAB was asking the City Commission for further direction.    

Mayor Rundle asked if the memo clearly indicated the areas where further direction was needed.   

Laura Routh, Secretary, RRCAB, said she hoped that the memo addressed the City Commission’s concerns in terms of what was not clear in the beginning. 

Vice Mayor Highberger suggested placing this issue on the regular agenda soon to give specific direction.  He said he appreciated all the work that had been done so far.

Also during the City Manager’s Report, Mayor Rundle asked staff to produce data concerning crack sealing and the comparison to other communities on how much was spent.                                                                                                                                                                 (12)

Receive report from Sabatini Architects, Inc., regarding Lawrence/Douglas County Fire and Medical Station #5 bids and alternatives for action.

Dan Sabatini, Sabatini Architects, presented the report.  He said the low bid exceeded the estimate by approximately $500,000.  The bulk of the items were in the site work, masonry, metals, building insulation, and mechanical systems.  He said after reviewing some numbers with the lowest bidders, they were able to identify those cost issues.    

The schematic design estimate was at $4.2 million in which they realized they needed to find some other items to engineer out of the project to reduce those costs such as raising the building height because of the site construction and constraints to reduce the amount of excavation costs; reduce the quantity of retaining walls along the building; reduce the quantity of landscaping, but still meet City standards; identified three types of retaining walls; and other items to reduce costs.

He said they had identified four options for the Commission to consider which were:

Option One:  Re-Bid the project with non-functional modifications and revisions to the specifications (e.g. change in materials not significantly impacting the quality of the project).  This change should result in lower bids.  However, the bids were likely to be higher than the August 2004 estimate.  Sabatini Architects Inc. and City staff recommended this option because of likely overall cost savings, it consolidates and centralizes the Administrative Offices, and it maintained the architectural integrity of the design that has been approved by both the Commissioners and the KU Endowment.

Option Two:  Accept the low bid by First Management Incorporated by waiving the irregularity of their bid bond’s submission and the approved August 18 engineer’s estimate.  Sabatini Architects Inc. and City staff did not recommend this option because possible construction savings had been identified to reduce the overall cost of the project.

Option Three:  Accept the bona fide next lowest bidder by waiving the approved August 18 engineer’s estimate.  Sabatini Architects Inc. and City staff did not recommend this option because possible construction savings had been identified to reduce the overall cost of the project.

Option Four:  Re-design and re-bid the building to eliminate the Administrative Offices, therefore reducing the overall cost.  Sabatini Architects Inc. and department staff did not recommend this option because it continued the inefficiencies of decentralization in Fire Medical Administration, which the building was designed to remedy.

Vice Mayor Highberger said at the meeting with the City, County, and School District, he understood from Sabatini’s comments that it was not guaranteed that the re-bid would be a lower amount.

Sabatini said the bid could possibly be the same.  The fact was if they re-bid the project most of the price increases happened at the first of the year for materials and inflation might be seen fighting against any attempted cost savings.

Mayor Rundle asked if there would be a re-bid on the project, would it contain revised specifications, but without a change in the scale of the project.

Sabatini said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked how quickly the revised specifications could be ready to be re-bid with those value engineered changes.

Sabatini said approximately three weeks.

Commissioner Schauner asked how long after the revised specifications would the bids be due.

Sabatini said they would allow the contractors three weeks just in case there was a new bidder.

Wildgen said February 22, 2005, was the bid opening date that was in the letter from Sabatini.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Dunfield explained for the benefit of the public that this was a subject of considerable discussion at the joint City/County/School Board study session last week.  A County Commissioner suggested one Commissioner each from the City and County along with Fire/Medical staff meet with the architect and look at those value engineering issues which should be an option to consider.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that idea would be in conjunction with Option One.

Commissioner Dunfield said yes that idea would be an extension of Option One.         

Mayor Rundle said his inclination was to re-bid the project with revised specifications.

Vice Mayor Highberger said his concern was that after they went through that entire process, that there would be a less desirable difference in costs.  He said he was concerned about the.  From what he gathered, most people would not consider the irregularities in the process to be serious enough to cause the original bids not to be accepted.

He asked Commissioner Dunfield if it was possible to identify enough cost savings to make the re-bid worth while.

Commissioner Dunfield said there were no guarantees but he thought it was worth re-bidding.

Mayor Rundle asked if the waters would be muddied to have a bid on the original specifications and the revised specifications.

Commissioner Schauner said given the types of value engineering that might be considered, he assumed those value engineering pieces would not cause them to have a building that was more expensive to operate over its life than if they left the bid specifications as they were originally bid.

Commissioner Dunfield said that idea was always an aspect of the process when performing those value engineering efforts.  He said first costs versus long-term cost would need to be balanced.  He said with any City building they intended to own the building for a long time and therefore, they should not be doing things that would harm the long-term viability of the project.

Commissioner Schauner said with that understanding, did Commissioner Dunfield believe the value engineering could be done in a way that would lower the costs and still provide them with a long-term occupancy that would not be more costly than the short-term savings.

Commissioner Dunfield said he thought that idea was possible.  Again, every bid process was a gamble.

Sabatini said when they went through the process for that project, because of tight budget constraints, they tried to pull out as much as they could without reducing the quality and long-term maintenance for the project.

In looking at trying to come up with some items when talking to the lowest bidder on some of those possibilities, they were not talking about a huge amount of dollars.  The amount could be anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000.  He said he did not want the Commission to get their hopes up that the cost savings would be $100,000 or $200,000. 

Commissioner Dunfield said the other aspect the Commission needed to consider was the County Commission which was the City’s partner on this project.  The County Commission was not convinced that extra money needed to be spent on what the bid reflected.  He said part of the reason for this exercise was to make sure that the County Commission was satisfied that the project had been thoroughly looked over.

Mayor Rundle said the idea of other bidders bidding was a chance that the City Commission needed to take as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the structure could be built without the administrative offices today, but could add those offices be added to that structure at a later date.

Sabatini said that idea could be done, but the portion of the building where those areas came together would need to be redesigned.  There were a lot of site improvements as far as access that needed to be done now.  He said a lot of money was being spent on infrastructure just to get it to that point.  He said two or three years from now, those offices would cost more to be build.

Commissioner Schauner said then perhaps both fire stations should be built this year.

Sabatini said, if inflation was the factor driving that decision, then yes.

Commissioner Schauner said depending on what the inflation factor was, with interest rates at a particular place, it might be something that the City Commission should discuss.

Vice Mayor Highberger said given those number of $40,000 to $80,000 for a 4.5 million dollar project was approximately 1% to 2% potential cost reduction and given the increases on cost of commodities, it seemed liked a long shot to save any substantial amount of money.  He asked how much time did they have left to accept the existing bids.

Sabatini said 45 days from December 7^th, 2003.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if an answer could be given in a week to meet with a representative from the County Commission to discuss the possibility of cost reductions and if a conclusion was reached then it might not be worth remitting and the City Commission would have time to accept the existing bids.  

Commissioner Dunfield said yes that could be done.

Wildgen suggested referring this item to the next City Commission meeting agenda.                                                                                                                                                              (13)

Receive request from Mike Elwell (Abe and Jakes Landing) regarding reducing/eliminating the monthly rent requirement for the Riverfront parking garage.

Mike Elwell, Owner, Abe and Jakes Landing, presented a handout to the City Commission concerning the amount of parking spaces and who used those spaces.  He prefaced this issue by providing some background. 

He said prior to the agreement being entered into there was no lease requirement that they pay parking fees.  At that time, there was a 50 cent parking fee which covered the entire parking garage with the exception of City parking.  He said City staff came to him and asked if he was interested in getting rid of the 50 cent parking fee with the understanding that the City needed something in return because the City still needed to pay for the parking garage.  He said at that point, he agreed to $400 a month rent with a cost of living index increase from now until the next 70 years.  He said while the amount was not huge right now, as time progressed with the cost of living, it would be a large figure. 

He said following that discussion, that amount seemed like a fair proposal at that time and would free up approximately 428 spaces for public parking.  He said at that point in time, he envisioned his business as serving lunch, dinner and other events.   He said what happened after that skewed everything.  He said there were 161 parking spaces in the basement and instead of the 50 cent fee there was a $1.00 parking fee.  In addition, somewhere in that 5 year period when Sprint was active, they had 400 or more employees and the parking lot was almost full for a couple of years. 

