January 25, 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, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present. Lawrence High School Student Representative Justin Isbell was present.

PROCLAMATION

Mayor Rundle recognized the recipients of the Mayor’s Excellence in Education Award to Diane Karpowitz and David Tenpenny.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 11, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 9, 2004; the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of November 23, 2004 and November 30, 2004; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of November 15, 2004; the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of November 11, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 319 vendors in the amount of $2,191,844.78 and payroll from January 9, 2005 to January 22, 2005 in the amount of $1,463,324.22. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Henry’s on Henry Street, 11 East 8^th Street. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the work of art permit for Unity Church of Lawrence, 900 Madeline Lane, pursuant to Lawrence Arts Commission recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve a waiver of the building permit moratorium ordinance for a residential building permit for 917 Ward. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The staff report on the status of the HOP area plan (Hillcrest, Old West Lawrence, and Pinckney Neighborhood Association) and the first reading of Ordinance No. 7853, extending the building permit moratorium until April 25^th, 2005 was pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the current moratorium expired on January 25^th and therefore he recommended that the City Commission declare an emergency and adopt Ordinance No. 7853, on first and second reading, pending any comments.

Mayor Rundle said this was the area bounded by three neighborhoods—Pinckney, Old West, and Hillcrest.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said Dan Sabatini had requested an exemption for a 21 square foot area. He suggested placing that issue on next week’s agenda.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he would feel comfortable with addressing this issue as a walk-on tonight because this was a fairly minor issue.

Commissioner Hack agreed.

Moved by Highberger seconded by Hack, to declare an emergency and adopt on first and second reading, Ordinance No. 7853, extending the building permit moratorium until April 25, 2005 (Old West Lawrence Neighborhood). Motion carried unanimously. (3)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said Sabatini had a small addition to his house at 705 Maine Street which was in the 6^th Street Area Plan Construction Moratorium. He said this was a 21 square foot planned addition located on the north side and the addition would have no impact on the density of the neighborhood or traffic in the area.

Mike Goans, Lawrence, said he had been involved in the HOP project from the very beginning. He said it was a bit of a shock when they found out that one of the people that had been involved in this project from the very beginning got caught up in the moratorium for a very inconsequential project to the area, but very important to him and his family. The people who were involved in the HOP project had no problem with granting this exception.

Mayor Rundle said this was a 3x7 foot addition to a residential structure.

Goans said the structure would be within 150 feet of the proposed boundaries and was not actually within those boundaries.

Moved by Dunfield seconded by Hack, to grant the exception from the 6^th Street Area Plan Construction Moratorium, for a small addition to 705 Maine Street as explained in the letter from Dan Sabatini. Motion carried unanimously (4)

The housing tax credit application for Vermont Towers, 1101 Vermont, was pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said staff had received a letter last week and he did not have the opportunity to study this issue in great depth, but he placed it on the Commission’s agenda to refer back to staff for a report. This was a company, Investment Resources Corporation, headquartered in Wichita that had a number of residential properties throughout the state, where they were either the owner, developer, and in some cases the actual contractor. He said he had received some reference information from that company today and was trying to follow up to understand their project.

The tax credit was not with the City and this was not a tax abatement. The tax credit was with the State of Kansas. The State’s rules and regulations required that the local City Commission speak favorably to the project. He said they were essentially going to refurbish Vermont Towers which was the extent of his knowledge at this time. I

He said it would be helpful if there were questions from the public because it would help him formulate a staff report. He said he did not know other than the information that was provided to him what to ask.

Mayor Rundle said he assumed that the eligibility related to low income status of the residents.

Corliss said and perhaps the elderly status of the residents as well

Mayor Rundle said by granting the tax credit it would further ensure the continuance of that facility. He said he spoke to someone from that company. That person indicated that he would be happy to address this issue at a Commission Meeting.

James Dunn, Lawrence, said he was wearing two hats this evening. He said first he would like to speak as President of the Oread Neighborhood Association. He said Vermont Towers was a fairly substantial structure in the Oread neighborhood. He said he would like to encourage the City to relay to this investment group to have involvement with the Neighborhood Association as they worked through this program.

He said speaking as the President of the Landlord’s Association, the association worked closely with the Lawrence/Douglas County Housing Authority as far as references relative to people or an individual who might destroy, damage, or did not follow rules so that those people or individuals did not move from one property to another and leave damages behind. He said over the years there had been no dialogue with the tax credit housing providers and the landlord group as far as people being able to move between properties.

He said he had attended the monthly meeting of the Lawrence/Douglas County Housing Commission and there was discussion of an individual that left one of the properties that was managed by the Lawrence/Douglas County Authority and went to a tax credit property where the tax credit property owner did not check with the Housing Authority and that person was able to relocate. He said that was the problem and all the tax credit properties were more co-opted into the overall housing provider program in Lawrence, not just sort of set out on the side to do their own thing and really create some disruptions.

He said on a personal level he said he was a concerned if this group was buying the property from another group and then going for tax credits. He said he was concerned that one group would sell it at a premium price a property which they basically removed all the assets from and made no improvements over the years and then another would come in and went for tax credits.

Commissioner Dunfield asked whether Dunn knew how many housing tax credits projects there had been in Lawrence in recent years or what the success rate of the applicants was.

Dunn said he thought there were three tax credit projects, but he did not know the success rates. He said the State would be the best source for that success rate information.

Mayor Rundle said those tax credit projects had a finite life and had to be renewed.

Dunn said he thought this probably had something to do with that life issue. The initial contract ended and they were on a year to year basis.

Commissioner Schauner asked whether there was any impact on their property tax status by being a state tax credit facility.

Corliss said he would need to check on their property tax status. It was not uncommon for elderly facilities that served solely to the elderly to be property tax exempt under our laws. He said there were other facilities in town that had similar type status that had did not have a property tax exemptions status.

He said he wanted to give the email address to Dunn, encourage that neighborhood association dialogue and follow up on what the tax credit meant and what their plans were.

Commissioner Dunfield said the action of the Commission was to refer this issue to staff for a report.

Mayor Rundle said this was an example of private sector filling a need in a public housing market. He said they certainly wanted to preserve those facilities and those facilities did not need to be exclusively for the use of low income or other target population. He said the Commission needed to help facilitate the success of those types of projects.

Mayor Rundle asked when this issue would likely appear on the agenda.

Corliss said it would be at least two weeks. (5)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

During the City Manager’s, Mike Wildgen said he wanted to highlight the performance statistics of the “T”. He said Karin Rexroad’s, Public Transit Administrator, efforts this past year had shown favorable increases on a number of issues which were growth in passengers; the revenue hours increased; and the passenger per revenue mile increased. There were a number of statistics that showed that the “T” was growing and her efforts had borne some fruit.

He said Public Transit was reimbursed approximately $100,000 for providing transportation and staff was using some of that money for training riders and getting volunteers on those buses to help riders understand the system.

Commission Dunfield said the item that stood out concerning transit was the fixed route. He said the cost per passenger had been cut in half over the life of the system and that was a good trend.

Wildgen said there was a good increase in the revenue which was only approximately 6% of the overall cost, but those increases were indicative that there were more riders and users. He said staff was trying to transition people out of the T lift on to the fixed route as much as they could.

Wildgen also reported that the Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC) in Emmitsburg, Maryland was attended by the Mayor and a number of City staff. He said staff had met with the Emergency Preparedness Group to discuss action items to include in the IEMC after-action report. He said the course was well worth the time and effort for City staff.

Mayor Rundle said if someone was interested in volunteering to help citizens understand the T system, he asked who they should call.

Wildgen said the Public Transit office would be the point of contact and there was information available at that office.

Rundle said he assumed citizens could also notify the Roger Hill Volunteer Center.

Wildgen suggested that the City Commission review the memo and UBC minutes regarding storm shelters and place that issue back on a future agenda for discussion.

Commissioner Schauner said one of the issues that stood out in the report was the IEMC meeting regarding the storm shelter issue. He asked if there was any information about how, rather than having individual storm shelters, there was a plan for community storm sheltering.

He said when the City hadn’t had in the last 30 days an event which would require the use of a storm shelter, it tended to go off people’s radar screens, but the next storm season, people would be interested and concerned again. He suggested that staff continue to follow up on the issue of storm shelters to see what could be done with respect to new development requirements or some community sheltering program that could be put in place. He said he did like the action item follow-up and hoped each of those action items could be brought forward until there was a completion.

Commissioner Schauner said as to the staff memo regarding downtown tree replacement, he wanted to make it clear that he was not suggesting that staff take out those trees that were there now and replace those trees, but rather as replacing trees that die, staff should consider replacing them with trees that had less debris.

Wildgen said over the years, as those trees had matured, staff had tried to replace those trees with trees that had less maintenance problems.