At the time of the 50 cent fee, in addition, a portion of the Mall owners were required to purchase permits.  He said when looking at the ramp of the parking garage there were 10 signs that state that the ramp was permit parking only.  He said unless a person had a $250 permit, that person was not allowed to park at that location.  Also, there were handicapped zones, loading zones, and what was allocated to the Marriott Hotel for their customers which happened after he agreed to pay for parking. 

He said by his calculation there were 77 public spaces that did not cost anything for 2 hour parking.  Thirty-six of those spaces were at the east end of the parking lot which did not seem significant unless a person wanted to walk approximately 1/8^th of a mile from the entrance of Abe and Jakes. 

He said what he agreed on and what he agreed to pay for had been diminished considerably which represented 18% of the parking that he had originally agreed upon.  He said to compound the issue was that after 5:00 p.m., the parking lot was open to the public. 

He said he wanted to make it clear that he understood why the Marriott needed those spaces at that particular location.  He said for the most part he thought they worked well together.  When the Marriott took their parking out of the center of the parking lot it skewed parking as far as his business was concerned with weddings and other events. 

He requested that the City Commission take into consideration the original agreement and what he was left with at this time.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment Mayor Rundle said, as one possible option, prorating the original fee based on current parking at 18% to 25% of what was originally available might work.

Elwell said that was fair, but it did not necessarily reflect the cost of placing signs out every Friday and Saturday night because he lost a sign every month.  He said often he had people out in the parking lot asking patrons not to park in the Marriott space so his patrons would not have their cars towed off.  He said the parking situation had been somewhat improved with the signage and markings.    He said it was not a conflict between the Marriott and Abe and Jakes as much as it was trying to accommodate his customers and not get the customers cars towed.  He said some of the towing occurred during school district functions, weddings, and during New Year’s.     

Commissioner Schauner asked Elwell what his understanding was 1999 when this agreement was entered into regarding why there was a 5 year lapse between the signing of the agreement and the first obligation to make a payment for those parking spaces.

Elwell said he thought that lapse occurred to help him and his business.  He said this was a voluntary act on his part because he was trying to get his business off the ground.  He said the costs were 3 times more than he had expected when the project was started. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there had not been any payment for parking by Abe and Jakes since this agreement was entered into.

Elwell said correct.  He said his first payment was due January 2005. He said he tried to get this issue on the agenda a couple of months ago so payments did not fall behind.  He said he had received a bill from the City for $4,800 for parking, but at this point that bill had not been paid with the anticipation that somehow this issue would be resolved to the point of telling him what he owed.    

Wildgen said the agreement contained no increases over time for the parking.   The $4,800 was a fixed cost.  He said this was a public parking lot other than the Marriott parking.  He said the City did not enforce parking in that lot after 5:00 p.m. on week nights and Saturdays and not at all on Sunday’s or Holiday’s.  He said all of the 195 spaces on the lower level were open for free at all those times.  He said if it would help to take the permit signs off the ramp, staff could accommodate that idea, but again, after 5:00 p.m., all of those spaces were available.

He said when looking at staff’s survey matrix there was not a night that those parking spaces were completely full along with the top parking lot.  He said there were many spaces on the ramp and lower levels during those heavy Friday and Saturday nights when there were a lot of activities.  

Mayor Rundle asked if it was relevant to discuss Elwell’s business plan since his initial investment.

Elwell said 2003 was the first year the business turned a profit, but in 2004 profit went backwards.   He said everyone had their opinion about the impact of the smoking ban, but it definitely impacted his business by approximately 25%.  He said he had gone through the experience of opening the Granada as a non-smoking establishment, but that idea did not work.   

Mayor Rundle asked it would be appropriate to review this agreement on a yearly basis.

Elwell said that would be fair.  He said the use of that parking lot continued to change and what might be fair to everyone was to let the use reflect that.  He said when the permit signs went up on the ramp that was a reflection of Sprint being at that location so they could have parking for their employees.     

Mayor Rundle said it also might be appropriate to refer this issue to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board.   He said that Board might come up with some type of general advice on how to approach those questions.

Elwell said that was fine.  He said he needed an amount to pay for this year.  He said if staff wanted to count parking spaces and if the Commission wanted to review this issue on a year to year basis, he thought that was fair to everyone.

Commissioner Schauner said counting spaces would be a lot like chasing shadows.  He said different people would count those spaces differently.  He said that idea would not do the business owner or City much good.

Commissioner Dunfield said he had a different perspective on the count of the spaces.  He said it looked as though the only loss of spaces relative to what was there when the agreement was made was the 129 Marriott spaces out of 467 spaces.  He said he did not see how that came to 18% of the original spaces and it seemed as there were over 300 spaces available in that lot

He said $400 a month for the use of that City facility struck him as a good deal for Elwell.  He said this was a straight forward lease agreement and the City forgave the first 5 years worth of income and it was time for the agreement to take effect and now Elwell was suggesting that the City Commission cancel the agreement.  He said he was not persuaded to do that and $4,800 a year was a good deal and a reasonable agreement to make for the use of that City parking facility.

Elwell said in one respect what Commissioner Dunfield was saying about the space was somewhat true, but if going back to when this agreement was entered into with the 50 cent parking and then the City came along with the $1.00 parking, he asked what was the incentive for him to enter into that agreement.  He said if looking how it was reflected in the parking now, he would have not entered into that agreement.   

Vice Mayor Highberger appreciated what Elwell had done with that facility, but he agreed with Commissioner Dunfield in that it seemed like a reasonable agreement.  He suggested working on signage to make things work better.  He said based on the information he had received, there was ample parking.

Commissioner Schauner agreed with Commissioner Highberger.  He said the thing that was most persuasive to him was the 5 year window without payment and it was an agreement that Elwell and the City should live with.

Commissioner Schauner asked Wildgen to follow though with the permit sign question. He said those signs might be able to be removed if that would help put more parking spaces in service and perhaps some indication at the entrance that the parking fee requirement was not enforced after certain times because that might be good information for people to know about who may not be familiar with the facility.                                                                          (14)

Receive Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) recommendation to provide an adult crossing guard at the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Peterson Road and start funding in 2005.  The position was not budgeted in the 2005 General Fund.  The annual cost per crossing is $5,500.

Leslie O’Neil, parent of children at Deerfield Elementary School, said that the Traffic Safety Commission performed a study and found that it was difficult to cross Peterson Road.  The TSC agreed with the neighborhood to hire a crossing guard for that intersection at Peterson and Arrowhead however, the TSC recommended this issue follow the next budgeting year.  She said the neighbors were present to request that the City Commission fund that request for this year so the neighborhood could immediately start protecting the children.

Commissioner Schauner asked if crossing guards were City employees.

Wildgen said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those crossing guards went through a training program for that type of work.

Wildgen said yes, through internal police department training.  He said crossing guards were supervised by that department.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that would require some additional street signaling or signage.

Wildgen said no.  He said that area was already a marked pedestrian crossing.

Commissioner Schauner said the risk to pedestrians was great now as it probably would be all year with the dark mornings and other issues.  He suggested implementing that idea as quickly as possible.         

Vice Mayor Highberger said given the timeline for recruiting, the fact that the school year had already started, and that this was a funding request, he recommended implementing that idea at the start of the school year, next year.

He said the safety of school kids was crucial, but there was also a process for making those types of issues happen.  He said it was his understanding that there might be some unspent money in the budget that might be available to fund a partial year.

Wildgen said even if there was no money in the budget there was usually some percentage that was not spent at the end of the year.  He said the dollar amount for this issue was not a large amount.  He said if the City Commission approved this request now it would still take some time to recruit and train an individual.  

Commissioner Dunfield suggested that the City should go ahead with hiring a crossing guard. He said whether to hire a crossing guard always raised the question of the criteria and how the process worked for evaluating how they decided if a crossing guard was needed.

Commissioner Schauner asked about how the standards for whether a crossing guard was needed were developed.

Wildgen said by the City’s Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Safety Commission based on volume and traffic counts.

David Woosley, Traffic Engineer said that they looked at gaps in the traffic and how long it took to cross the street depending on how wide the street was.   He said their standard was if there was more than one gap per minute, then that was sufficient for the students to make a decision to cross the street.  He said in each five minute increment there needed to be five gaps that were safe enough for the student to get across the street.  If there was less than one gap per minute then that was when it met the criteria for a crossing guard.  He said in this location being discussed there was not one five minute period during the morning or afternoon that had sufficient gaps in the traffic for the students to get across safely.

Mayor Rundle said there was another item on the agenda concerning the State audit of Douglas County Roads.  He said there were warrants for school crossing signs.  He asked if the State had anything to say about crossing guards.