Commissioner Hack said the volunteer work done by City staff was just a tribute to the dedication of those employees. She said the Commission appreciated everyone’s work. (5)

REGULAR AGENDA

Receive additional staff report on proposed improvements at the intersection of 19^th and Louisiana.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said staff came back with the two lists requested. One list was the intersection improvement priority list which staff gave that list to the Commission in October. He said that was a list that staff evaluated intersections based on volumes, crash rates, and signal warrants which were intersections that did not have signals or were currently unimproved.

He said staff also provided the intersection priority renovations list. The renovations list was a list of intersections that currently had signals, but still had problems in terms of congestion, accidents, and safety. He said staff evaluated those intersections based on maintenance issues, traffic flow, volume, age of the equipment, crashes, budget issues, and technology (loop detection or video detection).

He said staff believed it was a good idea to keep those two lists separated because staff needed to ensure maintenance of existing infrastructure. He said that way staff had a fund that they could access, pending Commission approval, to go ahead and maintain those intersections that had been approved. He said staff evaluated the intersection at 19^th and Louisiana based on the new intersection improvement priority list. Based on that list, staff ranked those intersections on volume and 19^th and Louisiana had approximately 20,000 vehicles which was more than any of the intersections that staff evaluated that needed signals and was ranked no. 1. Based on the volumes, that intersection would meet all the warrants for the 8-hour vehicle volume, 4-hour volume, peak hour volume, and crash experience. Over the last three years, there had been 32 accidents at that intersection, which was a crash rate of a173 as compared to the new intersection priority list.

He said staff had agreement with an engineering firm if the Commission desired to approve that intersection improvement or staff could expand the scope of that contract as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the diameter of the roundabout.

Soules said it would be hard to say until they had some survey work completed. The Fire Department preferred to see a 110 foot minimum radius. He said the 19^th and Barker roundabout was smaller.

Commissioner Schauner asked how big the roundabout should be to make it work irrespective to what that roundabout might require in terms of acquisition to have sufficient space to make it a workable roundabout.

Soules said that was something that needed to be looked at when looking at the design. There was no specific diameter that would or wouldn’t work. Those roundabouts were all tailored to individual situations.

Commissioner Hack asked if he anticipated that the firm would come back with multiple options.

Soules said BG Consultants had proposed 4 different options. He said staff was looking at a centered option and three options that were moved around the intersections to see how that impacted all the different properties and what needed to be done with alignment of streets and configurations. He said staff would have specific alternatives for the Commission to review. He said staff would look at pedestrian, right of way, and utility issues.

Mayor Rundle asked if all options were geometric improvements or did those include other types of signal options.

Soules said staff had not looked at reevaluating the signal. He said there was an option to expand, placing two left turn lanes in with a longer stacking area for right turn lanes. But at some point, you would run out of right of way because the right of way was limited.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

C.J. Brune, Lawrence, said she spoke last week concerning her neighborhood’s concern about adding additional traffic calming devices at that intersection and the Commission deferred the decision until they received a staff report. Upon reading the staff report it confirmed her concerns that this was a dangerous intersection. She said she did not know how many of the 32 accidents over the last three years had involved pedestrians, but she said that the people in her neighborhood did not cross the street at that intersection. The high school kids cross that street, but they were fearless.

She said she talked to many people about why they might oppose a roundabout in that particular intersection and she had boiled that concern down to about three major reasons. One reason was that people did not know how to use a roundabout which could be corrected with a City educational effort.

The second reason was that the congestion at 19^th and Louisiana was caused by the buses at Lawrence High School. She said that might be part of the problem, but she did not think that caused 32 crashes at the intersection.

The third concern was that roundabouts were too expensive. The City had poured thousands of dollars into that intersection increasing the turn lanes and installing signals, but that intersection was getting worse. She said the amount of expense in the destruction of property and injuries needed to be taken into account when measured against the cost of a roundabout at that intersection. She said she would appreciate anything the Commission could do to keep this issue moving.

Jean Ellermeier, Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, said one week ago she encountered reporters from the Journal World who asked her questions about roundabouts. She learned that the reporters had quoted her in the newspaper and it encouraged quite a few people to tell her what they thought about roundabouts. She said learned that many people did not know what they were talking about including herself. By far, the main reaction was that people hated roundabouts and they did not know how to use those roundabouts. Perhaps people needed more education which seemed to be a complex problem to inform the public.

She said roundabouts were called traffic circles, pedestrian refuges, raised medians, and some roundabouts like the one on Crestline that defied description or label. She investigated those types on roundabouts for two hours. She said there was great inconsistency in all of those objects. She said there were several types of traffic calming devices and they came in many different shapes.

She encouraged the Commission to keep the design simple. She said it was frustrating to see inconsistency in designs.

She also asked the Commission to keep those roundabouts safe. She said raised medians were concrete colored against a concrete street and they were hard to see. She said she had recently seen yellow signs that were elevated in the middle of those medians, but those signs were blank. There was an opportunity to educate the public with those signs. She urged the Commission to make simplify the design of those roundabouts.

As for the roundabout at 19^th and Louisiana, she agreed with the comments from the Mayor at last week’s meeting. She agreed that the roundabout was too much money and a lot of money had been spent on that area. She said that intersection was well signalized and should be timed so that traffic moved.

If a roundabout was built at 19^th and Louisiana and it slowed traffic as much as the other roundabouts did, traffic would simply backup behind the roundabout and it would affect the traffic on Kentucky, Tennessee, and Naismith.

She said she drove through that intersection at least once a day for 40 years. The congestion at that location occurred at the time of going to work, coming home from work, and when school was out. For the few hours that there was congestion at that location, she did not think it was worth $500,000. That money could go to something else that needed attention.

Betty Alderson, Lawrence, reminded the Commission that there was a study done several years ago that concluded the roundabout would be the best solution for that intersection and she hoped the Commission would not ignore the study.

She said she did not like roundabouts at first, but she was learning to like them. The intersection at 19^th and Barker was much smoother than before with four stops signs.

There needed to be some way to keep the traffic moving at 19^th and Louisiana; even if it was at a snails pace. Traffic was already backed up from Massachusetts to Iowa at certain times of the day. She said this was a difficult issue because the City did not have any right of way on either side of 19^th Street which compounded the idea of sidewalks and safety devices. She said there was no perfect solution. She said someone had suggested public safety announcements. She said the State Highway Department was just now beginning to call our attention to those roundabouts in the driver’s license renewal booklet.

Mayor Rundle said he heard from many people at all ends of the spectrum. He reiterated that he thought no one was backing off support of roundabouts in general. If so, that would be ignoring research that had been accomplished concerning two issues --- moving traffic and increasing safety for pedestrians and lowering the points of conflict for vehicle collisions and reducing the amount of damage.

He said this was a balancing act of two things which was getting across town faster and being safe. The critical question he had for any study that the engineering firm did was elevating pedestrian safety to a high enough plain that it maximized design features if this ended up being a geometric improvement that would facilitate pedestrian safety. That was the concern he had heard from people associated with the school.

He said one of the questions that had come up was how this would affect traffic coming from the signalized intersection to the east. He said if he had one general comment, it would be to encourage everyone in the community to not try to get people to join their club of whether they liked or disliked roundabouts. People needed to think about this issue as a community problem that needed to be solved together.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if geometric improvements were not included in the scope of the study.

Soules said not at this time, but if the Commission would like to add geometric improvements, he did not think it would be a significant amount and they could ask the consultant to take a look at that idea.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the current scope included looking at bus drop off lanes.

Soules said staff had discussed bus drop off lanes with BG Consultants and the school, but there were other issues with the school in which their site counsel would need to review those issues. He said he hoped there would be a cost share, if a drop off lane was constructed. At this point, staff would work with the school.

Vice Mayor Highberger said Commissioner Schauner summed this issue up well last week in saying this was a reverse NIMBY situation. It was something that would benefit the neighborhoods, but the broader community was opposed to it in some instances. He said there were many times decisions were made where the interests of few were sacrificed for the common good and he had participated in those types of decisions. He said the Commission was weighing the safety of the individuals in the neighborhood versus the convenience or dislikes of the broader community. He said in this case, he was not willing to make that trade off. He thought safety of the neighborhood had to be the top concern.

All the information indicated that the best solution at this intersection was a roundabout. He said if someone wanted to include in the scope of the study to look at geometric improvements instead, he would support that idea given it was a small cost, but adding more lanes of traffic at that intersection was the last thing that needed to be done. If it was hard for a pedestrian to get across that street safely now, adding another lane in each direction was going to make that problem worse. He suggested staff prepare a report on ideas for a community education program so that awareness could be raised on how to deal with roundabouts.

Wildgen said staff was already working on that idea.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he supported Resolution 6568 as drafted.

Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Highberger’s comments. The idea of expanding the intersection to increase lanes and then quickly reducing to two lanes was not a good idea.