Woosley said the State did not get down to that level.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a school zone at that location.

Woosley said yes.  He said the crosswalk was marked and there were advanced signs in place stating a reduced speed during the time period when students were crossing.

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff attempted to determine the level of compliance with the reduced school zone speed at that location.

Woosley said no.

Commissioner Schauner said he anecdotally sensed that there was a lot of speeding in school zones and while guards were helpful, more enforcement of those speed limits may be necessary in school zone areas.

Wildgen said the City had a police traffic unit that could address that issue.

Commissioner Schauner said he supported putting a school crossing guard at that location as quickly as possible.  

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to provide an “adult crossing guard” at the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Peterson Road; and directed staff to proceed with hiring the crossing guard.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                          (15)

Receive Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) recommendation authorizing the re-striping of 6^th Street between Alabama Street and Tennessee Street to provide a TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANE.

Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, said the road safety audit was presented to the City Commission in October 2004.  As a result, the City Commission asked staff to take this issue back to the Traffic Safety Commission and include public participation.  He said a number or residents were notified on either side of 6^th Street north and south through this section of Highway 40. 

He said not a lot of comments were received from the Traffic Safety Commission so staff brought this issue back to the City Commission for a decision.  He said there was a KLINK project in this area this year which was a mill and overlay project.  He said there was some correspondence from Old West Lawrence opposing the re-striping to include the 5^th lane.  He said this issue was also submitted to the Historic Resources Commission and they approved the re-striping, but they made the recommendation to install some type of median.

He said Commissioner Dunfield suggested looking into traffic islands.  He said staff had a concern about maintenance of this issue.  He said what was being looked at was four, 11 foot lanes and a 12 foot center turn lane.  If staff placed a 100 foot median in the middle, there would be approximately 9 feet from the interior from the back of the curb to the back of the curb on the other side.  He said it would be difficult to maintain plantings in that area. 

He said KDOT was not encouraging the installation of the medians and staff would need KDOT’s approval to install those medians.  The purpose of medians from KDOT’s perspective was for access control.  He said this median would be for aesthetics or traffic calming, but it was not managing access.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Cordelia Brown, property owner on 6^th Street between Illinois and Alabama, said they did not have a driveway on to 6^th Street.  She said there was only a parking space for one car behind their garage.  She said if this idea was implemented they would lose the 75 feet of parking that they had in front of their house. She hoped the City Commission would vote against that idea.   

Ted Miller, Lawrence, said he lived a few houses from 6^th Street.  He said this idea had come up several times over the course of the last few years.   He said the neighborhoods had never supported this issue.  He said this proposal increased the speed and volume of traffic on a street that was already busy and fast.  He said all it would do was make things worse.  He said he was puzzled in that there had been so much talk about traffic calming in the last couple of years and yet this idea was a de-calming issue. 

He said 6^th Street was already hard to cross.  There was a state statute regarding pedestrian crosswalks that had never been enforced.  This area was a residential neighborhood and there was plenty of pedestrian traffic.  The one place a person could logically cross 6^th Street in between Tennessee and Maine was not really practical which was the tunnel that led up to the school.         

He said he could think of several alternatives that would serve some purpose.  Perhaps the most obvious alternative was to lower the speed limit and enforce that speed limit.  Another option was to put in some true traffic calming devices such as traffic circles.  He said he understood that rear end accidents were a problem for people turning left off of 6^th Street.  A remedy would be to make no left turns between Tennessee and Maine.  He said that stretch of road was under half a mile and routinely in Lawrence a person could go a half a mile without having a place to turn left which did not make that idea much of a hardship.  Another alternative would be to narrow the street like on east 7^th Street so there was only one through lane and one left lane and that would have the effect of slowing people down.  He said there were plenty of ways to solve this issue without making things worse for the people who lived in that area.

He hoped the City Commission would not go forward with this issue, but if the Commission decided to, he strongly urged the City Commission to put in some triggered traffic lights about every couple of blocks otherwise he did not see how that could be an accessible place.  He said he had lived with the noise and congestion for a long time and it seemed ridiculous to make it worse.     

Mayor Rundle said he had a letter from the Pinckney neighborhood from 1999 during the last audit.  He said the main issue was pedestrian safety.  He said he talked to the author of the 2004 study and he was softening on the crossing issue.  He said it was the same width of street that was across the center lane that hopefully did not have active traffic. 

He said that the parking that Brown previously discussed had acted as a type of traffic calming device because it mimicked one of the traffic calming devices which was a temporary narrowing of the street.   He asked if there was any problem if they did not implement this idea along the full length of Maine to Massachusetts. 

Earl Bozak, KDOT, said it called for parking on the one side already and it would not change that.  The parking would be 8 ½ feet. 

Mayor Rundle said in his conversations with Cheryl Hendrickson, the rear end collisions were actually at Maine and Massachusetts.  He said she did not have data along the stretch between those locations.

Bozak said that was his understanding.   He said the majority of rear end collisions were at those two intersections.

Mayor Rundle asked if those rear end collisions were due to speed.

Bozak said the data did not tell why the accidents occurred, but only that the accidents occurred at those locations.  He said the accidents happened when someone was trying to turn left and the person following was not paying attention.

Woosley said he did not know how much data Hendrikson had, but staff records indicated that there were a lot more collisions at each one of the intersections along those streets.        

Mayor Rundle said that Hendrickson mentioned was that there was a threshold to meet before an intersection was considered to be critical.  He said the highest collision that was discussed did not seem to meet that threshold.

Woosley said that they looked at crashes when it came to signalization.  He said there needed to be five crashes in a 12 month period of a type that could be corrected by a signal before warranting installing a signal.  He said he did not know if that was what Hendrickson was referring to.

Commissioner Schauner asked if any of those intersections met that warrant.  

Woosley said neither intersection met that warrant at this time.

Mayor Rundle said that there was a balancing act that they played all the time with pedestrian traffic versus vehicular traffic.  He asked if there was any way to elevate the pedestrian.

Bozak said there could be a pedestrian activated light

Mayor Rundle asked how that was weighed in this equation. 

Bozak said there had to be some type of warrant for that, but he would need to go to Traffic Engineering to find out if it would warrant a pedestrian activated light.    

Woosley said there were warrants for that, but there was only one that had been installed in Lawrence based upon pedestrian activity which was on Kentucky Street adjacent to the pool.  He said that area met the minimum requirement based upon the number of pedestrians crossing the street.

Mayor Rundle said that area was warranted along with the area at South Park. 

Commissioner Dunfield asked Woosley to comment on the likely impact of that change on traffic speeds.  He said a lane would be added to get the turners out of the flow of traffic, but lane widths would also be reduced.

Woosley said when reducing the lane widths the speeds might come down a little bit.  He said those speeds would not be significant.  He said he did not anticipate that there would be any increase in speed because of the narrowing of the lanes made it more confined and made the driver not as comfortable as he or she was in a wider lane.  He said those were 12 foot lanes now, but when getting into the outside lanes, particularly the lane on the north side for west bound traffic, there was that lane plus what would normally be a parking lane.  He said that was a 20 foot lane that traffic was traveling through right now which would be reduced down to 11 feet.  He said there could be some significant reductions in the speed of that traffic along that north side of the street.

Commissioner Schauner said if this road was re-striped and the parking left alone would that have some influence on driver awareness of lane width and possibly reduce the speed of those drivers.

Bozak said yes.  He said anytime a driver perceived that the lane would get narrower even if it was just striping or temporary tape, it slowed the traffic down.

Commissioner Schauner said it was his sense that road had so much traffic that it was difficult to keep it striped.  He said when driving that street, he did not get much of a sense of exactly where the lanes were.  He said he would like some further discussion about how they might increase the level of maintenance on that street to make drivers more aware of what lane they needed to drive in and hence hopefully reducing their speeds.         

Woosley said one of the reasons for that streets condition now was because that surface was getting to the end of its life span.  He said that street was going to be resurfaced next year.  He said when the resurfacing was completed that was when those permanent pavement markings were put in.  He said those markings deteriorate over time just like the road surface.

Commissioner Schauner said there was one thing they could agree on and that was that they did not want traffic to be any faster on that street.  He said he was uncertain how to accomplish that.