She said roundabouts were expensive and staff needed to make sure they were safe and had good signage. She said roundabouts needed to be studied to come up with great ideas to make those types of traffic calming devices work.

Commissioner Schauner said he had viewed some slides on the website of a roundabout in Montpelier, Vermont. This roundabout was 300 feet away from an elementary school with 360 children per day at that school, 800 pedestrians per day, and 13,000 vehicles per day going through that roundabout.

The previous crash rate prior to the roundabout was 5 crashes per year. After the roundabout for 4.5 years, there were no crashes. He said roundabouts do work and could work, but he was concerned about three issues. One issue was the lack of consistent installation of this traffic calming idea. If in fact there were 26 varieties of roundabouts, he thought that would be confusing to the typical driver. He said the City needed to standardize what was installed as best they could to fit the location. Some infill roundabouts would be more difficult than others.

Secondly, he was more than a little concerned about $550,000 for a roundabout. He said he believed other cities constructed roundabouts for a lot less money than $500,000. He said he did not know that, but he would like staff to share with the Commission what they could find out from the neighbors to the east about what the typical installation cost of a roundabout was.

Thirdly, that same website made reference to the model size to slow speed to approximately 15 to 20 mph with a 180 foot diameter roundabout. He said this issue was a case where size would matter. There needed to be a traffic calming device that worked and provided sufficient refuge and safety for not just pedestrians, but bicyclists, and other persons who might want to use that intersection. In this particular location, he was concerned about the additional pedestrian volume that might be going across to the Laundromat.

He said land acquisition for the installation of a roundabout at this intersection seemed to be an inexpensive proposition. He supported a study that included a geometric improvement component study so that they could compare options. All things being equal and the price being acceptable, he thought the Commission should look very hard at placing a roundabout at that location.

He said in looking at the intersection improvement list, 19^th and Naismith was as much of a component of moving traffic through that corridor as 19^th and Louisiana. He suggested moving traffic so that traffic would not back up. He said in the very near future if they were going to construct a roundabout at 19^th and Louisiana they should consider the same treatment for the next intersection to the west to accomplish what they were trying to at this intersection.

Mayor Rundle asked if a roundabout was a geometric improvement. He said he was saying traffic signal versus roundabout, not necessarily additional geometric improvement.

Commissioner Dunfield said he was not interested in a street widening project for that intersection. He said it was not a direction that was going to be desirable from a pedestrian, neighborhood, or traffic movement point of view. He said he would not encourage the Commission to expand the scope of the study in that direction.

He said as the City gets more experienced with those roundabouts, the City would get better with the process. He said roundabouts were confusing, but people did not seem to understand four way stops either. He said the Commission should go forward with this study because there were some big questions that needed to be addressed about the intersection. He said there were questions about if additional right-of-way needed and if so, how much and did that make the project unrealistic.

Another question about this particular intersection had to do with those lights at Kentucky and Tennessee to the east and what impact improvements on this intersection might have on traffic at those intersections.

He said finally, a conclusion that they had came to was that this might be an excellent opportunity for public education. He said in addition to the engineering study that a component be added that might be sort of a town hall format to assist in educating the community.

He said Commissioner Schauner reminded him that one of the consultants on the Louisiana Street Study, persuaded people of the benefits of roundabouts. He suggested contacting that consultant for a quick session on roundabouts.

He said he would like the Commission to do something of an active educational nature as part of this study. As we know, if they end up building a roundabout there, they were going to need to do an awful lot of persuading before they start tearing up pavement.

Mayor Rundle said the Louisiana Street Study had people come to those meetings very skeptical and people were educated. He said there was a unified acceptance of that proposal for that entire corridor. There seemed to be some interest in traffic safety and general community education and they might want to be able to add that aspect to the educational process. He said he was concerned about the implementation of the no left turn and if there had been adequate education done so that it was as successful as possible.

Commissioner Schauner said education at the high school struck him as big of a component as education of the community at large because they would be early and often consumers of that new product. He said whatever could be done with the high school students was important. He asked if staff could have someone repeat what he understood this study would include.

Soules said he did not hear any additional changes in that report. The educational component might be something separate that staff might want to handle. Obviously, the pedestrian issues were paramount and that issue was included within the report.

He said the alternatives, right of way width, and cost estimate, was included originally. He said they talked about expanding the scope, but until he heard a motion, he did not know if the Commission wanted to do a review of additional lanes or widening of those lanes.