Commissioner Dunfield said the speed was one issue the other one was safety.  He said the number of accidents along that stretch of road was appalling.  He said there was an opportunity to accomplish something pretty simply that should dramatically reduce the number of accidents and he was persuaded that it was not going to increase traffic in Pinckney and Old West Lawrence and it was not going to cause increases in traffic speeds.  He said he hated to disagree with the neighborhoods, but it seemed that they needed to proceed with the re-striping.  The fact that the parking was being maintained without any changes, the fact that the lane widths would be reduced; and that accident problems would be relieved, persuaded him that they should go ahead with this idea.

Mayor Rundle said Hendrickson mentioned that there were 18 accidents at Maine over a two year period, and 21 wrecks at Massachusetts Street over a two year period.  He asked if those two particular intersections would be addressed.

Woosley said he did not think that the TSC made any particular recommendations in the road safety audit, but that was an issue staff could review.  He said staff could pull the crash reports at those locations to see what type of crashes were occurring.  He said if there was some type of pattern to crashes at those intersections, then there might be something that could be done to alleviate that pattern. 

Mayor Rundle said he had remained ambivalent over the benefits over this over the years because of the balancing, but this was the closest he came to feeling like it might be time to do the re-striping.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the parking that Brown was talking about was not going to be eliminated.

Soules said the parking on the south side would be maintained.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he was struggling with this issue.  He said the last thing he wanted was something that was strongly opposed by the neighborhoods, would increase traffic on 6^th Street, or make 6^th Street harder for pedestrians to cross.  He said something needed to be done to make 6^th Street safe for a pedestrian to safely cross between Maine and Tennessee.

He said he did not see the down side of this issue with the neighborhood.  He agreed with Commissioner Dunfield in that he did not see this issue as dramatically increasing the traffic into the neighborhood.  He said the narrower lanes had some potential for slowing traffic a little bit.  He said he assumed that people in the neighborhoods were getting rear ended at those intersections.  He said getting out of those neighborhoods could be frustrating and it seemed that the center lane would be a real benefit for a person living in the Pinckney neighborhood who was trying, for instance, to go west. 

He said if the City Commission proceeded with the 5^th lane re-striping it left options open for medians in the future if they decided that there was funding for those medians.  He said he was leaning toward supporting that 5^th lane.

Mayor Rundle said one issue Hendrickson addressed was that she felt it was worth studying the stretch for the applicability of a pedestrian actuated light and putting that type of light somewhere along that area or identifying an appropriate place for that light.  If the City Commission approved that re-striping, he would like for staff to pursue that idea aggressively.  He said obviously meeting those warrants and identifying a proper location was just the first part and then they would need the funds.

He said he had a conversation with a person from the TSC and that individual was interested in initiating some type of discussion and trying to have some public intervention program to address what Miller talked about which was the lack of enforcement, awareness, and obedience to the state law.  He said there was no guarantee that would produce results, but he gave his encouragement to move forward with that idea.        

Commissioner Dunfield agreed there should be a study on pedestrian actuated signals.  He said when he was debating the idea of those islands part of that was to help people cross on foot, but speaking as a frequent pedestrian as someone who crossed 6^th Street a lot, he only crossed that street at the lights or at the tunnel at Pinckney.  He said Sunday mornings excepted, he did not feel safe crossing that street.  He said that as a problem, but the question of striping or not changing the striping addressed that problem one way on the other.  He said that issue needed to be attacked in some other way.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think the 5^th lane for dedicated lefts was going to increase, in any significant way, the traffic through the neighborhoods.  It seemed people were making less into those neighborhoods because they had business there whether they had a lane to turn into to make that left or not. He said, what he called the “Dunfield dividers,” was not a good idea. 

He said if they could preserve the parking on the south side of the street, he was not uncomfortable with using that project money to re-strip with 4 eleven foot lanes and the 5^th lane for left.  He said the City’s reputation was that people did not stop for pedestrians not only on 6^th, but other places as well.  He said his only concern was seeing an elevation of speed on that stretch of road.  If the left turners were out of the way, he sensed that faster traffic would be seen on that street.  Because of the elevation of that street, there was not a great line of sight through part of that stretch.  On balance, he said they should go forward and re-stripe.  He said he did not love that idea, but he thought it was probably the right thing to do.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was something that could be monitored after that idea was in place in terms of its impact on pedestrian safety and speed.  He asked if staff could set up a regulated program to do that.

Woosley said staff could perform some before and after speed studies since the project was not going to be done until summer.  Once the whether breaks, staff could get some accurate speed data this spring and after the project was complete staff could do the same thing.

Mayor Rundle suggested that those speed studies be performed every couple of months until there was a broad feel for traffic speed.       

Commissioner Schauner said some before and after numbers on neighborhood traffic might be worth doing.  He said what they had was concerns about what might happen and if they had some objective data, with respect to traffic on streets both north and south of 6^th Street and through the neighborhoods, that might be helpful.

Woosley said staff could obtain that data.

Miller said suppose staff performed those after studies and the concerns proved true.  He asked if this issue could be repealed.

Vice Mayor Highberger said at some expense.

Commissioner Schauner said they could always look at restricting left turns during certain hours of the day.  He said there were some tools that could be used post striping if they found that the traffic numbers were problematic.

Commissioner Dunfield said re-striping was a relatively simple process.

Mayor Rundle said that restricting left turns on 23^rd Street would be done as a pilot to see if they could use that as an effective means for reducing accidents and keeping traffic moving during rush hour.  He said he wanted to pay close attention to that process because it had applicability in a number of different places.

Miller said the issue was that they needed to have two or three lanes each way and then make it all no left turn.

Commissioner Dunfield said he was not sure there would be a whole lot of support from the neighbors for that idea.

Commissioner Schauner said what he would like the minutes to reflect was that if the Commission did approve this re-striping that they would look at the impact after the re-striping to see if there was any material change in either the speed on that street and/or the volume of traffic through the neighborhoods that might warrant reconsideration or some limitation on left turns from 6^th Street.

Miller said better and faster streets attracted more cars.

Commissioner Schauner said his fear was that the volume on 6^th Street was going to increase no matter what they did to the striping.  He said it was inevitable that that street would continue to carry an increased volume of traffic.      

Brown said if the parking was not taken away on the south side, would parking be taken away from the area in front of Pinckney School where the parents picked up their children.

Soules said on the north side there was no parking allowed currently.

Brown asked if that parking would be taken away.

Wildgen said that parking was not legal now.

Mayor Rundle said he would like to understand the full range of the striping materials because it was correct in that those materials used for striping did not seem to last most of the time.  He said he had driven that street in the rain sometimes and markings were absolutely invisible and it became very treacherous when trying to negotiate on coming traffic. 

Soules said that they used a cold plastic that was rolled into the hot mix.  It was one of the best products at this time.   He said it was the traffic volume, snow, and ice that reduced those markings.

Mayor Rundle asked Soules what he meant about that product being the best.

Soules said that product was best in visibility and wear and tear.  He said the re-striping would need to be more maintained so the visibility remained.  He said that product was used on all the streets in Lawrence and was a good product.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it made any sense to use some sort of reflector markings that stand off the pavement to mark off those left turn areas as a way to guide.       

Soules said those markings lasted until staff removed snow from those streets.    

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to authorize the re-striping of 6^th Street between Alabama and Tennessee Streets to provide a “two-way left turn lane” conditioned on requiring before and after traffic speed data on 6^th Street and conditioned on requiring before and after traffic volume data in the surrounding neighborhoods which might warrant reconsideration or some limitation on left turns from 6^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                              (16)

Mayor Rundle said he would like to move forward with pedestrian actuated signal in terms of getting feedback from KDOT and studying where those signals might be appropriate.

Also, there were other recommendations for the City in that road safety audit both in the 2004 and 1999 versions.  He said he would like a report from staff on those issues that did not get addressed in 1999 and those issues that were not covered at this time and if there was a plan to move forward on those issues in the next couple of weeks.

Vice Mayor Highberger said there needed to be continued discussions with KDOT.  He said the City Commission and KDOT’s desire for 6^th Street was not necessarily the same.  He said he did not want to build anymore roads like 6^th Street in Lawrence.  He said he had serious concerns about the 6^th Street that was being built at this time.  There were going to be large stretches where pedestrians were not going to be able to cross for a quarter or half mile at a time.        

Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way on PF-11-34-04:  Final Plat for Stoneridge North.  This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 19.282 acres and is located east of George Williams Way (extended) and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended). 

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said this item was considered by the Planning Commission at their December meeting and was forwarded to the City Commission with a split vote of 6-4. 

The discussion the Planning Commission had centered on the question of accessibility or connectivity of the subdivision, specifically how to get pedestrians within the proposed subdivision over to George Williams Way.  Because of the configuration of the property and the way there was an exclusive utility easement that ran along the south or southwestern property line, the lot configuration was not very conducive into having that kind of connectivity. 