Mayor Rundle said he did not think adding lanes or widening was what they wanted. He asked if there was anything else that would add to the scope.

Soules said no. Some of those other issues regarding following through on 19^thStreet and the educational component, staff would handle separately or bring those issues back to the Commission for a town hall type meeting. He said the engineering scope to do the four design alternatives, and pedestrian issues were all inclusive now. He said staff would discuss issues with the school concerning the bus lanes and if that needed to be another component, then staff could bring that issue back to the Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said would like to know the Kansas City Metro area’s typical costs of roundabouts.

Soules said staff could get that information.

Mayor Rundle asked if this study would include options on perhaps doing other things like leaving it signalized, or was that a given.

Soules said if staff could not do that because of right-of-way issues, it would come back for another proposal. They would take a look at the level of service to make sure the situation was being improved. He said staff would not bring back an unsafe design for pedestrians.

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was the current estimate did not include any right-of-way purchase.

Soules said the estimate included engineering and right of way which was an estimate in 2000. He said that was based on what Wilson and Company thought the design would be. He said when moving this roundabout around they might end up with more or less right of way. The actual roundabout cost was about $280,000 but then added costs were right of way, engineering, utility issues, and number of other things that brought those cost up to $545,000.

Commissioner Schauner asked how much right-of-way was being considered in that $500,000 estimate.

Soules said that included acquiring one property and there was one more component, but he did not remember what that component was.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with BG Consultants for a pre-design report in an amount of $37,180.08. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

Receive updated report on 23^rd Street Access Management Project. Presentation by HNTB.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said HNTB Corporation was the firm that was hired by the City Commission to prepare plans for access management on 23^rd Street between Iowa and Louisiana. He said this project would follow the adopted 23^rd Street Corridor Study, and staff would meet with each of the affected property owners concerning their business operations to determine what changes were reasonable.

Kevin Wallace, HNTB, presented a PowerPoint presentation to the City Commission on the project. He said they had developed a twelve step plan to work through this design. The original 23^rd Street Corridor Study that was done in 2002 outlined three element to the plan for 23^rd Street. That study outlined long-term, intermediate, and short term visions for the corridor. He said with the long-term vision he suggested things such as additional improvements in lanes, full medians, consistent signing along the corridor, and other improvements.

Concerning intermediate goals, it looked more at trying to move a lot of the overhead utilities underground and creating connectivity with sidewalks.

He said his firm was primarily looking at those short-term goals which included trying to improve safety and mobility along the corridor by trying to take a look at access along the corridor to see if there were ways that access could be consolidated, multiple access points could be eliminated, or some of those access points could be realigned so that it provided better access in and out of those facilities. He said they recognized in getting started with this project that in looking at those short-term goals there were probably a wide variety of improvements that could be made, but the City only had a specific budget to work within. He said their goals were to identify the slate of possible improvements and pair those improvements back to what they might be able to do with this project and try to get the biggest bang for that buck.

He said his firm had identified four elements critical to the success of this project. Those elements were:

● Create a model for future corridor improvements while satisfying short term corridor needs;

● Prioritize access improvement and keep entrance improvements within project construction budget;

● Coordinate and facilitate meetings and negotiations with the individual/adjacent business owners; and

● Ensure “buy-in” of the project and communicate the status to the City Commission.

He listed the 12 steps to the design plan:

Step 1 Review the project corridor and original corridor study report;

Step 2 Present project approach to the City Commission;

Step 3 Initial communications with business owners by letter. Conduct phone survey;

Step 4 Facilitate initial one-on-one meetings with owners;

Step 5 Report to Commission on comments/concerns from owner meetings;

Step 6 NHTB work phase to review/evaluate the owner comments and City Commission comments and make adjustments to access improvement plan, as required;

Step 7 After conceptual plans for modifications have been made, conduct second round of business owner meetings, as required;

Step 8 Formalize access management improvements based on steps 1-7;

Step 9 Final presentation of access management improvements to the City Commission;

Step 10 Begin preliminary plan production;

Step 11 Assist Public Works Staff/City of Lawrence with negotiations and appraisal process; and

Step 12 Bidding and administration services.

He then reviewed their schedule of events for this project which were:

January 25, 2005 Commission Presentation

February, 2005 Phone Survey & Letters

March, 2005 Schedule Owner Meetings

Summer, 2005 2^nd Commission Meeting

Winter, 2005/2006 3^rd Commission Meeting

Summer, 2006 Final Plans

Spring, 2007 Final Improvement Plans & Construction

Vice Mayor Highberger said earlier this year they had received a grant for a Smart Growth Consultant to come in and look at potential improvements to several corridors. He asked if Wallace had a chance to look at that report.