Overall, the subdivision plat complied with minimum standards in designs.  She said there was direct connection between the proposed subdivision and the City’s open space property that surrounded the Foxchase South Subdivision and also street connections both to the southwest to an additional subdivision and there would also be connectivity to existing subdivisions to the east.       

Commissioner Schauner asked about the pedestrian connectivity issue.

Day said that issue was a growing discussion for the Planning Commission especially throughout the last several subdivision plats.  She said there were discussions that related connectivity to a couple of different elements.  One element was providing connectivity of residential lots to commercial areas, providing connections to the public, open spaces, and also having connectivity between or within particular subdivisions.  As a result, they were seeing fewer cul-de-sacs and more streets connected.  There had been a lot of discussion on the final plat and the preliminary plat of the Green Tree Subdivision which was south of that particular property and how they were making connections to George Williams Way because there was an approved commercial zoning and was anticipating commercial development at the corner of George Williams Way and 6^th Street, The Diamondhead Project.  The difficulty with this particular piece of property was that it was relatively isolated and there was a lot of approved development that had surrounded that property, but this was one of the issues that was specifically addressed and was identified as part of a previous plat so that staff was able to forecast for two designers and developers that connection to the City’s open space would be required as this particular project progressed.  She said that was specifically accommodated in this design.

Some of the distinctions that needed to be worked with and balanced were where individual property lines fell and many times they tried to encourage streets to be extended or connected to a property line to facilitate an adjacent subdivision being connected and pedestrian easements when they were obvious or they were connecting into another similar type of development. 

Commissioner Dunfield asked if he was right in believing that the discussion was centered on the lot that was in the extreme northwest corner of the property.

Day said yes.  The discussion was specifically on how they would get a sidewalk to George Williams Way.  She said the sidewalk would have crossed the full length of one lot within that complete easement and that burden would be all on that one lot.  She said it was a very long lot line that that property would bear the burden simply because of the configuration of the property and the way the easements fall across that entire area at an angle.

Commissioner Dunfield said essentially what would be contemplated would be a sidewalk that ran northwest along that 205 foot south property line.

Day said that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.  

Commissioner Dunfield said that whole area was a very broad easement which was gas.  He said that area was not buildable and he was having trouble understanding where the hardship lied in allowing that to happen. 

Day said she would defer that question to the applicant.  She said from staff’s perspective the types of connections that they looked at had been relatively short.  They were connecting from one street to another street and that connection could either be separated out as an individual tract or that it was shared across particular lot lines.  The vote from the Planning Commission was reflective of that opinion of whether that was doable.  She said it could be done.  She said there was not specific legislation in the subdivision regulations to tell how exactly that should be done.

Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said he would like this discussion to address those issues that the Commission was really eager to understand more fully.   He said if the Commission would like him to take a few minutes to describe their position and thoughts relative to a potential access point in the discussion that Commissioner Dunfield was discussing, he would be glad to discuss that issue. 

Commissioner Dunfield said he would like to have some sense of what LandPlan was thinking.

Herndon said the area that was discussed in great length and detail at the Planning Commission was the option of providing a pedestrian link.  He said due to the significant gas line easement that was previously discussed and due to the remaining developable property, it created a land form where designing properties to be useful within a subdivision was unique.  He presented information about proposed pedestrian access.

He said the preliminary plat was approved without that connection and the final plat conformed in every way with the approved preliminary plat and they were asking to proceed without going back.   

Commissioner Schauner asked about the sidewalk that would bisect property.

Herndon said the sidewalk would lie between two properties.

Mayor Rundle asked about the burden of worrying about people coming into the neighborhood.  He asked if there were any actual cases that would support that this issue would be odious.  He said there was one sidewalk that had existed for years between University and Stratford that went across the block and it brought the acreage of Hillcrest commercial and the entire K.U. student body possibly going through that yard, but he did not think it was that big of a burden.

Herndon said he did not have any documentation to share.  He said he was just asking us to envision a person’s house and their next door neighbor’s house with a sidewalk that went between those two houses, 300 feet long, not lit, and what that would be like.  

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Dunfield said as a major fan of connectivity and if he lived in that neighborhood he would want to walk to that commercial area.  He said it was a shame that this did not seem to be more feasible.  On the other hand, he understood the difficulty given our statutory authority and also given the burden that would be placed on a single homeowner because he was not sure he wanted to force that down that homeowner’s throat.

He hoped there would be another way, but it did seem that that large gas easement presented an opportunity to a potential homeowners’ association that if they wanted to take on the idea of a connection and maintain it communally as it were within the association that that would be a really excellent thing to do.  He said he did not have any authority to impose that idea, but he hoped that that idea would be brought to potential homeowners in the area as they start to organize as a possible way of trying to develop a small neighborhood identity and bring their interests together.

Commissioner Schauner said he was looking at this issue differently.  He said his concern was that they were addressing this issue at all tonight.  It seemed that if they had a rule that said every development like this “must” have connectivity that rule would be known by developers and that rule would be imposed as a matter of course and people would know what the rules were and they wouldn’t be spending 20 or 30 minutes talking about which route, if any, was appropriate to bisect this lot.  He said it seemed that they were lost in the minutia of this decision rather than directing in broader strokes for staff to develop a rule that required connectivity.  He said it was not a matter of convenience and who maintained it.  He said the Commission was having the wrong conversation.  He said putting that all aside, he recognized that the developer was attempting to make the highest and best use of that land purchase and wanted to use that lot for a sale.  He said the issue should be perhaps this was a lot that shouldn’t be sold.  Perhaps this lot should be dedicated to the City as an access point for that development to the commercial area to provide the connectivity that he thought ultimately would enhance the value of that development, not detract from it.  He said it seemed they were going about this issue in a backwards way.  Ultimately what was being discussed was what was the value to the entire development to having connectivity.  He said he thought they all agreed that it was important and a significant element of building the community and neighborhoods.  To the extent that they were willing to abandon that because it wasn’t convenient or it cost something, struck him as a cop out.   

Mayor Rundle said it was interesting that he brought that issue up because he was making notes to include in the City’s new urbanism all of those various components of connectivity.   

Commissioner Schauner asked what the options with respect to this issue were.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said she agreed that a rule or regulation was needed.  She said the City Commission had the authority to require that a public access easement be dedicated and then that cost and/or development maintenance fee be spread across the entire subdivision.  She said the City Commission needed to be careful of making the connections so that they did not require a public improvement on an individual lot that was more than that individual lot would benefit from. Again, the Commission had the option to require a public access easement, but the Commission did not have code authority.  She said she would lean heavily on the policies in Horizon 2020 and in Transportation 2025.   

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Commission’s action was to accept dedication of easements and rights of way.  He said he believed that the City Commission could condition that acceptance upon accepting an alteration to this plat.  He said he did not know if he would call it a public access easement, but it could be called a pedestrian easement.  He said the Commission needed to direct staff to its location or direct staff to determine the best location.  He said he did not have the concerns about the burden on the entire development paying for the cost of installing it.  He said he thought Herndon made a fair argument in that the City Commission needed to decide how to address the issue of the burden of maintaining that sidewalk into the future.   He said he did not think it was unreasonable at all for them to install that sidewalk.  He said there were sidewalks that bring the rest of the neighborhood around and then there needed to be a connection to a collector street and he did not think it was an inappropriate burden on the development.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not know exactly what was planned or platted for the area north of that subdivision, but he assumed that area would essentially be full of houses in the relatively near future. 

Herndon said he came to the City Commission under that impression just based on some casual conversation with City staff and he was prepared to address this matter.  He said the map that he presented to the Commission did not show the Stoneridge north development that was approved.  He presented a map that was part of the “West Lawrence Master Plan” that his firm had developed with the property owners west of Wakarusa Drive, south of 6^th Street, and north of Clinton Parkway over the years to assess land use patterns, connectivity, street networks and other matters not only as they related to what developers and the property owner envisioned for the property, but also as it related to what the Comprehensive Plan showed and what some of the area plans showed.  The idea was to have this document that they would work from that was the best case scenario, all things considered.  He said that 20 acres that was immediately north of what was now Stoneridge north had been anticipated for years to be some kind of multi-family development and was reflected in their master plan due to its proximity to that land use, due to its proximity to the intersection of George Williams Way and 6^th Street and what was Fenceline and 6^th Street.  The density was totally a discussion of the future.  He said a connection to the north was one more, in their opinion, inappropriate interface with the single-family neighborhoods.  He said with that sort of thinking in mind, he very much appreciated Commissioner Dunfield’s comment about the appropriateness or the suitability of this gas line easement being there, being present, and being a vehicle that the residents, those who would be impacted and those who they thought would have most license to create dictate for the way they live and what they were connected to would be an opportunity for them to democratically come up with a way, if they were so inclined and compelled, to form a homeowners association and build a sidewalk.  He hoped that the City Commission would be sympathetic with that aspect because it was not a matter of building a sidewalk.  The neighborhood would support construction of the sidewalk because it was the significant inclusion of a feature that would invite a lot of aspects that were not completely thought through.  He said connectivity for the sake of connectivity despite some of the negative aspects that come with given locations, in his opinion, was not the way to go.  He said in this situation they did have other connections.