Wallace said he did not look at that report.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the final report had not been completed. The Consultant would make that presentation to staff on February 15^th, but staff could give Wallace a draft of that report.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he would appreciate to hear how HNTB’s Step 6 in their plan would integrate with the Smart Growth Consultants report on improvements to those corridors.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was necessary to go through the first four or five steps. He said why not start at step 5 or some other intermediate step. He said there would be resistance no matter how much property owners were talked to. It seemed that they were stretching out the pain rather than getting at the nuts and bolts in a speedier fashion.

Wallace said they had done a lot of studies in access management projects where that was what the particular city had wanted them to do which was to come in with solutions at the table. He said as engineers, they might not always understand the specific mechanics of a particular business and how that business operated. He said when coming to their door with improvement already drawn on the page those business owners figure that those plans were already predestined no matter what comments were made by the business owners. He said they were hoping to try to make the business owners feel included, but some people would resist this issue regardless of whatever information was placed in front of them. He said with the limited funding and all of the opportunities available, if finding a few people to buy into the process and wanted to be part of the improvements those were the people that needed to be targeted with this project to build some successes.

Commissioner Schauner said that was part of his concern that with the limited budget, if a lot of that budget was spent on the first two or three steps, there would be less available to do the actual implementation unless they were willing to commit a lot more money to the project. Although he appreciated the interest in getting “buy in” he said the City had been talking about this issue for a long time and he could not believe there was anybody operating a business out there who had not been a party to multiple conversations about this issue. He wondered about the practical use of taxpayer money to rehash much of what had been talked about.

Soules said HNTB did a great job when improvements were made at 31^st and Nieder Road with Aldi’s and Goodwill. He said this current project was a similar process that staff went through in that staff did not go to Aldi’s or Goodwill with a preconceived plan. He said the project ended up working out very well. He said staff hoped to find those few potential business owners that could show a success and promote future projects.

Commissioner Hack echoed Soules comments. She said this project had been in the works for a long time. She said there would be far less grief in the community if people feel that they had been respected enough to be included in the process.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not disagree that the more conversations they could have with property owners, the better the process and he wondered how much of that conversation City staff could do in order to leave more money at the end for implementation. He asked if they needed to hire outside consultants to do that type of talking to the neighbors.

Wildgen said he thought that was all part of the process and to start pulling staff off, the engineers were trying to deal with other issues and to put staff into the same context as what the design engineer was doing was difficult.

Commissioner Schauner said that it might be difficult, but staff could do it.

Soules said he did not know if the fee included that HNTB solely do all the negotiations. He said those engineers would be there to work with staff, but he expected a lot of staff time on this project as well. He said the consultants would be there to assist staff with their expertise in access management, engineering design, and right-of-way acquisition. He said there would be a team approach when talking to the business owners.

Mayor Rundle asked as far as the specifics issues that would be explored, would those issues that were identified in the 23^rd Street Study be focused on.

Wallace said correct, for the short-term improvements.

Mayor Rundle said this issue focused on 23^rd Street between Iowa and Louisiana, he asked if there would be any consideration of the actual intersection of 23^rd and Iowa.

Wallace said yes, and that might be a cost benefit issue and would all your money be spent at that intersection with this first project, or try to sprinkle that money throughout the corridor.

Mayor Rundle said maybe not necessarily spending money, but at least identifying what would solve problems at that intersection. (7)

Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-04-02-04: Preliminary Development Plan for an auto dealership. This proposed commercial development contains approximately 0.57 acre. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of 33^rd Street and Iowa Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, LLC, Will Cokely, contract purchaser, and Richard and Sherryl Wright and Mike and Dr. Carol Moddrell, property owners of record.

Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this property was zoned PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) and the adjacent property which was Culver’s Restaurant to the west and Pizzeria Uno Chicago Bar and Grill’s to the south was also zoned PCD-2.

He said with this particular property, access was going to be discussed in relationship to the Preliminary Development Plan. The PDP was for a used car lot for an accessory sales office. The car lot would be 72 feet wide by 310 feet long. The PDP also was acting as the Preliminary Plat as this property had not been platted before. The PDP was also dedicating 10 feet of public right-of-away along Iowa which was not included in 0.57 acres of property.