Mayor Rundle said he was glad Herndon made those comments concerning Commissioner Dunfield’s remark and he had seen positive reaction from Herndon.  He asked if there was any way to foster that idea.   

Herndon said there was a conduit where if the neighbor’s felt strongly enough that they needed a shortcut, then they might figure out a way and if that issue came to the City Commission there probably would be some sympathy given to that proposal.

Commissioner Schauner said it was now or never with respect to that sidewalk along that property.  He said it was unlikely that a future owner would just volunteer some part of his or her ground to have an easement built through their property.  He said a hard and fast rule without any flexibility to account for certain factors was probably not a good rule with respect to connectivity.  He remained concerned that they did not have a rule or some connectivity obligation that was well understood by everybody in Herndon’s business so that upfront they would know what the rules were and would not have this type of conversation unless there was some type of unique circumstances.     

Vice Mayor Highberger said that connectivity was something they could not legislate, but the subdivision regulations would do that.  Staff just needed to get those regulations completed.  He said connectivity was important, but given this piece of property, he was not sure it would be reasonable to require that connectivity.  He said he was disappointed that connectivity was not possible, but it would place an unreasonable burden on one particular property owner.  He said part of the problem was that 20 acres were being platted at one time.  He said there was the West Lawrence Area Plan, but they did not have that type of plan and it should be something that should be done with more public input.  He suggested accepting the easements as presented.          

Rundle said he did plan to make sure the Commission did not lose sight of this issue.  He said that policy needed to be resolved sooner than later.  He said there was another project that developed concerning sidewalks and whether to have sidewalks on both sides of the street.  He said this was a retirement project and the Commission’s decision was to not require sidewalks on both sides and there was a similar argument against imposing a burden.  After that decision was made, sidewalks on both sides of the street was an extremely important and much talked about subject among people with disabilities.  If using a wheel chair, the only option was to go out into the street to visit a neighbor.  He said the City Commission may have made an error in that case by not going ahead and making sure that everybody had access to a sidewalk.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-11-34-04) for Stoneridge North, a proposed single-family residential subdivision containing approximately 19.282 acres, located east of George Williams Way (extended) and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended); and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for Stoneridge Drive;

2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include necessary drainage easements as noted by the City Stormwater Engineer per his approval prior to recording the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;

3. Submission and approval of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works Department;

4. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-103 of the Subdivision Regulations.

5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and

6. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and

d. Provision of street sign fees.

Aye:  Dunfield, Rundle, and Highberger.  Nay:  None.  Abstained:  Schauner.  Motion carried.       

(17)

Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing drafting of ordinance for placement on future agenda for Z-09-42-04:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.874 acres from O-1 (Office) District and PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to RO-1B (Residence-Office) District.  The property is generally described as being north of W. 6th Street and west of Congressional Drive. 

Consider approving UPR-09-03-04:  Use Permitted Upon Review for Village Meadows Retirement Community.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street and west of Congressional Drive. 

Paul Patterson, presented the staff report concerning the rezoning (Z-09-42-04).  The lower portion was zoned O-1 (Office District) and the northern portion was zoned PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District).  The request was to rezone that property to RO-1B (Residence-Office District).  The property was located north of West 6^th Street and Congressional Drive.

The second item was a Use Permitted Upon Review for the Village Meadows Retirement Community, located on the same property as the rezoning request.  He said there were 38 single family dwellings, 8 duplexes with a total of 16 dwelling units, adjacent to Hwy 40 were three separate apartment buildings two stories high with 16 units for a total of 48 senior citizen apartments, and a retirement center which would be three stories in height. 

The single family dwelling units, duplexes, and apartment buildings had a total of 102 dwelling units.  The retirement center itself would have 138 independent living areas, 46 assisted living areas, and 24 Alzheimer’s living areas for a total 208 dwellings within the center itself.  There would be underground parking underneath each of the apartment buildings and underneath the retirement center. 

He said this item was heard on November 17^th by the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval subject to nine conditions and was before the City Commission on December 14^th which was deferred until the zoning caught up with the Use Permitted Upon Review.  The recommendation was for approval of the rezoning subject to one condition and approval of the Use Permitted Upon Review subject to nine conditions.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked about the basis for the one opposing vote by the Planning Commission for the rezoning of that tract of land.

Patterson said that Planning Commissioner was reiterating the neighborhood to the south’s concern on whether or not this project would go forward, then what would be possible under the rezoning.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the answer to that concern was.

Patterson said anything that would be allowed in that zoning district which was RO-1B.

Commissioner Schauner asked for examples under the new code.

Patterson said under the new code it would be RS-O which would be a single-dwelling office type districts.  He said that would allow for office, single-family, duplexes and retirement center type of activity subject to the Use Permitted Upon Review which was being discussed.    

Mayor Rundle asked if the use permitted upon review were approved, how long was the life of that UPR if it was not developed before it expired.

Finger said the UPR had one year for a permit to be pulled. 

Mayor Rundle asked, if during that time something was changed during that one year period, would the applicant need to come back for some other type of approval.

Finger said if the applicant did not pull a permit within that one year period then the applicant would need to come back for approval of some development plan on that site.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this project took its vehicular access from either 6^th and Congressional or Overland.

Patterson said the access itself would be from Congressional Drive.  There were to access points off of Congressional and one access point off of Overland Drive.  He said there would be no access at all off West 6^th Street (Hwy 40).  There would also be, with the replat of the property, an easement that would provide access over to the property immediately to the west.    

Commissioner Schauner said the practical effect was that all that traffic would go down Congressional to 6^th Street.

Patterson said the traffic would go down Congressional to 6^th Street or traffic could go on Overland Drive either east or west. The east was connected currently and the west would eventually be connected to Queens Road which would be improved.  He said Overland Drive currently went all the way to Queens Road as an improved roadway.

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said if the applicant wanted to propose some changes, then the applicant would need to go back to staff and then bring those changes back before the City Commission for discussion. 

Mayor Rundle said the concern had been if this project did not happen then the zoning was in place and the zoning would permit other things.

Werner said he did not understand because there was a PRD-2 zoning right now and there was also a preliminary development plan that had been through this body with hundreds of apartments on that plan.  He said the terms of the contract, if his clients did not close on that land, the zoning was never going to go through.

He said when the UPR was brought before the City Commission they were smart enough to agree, at the time, to put sidewalks on both sides of the street, but condition 9 of the UPR read that there were 6 foot wide sidewalks and they asked that that read 5 foot wide sidewalks which was more typical of local streets.

Commissioner Schauner asked Werner if he had any sense about the difference in traffic generated out of this type of development as compared with a RS-1 or RS-2 development that would be non-retirement oriented.

Werner said they did not need to perform another traffic study because it was easy enough for the Traffic Engineer to write a letter stating that this was phenomenally less traffic than the previously approved plan.  Areas where there were single family homes contained some of the highest traffic counts, but this area was much lower in traffic generating use than what was in the previously approved plan.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Werner’s expectation that there would be additional wheelchair use and so forth of those otherwise pedestrian traffic ways.  He asked if 5 foot sidewalks were sufficient to handle that sort of usage. 

Werner said he believed it was sufficient.  He said that usage was typical of a retirement community.  He said 5 foot sidewalks on each side were plenty and it was typical of a local and collector street. 

Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Dunfield suggested that 5 feet was probably sufficient.

Patterson answered the question regarding the width of the sidewalks on both sides.  He said Condition No. 9 on the Use Permitted Upon Review was added by the Planning Commission.  He said the Planning Commission minutes reflected that the sidewalks would be 6 feet on both sides of the local street.  Normally the sidewalk width would be five feet on local streets.  He said there was no reason discussed at the Planning Commission to choose six feet as opposed to five feet.  Patterson said a 5 foot sidewalk on both sides would be ample. 

Commissioner Dunfield said his side comment to Commissioner Schauner was based on the Americans with Disabilities Act architectural guidelines which indicated a 30” width as the minimum for a wheelchair passage would be doubled and that would be a 5 foot overall width.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations, adopted the findings of fact, approved the request for rezoning (Z-09-42-04) of land approximately 17.874 acres from O-1 (Office District) and PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to RO-1b (Residence Office District.); the property is generally described as being north of West 6^th Street and west of Congressional Drive; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                 (18)

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations and approved the UPR (UPR-09-03-04) for a Use Permitted Upon Review for Village Meadows Retirement Community, the property is generally described as being located north of West 6^th Street and west of Congressional Drive, subject to the following conditions with an amendment to Condition No. 9, changing the 6 foot sidewalk to a 5 foot sidewalk on both sides.  Those conditions were:

1. A site plan performance agreement be executed;
2. Filing at the Register of Deeds of a replat prior to release of the plan to Neighborhood Resources for building permits;
3. Provision of a photometric plan;
4. Provide a general timetable for phasing of project;
5. Provision of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the geometric and signalization improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Congressional Drive; and
6. Provision of the following notes on the Site Plan:
1. “No building permit shall be issued until the City is presented with a written guarantee or other financial assurance (e.g. bond, letter or credit, escrow account, etc.), in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing payment for the assessed special assessments on the property for the improvement of Overland Drive and Congressional Drive. This condition shall be waived by the City Manager if the special assessments district is not subject to litigation”; and
2. “Off-site detention basin to be constructed as part of this project”;
7. Provision of the following items for the Stormwater Engineer:

a. Show the detention basin improvements associated with this site.  The detention system must be completed prior to occupancy. Provide DE’s for the system and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;

b. Storm sewer information is incomplete. Show all existing storm sewer locations and elevations.  Show all proposed storm sewer locations, elevations and sizes;

c. Provide additional curb inlets to capture runoff in the southeast entrance drive. Report the project bench mark on the site plan;

d. Storm sewers located in the single-family and duplex area must be public systems. Provide DE’s for these systems and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector; and

e. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project.  This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.

8.   Approval of rezoning of the property to a residential zoning district which would accommodate the proposed use.

9.  Provision of a revised site plan to show 5’ sidewalks on both sides of all local streets.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (19)

Receive report on Kasold Drive reconstruction from Peterson Road to KTA Bridge

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said there were several options for reconstruction.  He said previously, the City Commission directed staff to include Kasold Drive from Peterson Road to the KTA and a five year plan with KDOT.  That project was approved and placed on a schedule for bidding on Feb. 2007 by the State’s contract. 

He said there was a project to the north that both the County and the KTA were both participating in which was to replace the bridge over the Turnpike.  Between all the entities, that project was scheduled for February 2006.  He said staff would like to move this project along because that area would be shut off from access from the north while the bridge was being replaced. 

The consultant selection process ended with the selection of PEC to perform the final design on this project.  There had been numerous discussions about urbanism concepts and narrower lanes.  What was presented to KDOT was a large facility that would carry a lot of traffic and staff found that they needed to present to the City Commission and the public several options which were:

•           Alternate A – Five 12’ Lanes with Grass Median (Traditional Intersections)

•           Alternate B –  Four 11’ Lanes with Grass Median (Traditional Intersections)

•           Alternate C – Four 11’ Lanes with Grass Median (Double Lane Roundabout Intersections)

•           Alternate D – Two 12’ Lanes with Grass Median (Single Lane Roundabout Intersections)

•           Alternate E – Two 12’ Lanes with Grass Median (Single Lane Roundabout Intersections)

•           Alternate F – Three 12’ Lanes with no median (Traditional Intersections)

He said in having those meetings with the public staff had found that full access was a very important issue and that all those roads and intersections were accessible.  He said the public also wanted to see landscaping.  Also, the public did like the idea of a center median, but they needed access.      

Commissioner Schauner said that Soules used the phrase “full access”.  He said the truth of the matter was that everybody would have access to their street except they might need to go around a cul-de-sac or go down and turn around.  He said he wanted to be careful about using the term “full access.” 

Soules suggested using the term “unrestricted.”  In general, the neighborhoods preferred the lower capacity facilities.  He said they preferred a two lane or even a 4 lane.  He said there were a few people who did not want to see the roundabouts at all.  The majority of people wanted to see the traffic calming devices and greenspace.

Staff had developed a website for this project that had revealed all the options, cost estimates, and pros and cons.  He said KDOT would fund 80% of this project.  He said staff wanted to provide the capacity for the future, but also provide a safe facility.  He said staff did not want to come back in 10 years to add more improvements.

Another option that was not addressed in his memo was the large space between Huntington and Grand Vista and Tillerman and Huntington where medians could be placed.  He said his thought concerning the recreational path was that landscaping could be done behind the curb and gutter most of those costs would be paid 100%  by the City. 

He said Commissioner Dunfield had offered a new option which was a roundabout at Grandvista and leaving the roundabout at Calvin Drive.  He said this option would slow people down coming into the area off of the bridge. 

The costs ranged from $1.6 million to $1.9 million.  The three lane option was the most economical.

He said there was also the issue of concrete versus asphalt and staff anticipated about a 10% increase in the pavement costs for concrete versus asphalt.  Kasold and Peterson would be concrete and all the other roads in the area were asphalt.    

Vice Mayor Highberger said, based on earlier conversation, he understood that the roundabout at Calvin wouldn’t be justified by the traffic counts.

Soules said he initially thought the only use for that roundabout at Calvin was traffic calming.  He said staff placed the roundabout at the location because there was a median in front of Hutton Farms. 

He said there was also the aspect of pedestrian crossing.  He said there would be pedestrian crossing at Grand Vista because of the roundabout and Kasold, but nothing in between.  That roundabout would provide crossing at about midway. 

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the additional roundabout would add another quarter million dollars to the project.

Terry Coder, Professional Engineering Consultants, said the roundabout was added in at the beginning of the design. Right now the extra costs were very minimal.  There was effort in the design and more effort in conforming that.  He said the costs would be approximately $50,000 to $100,000.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Commissioner Dunfield’s suggested option included a median between the two roundabouts.

Commissioner Dunfield said he would defer to the engineers on the feasibility.  He said his concern was the perception of those living along Kasold was going to be that they wanted unrestricted access and that they would want to be able to make left turns in or out of any of those streets.  He said as he looked at this in terms of those left turns, he thought that median might not be feasible at that location.

Coder said there was access shown on Alternate E.

Commissioner Dunfield said that did not allow free left turn movements from all directions.

Coder said that could be modified to do that fairly easily.

Commissioner Dunfield said that was his concern.  He said he certainly would not argue against more landscaped medians.  

Mayor Rundle asked what was the cost differential of adding medians or taking medians out. 

Coder said it was a wash because when you’re building median, you’re not building the center lane concrete, but building curbs on both side and the grading costs were about the same.  The real costs to a project like this were the storm sewer and pavement.   Two lanes of curb were about the same as one lane of concrete down the center of the street.

Commissioner Schauner said the bigger question was if this was two lanes or four lanes.  He said with respect to ultimate expectation of traffic on this road, should this be four lane road with or without a median or should it be a two lane road with or without a median?  He said he would like to hear some discussion on why they should build a two lane road when it was his sense that the way that area was going to develop would easily use a four lane roadway.

Soules said there was one property owner that accessed to Kasold.  This median needed to be brought back to provide that property owner access. 

Coder said the existing traffic volume was around 3,000 vehicles a day.  The 10 year Planning Department projection was approximately 10,000 vehicles a day.  In the design year 2025, the projection was for 15,000 vehicles a day.  It was hard to see where the 20,000 vehicles were going to come from, but looking at 15^th and Kasold in 1985 and looking at it now, it was easy to see the growth.  He said 15,000 vehicles a day would be similar to 19^th and Barker. 

The tools they had to describe traffic volumes and capacities were the level of service.  The highway capacity in urban situations was always controlled by intersections.  The point of constriction in an urban area was an intersection.  So the level of service of your intersection defined the level of service of the link.  In rural areas, they looked at the whole corridor.  This was a suburban situation where it was really hard to look at what the quality of traffic would be in the future.  If looking at this issue as if you were driving on Highway 24 from here to Tonganoxie, and used the analysis for that tool of 15,000 vehicles a day, it would give a level of Service E for two lanes.  What that meant, was that traffic would be dense enough that if the speed limit were posted at 60 mph it would actually be traveling at a speed of 48 mph.  This would not be uncommon for an urban street.  It would be a very dense traffic flow through there during the peak periods in 2025.  That was the best way he could describe the quality of it.  It would be the type of situation where if you wanted to turn out from one of the side roads on to one of the main lines, you would experience significant delay waiting for a gap.  With a two lane road, those gaps were less frequent than a four lane.  The projection for the design year was right out the borderline to have two lane or four lane roadway.  He said you then could look at the project traffic volumes.  It would be very dense in 2025, but it would still function. 

Mayor Rundle asked what the volume on 6^th Street for the stretch that was being discussed was.

Wildgen said 30,000 plus.

Mayor Rundle said it seemed that the three lane option would work fine.  The traffic calming device was there to keep things under control.  The one hazard would be the right turns into those properties.  He asked if there would be some type of deceleration lane or some way for vehicles turning right to get out of the way so the traffic kept moving or would those people turning right be slowing down with people behind them

Soules said on Iowa at 31^st Street staff might look at right turn lanes, but those free turns, unless you’re at an intersection or commercial area, they did not necessarily put those lanes in those types of settings. 

Mayor Rundle said when he was discussing 6^th Street it was with the idea of going to three lanes at that location with the left turn lane.  It was said that with all the turns off into the various residential blocks, it was good to have that right lane for turning and a through lane in the middle.  As long as we’re going to plan this, he would like to solve rear ending problems at the year we get to 15,000 vehicles.

Coder said there were a couple of alternates.  When there were three, they could center a two way left turn lane, it was just three lanes pure which would be 36 feet of pavement.  When the two lanes were separated by a median, then a shoulder needed to be constructed on the outside in case of a disabled vehicle.

Soules said if there was some type of median, then the outside lanes would be made wider.   

Mayor Rundle said it seemed that shoulder might naturally invite people who were concerned to go ahead and move over as they made the right turn.

Soules said there was a similar situation on Princeton.  Princeton had a wide median.

Coder said it would be to the point where you would want to make sure there was always a good white stripe painted along that edge line to show the shoulder, otherwise, people could perceive it as two lanes rather than a single through lane.

Commissioner Schauner said to build anything less than some combination of a four lane with some of Commissioner Dunfield’s ideas about traffic calming, it seemed to not be a good idea.  He said a four lane, for the future, made the most sense.  He said they were never going to get it cheaper and it was 80 cents on the dollar, KDOT’s money so why not build the road that they knew they would need someday rather than build a road they knew would not be enough at some future date.

He said Service level E was not very good.  He suggested building the best, safest road they could with their partnership with KDOT.  It seemed that four lanes made the most sense.

Commissioner Dunfield said they have had this discussion and disagreement before.  The controlling issue would be the intersection at Kasold and Peterson.  He said they were doing the same improvement to the intersection of Kasold and Peterson under all of those different alternatives.  That was the intersection that was going to control the level of service on this stretch of road.  Because of that, what should be done was not to be building to excess capacity, but a three lane situation with 11 foot lanes instead of 12 foot lanes to keep traffic speeds down.  He said that served this section of roadway and neighborhood that it was serving better than a more highway looking solution.

Commissioner Schauner said if going to Lenexa, there was a road with four lanes and a wide median and that was a terrific road, that handled traffic very well and would do us very nicely on this stretch of Kasold.  He said it did not promote tremendous speeds.  The speed limit was 35 mph or 40 mph.  He said he was not convinced that 11 foot lanes caused any significant decrease in traffic speed.  The traffic ultimately would tell us how fast it wanted to travel anyway.  He suggested four lanes.

Commissioner Rundle said when they discussed rebuilding Kasold south of 15^th Street that was where he first saw the concept of a three lane road with a left turn lane.  He said in searching on the internet, there was a statement that said that they could be made to serve high volumes of traffic, but it was worth providing for the right turns and controlled left turns. 

He concurred with Commissioner Schauner’s concerns of making sure they had the capacity now, but he deferred to the engineers to let the City Commission know if they could accomplish the same with three lanes providing adequate turning.  It could be better making a four lane if it would handle this stretch of road in 2025.

Commissioner Shauner said there was a maintenance issue with that 3 lane road that you don’t have quite as much with a 4 lane configuration. The excess capacity would only be a temporary condition.  The dedicated left turn lane was often called a suicide lane in some cases. 

Soules said if they had a 4 lane roadway and if there were those roundabouts, they would end up with a dual lane roundabout.  

Commissioner Dunfield said he continued to be a proponent of roundabouts and he was not sure that they were at a point of building two lane roundabouts in Lawrence, Kansas yet.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought Commissioner Dunfield’s suggestion was worth some study.  He said he would like to see a little more finished look at Commissioner Dunfield’s proposal and have more thought about whether 3 or 4 lanes was how they wanted to go.

Soules said a decision did not need to be made at this time, but the longer this issue was put off, the harder it was going to be to catch up to the bridge project.

Commissioner Schauner asked if another week or two would cause that project to fall behind.

Soules said probably not much more than they were now.

Mayor Rundle said he concurred with Commissioner Dunfield’s unrestricted access for all the different turns.  He said providing traffic calming would be important.

Commissioner Highberger said based on what he had heard today, he had no quarrels with sticking to a two or three lane road.  He said the only options he would personally like to consider were those with medians in between the two roundabouts.

Mayor Rundle said none of those options violated any of the sentiment from the neighborhood meeting. 

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Paul Werner, on behalf of Hutton Farms, said that this was heading in the right direction when looking at the designs.  He said access was absolutely critical and they did have unrestricted access to Kasold.  He would argue that that first roundabout might even belong at their entrance more than that street if going by traffic volume.  A three lane, 5 lane section was not a problem, but a left turn in off Kasold was critical.                                                          (20)

Commission Items:

Mayor Rundle asked for a staff report as to what the law said about alcohol taxes and if that was off limits to cities.  Was that part of the on going debate of the non uniform aspects of the law? 

Mayor Rundle said regarding 6^th Street, the letter from Pinckney from 1999 mentioned the control on 6^th and Kentucky, which activated when the railroad was delivering to the Journal World.  It said “No Right Turn”.  He said that was for the eastbound coming off of Kentucky. He said that letter asked if that could be pedestrian actuated.  He said he threw that idea by a person from KDOT and that person said it could be done.  He asked staff what they had to go through to implement that idea.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                        

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2005

1. Bid – TV Inspection Van to Utilities Maintenance Contractors for $108,005.

2. Agreement – KDOT for 7^th & Kentucky Traffic Signals for $72,923.02.

3. Police Car purchase – 11 Crown Victoria’s $20,976 each, totaling $230,000.

4. Bid – Housing Rehab for 2236 E Dr. to Old Home Depot for $27,511.17 and 811 E 11^th to Penny Construction for $17,971. 

5. Resolution 6576 – Bond issuance for $75,000 for Kentucky Traffic Signals.

6. Final Plat – (PF-11-33-04) QuikTrip Store No. 167, NE corner of E 23^rd & Haskell.

7. Site Plan – (SP-08-51-04) commercial bldgs at 642-646 Locust.

8. TSC – no action taken to consider alternatives to improve safety at intersection of Kasold & Riverview.

9. TSC – deny “no parking” W side of 4^th between Lincoln Perry.

10. Mortgage Release – 909 New York, Elroy Washington.

11. Mortgage Release – 222 Summertree Ln., Shirley Rea.

12. City Manager’s report

13. Fire/Medical Station No. 5 – report from Sabatini on bids & alternatives.

14. Abe & Jakes Landing – Monthly rent for Riverfront parking garage.

15. TSC – provide “adult crossing guard” intersection of Arrowhead Dr & Peterson Rd.

16. TSC – re-striping of 6^th between Alabama & Tennessee to provide 2-way left turn lane.

17. Final Plat (PF-11-34-04) Stoneridge N, 19.282 acres, E of GWW & W of Stoneridge.

18. Rezone – (Z-09-42-04) 17.874 acres, O-1 to PRD-2 to RO-1B, N of W 6^th & W of Congressional.

19. UPR – (UPR-09-03-04) Village Meadows Retirement Community, N of W 6^th & W of Congressional.

20. Kasold reconstruction from Peterson to KTA Bridge.

Traffic Safety Commission meeting pulled by Leslie ONeil and Carol Harrell pulled.  Cross 40mph Peterson Road