Access, as shown in the PDP, had a right in off of 33^rd Street going through the property and then access to Pizzeria Uno through the parking lot to the south. The sales building was located on the extreme west side of the property.

He said this particular project was submitted originally in April 2004; was first heard by the Planning Commission in June 2004; deferred from that Planning Commission meeting with concerns about access; and direction to the applicant to get to adjacent property owners to go over access and try to work things out internally so there was internal access rather than access onto Iowa or 33^rd Street.

The item was brought back to the Planning Commission after quite a bit of discussion with interested parties in November. As part of that discussion at the November Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 5-3 vote on November 17^th subject to the six conditions as found in the Planning Commission minutes.

The adjacent Dunigan Subdivision Final Plat and Dunigan Final Development Plan included the following note: “A cross access easement shall be provided from the excepted tract Book 363, page 681 to 33^rd Street at a location to be determined by the City of Lawrence.”

He said Pizzeria Uno Chicago’s parking lot was located immediately south of the applicant’s property. The Final Development Plan included a note that read: “Wright Property Access, Cross Access Easement location to be determined by the City of Lawrence.”

On the adjacent Culver’s parcel immediately to the west of the applicant’s property, the final development plan included a note that read” Proposed additional Wright Access Point (to be 25 feet in Width).” He said if the City was determining that the cross access easement it would likely go south into Pizzeria Uno Chicago parking lot, west across their parking lot’s northernmost driveway aisle and the north on the 35’ wide Dunigan Subdivision access easement to 33^rd Street.

He said the traffic impact study indicated that on the weekdays there would be 23 trips in a 24 hour period; Saturday, 15 trips in a 24 hour period; and Sunday, 7 trips in a 24 hour period. It also identified the weekday morning peak trip to be one trip for this property and the weekday evening trip to be 2 trips. The use itself was fairly low generating traffic.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the traffic study was projecting less traffic on the weekends for Auto Sales business.

Patterson said yes that was what the study showed. He said the access to 33^rd Street was a right out only access. The applicant had revised that to only a right in only access on 33^rd Street which would alleviate some of the traffic concern. Throughout the project, the Transportation Planner, City Engineer, and Traffic Engineer all had concerns that there should be no access onto 33^rd Street. The legal perspective was different. He said there was existing access to the wall cover building that was there currently, but a property could not be platted in landlocked property. There needed to be some type of access into the property.

The Planning Commissioners, after much consideration, added on Conditions No. 5 and Condition No. 6. Condition No. 5 dealt with additional landscaping and Condition No. 6 dealt with the access. If the access should be established, then the existing access on 33^rd Street would be removed.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the cross access easements for Pizzeria Uno and Culvers, he asked if those easements would provide access to the property if 33^rd Street access was closed.

Patterson said those easements would provide access provided they could get access. The access wording was more of “shall be provided” rather than “is provided”.

Commissioner Schauner said the word “shall” was directive not permissive. He asked if the plat indicated that they “shall” be given a cross access easement.

Corliss said those were two instruments. The Culver’s language was worthless it only indicated where the proposed access point would be. The language on the Pizzeria Uno site allowed staff to designate something. The real preference was to have the public access easement dedicated by the owner of Pizzeria Uno and any type of financial arrangement on the maintenance of that cross access easement be worked out between the applicant, the property owner, and Pizzeria Uno.

Commissioner Schauner asked who drafted the Culver’s language.

Corliss said he did not know who drafted the language. He said it could have been the development engineer for that site that went through the planning process and the language was approved that way.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that language was approved by staff.

Corliss said he did not know. He would need to look at those comments.

He said staff had learned that cross access easement was not satisfactory for a development plan to promise a cross access easement or an easement to be dedicated some time in the future. The best practice was to get the actual instrument at the time of the dedication. He said Pizzeria Uno should have dedicated something when they were platted and the same thing with Culver’s.

Mayor Rundle asked about the language on the Culver’s document.

Patterson said Culver’s had a proposed additional right access point to be 25 feet in width and the Wright property was the subject property.

Corliss said it was his understanding that was the only thing in any of the instruments.

Commissioner Hack asked if Culver’s and Pizzeria Uno were in agreement.

Patterson the reason the application took so long was because the applicant had worked hard to get access and there was one party that was not agreeable to having an access point across their property which was Culver’s restaurant.

Commissioner Hack asked if the Culver’s access was able to be worked out would the 33^rd Street access right in be eliminated or did the 33^rd Street access need to be at that location because of the land locked issue.

Patterson said in the Preliminary Development Plan, Condition No. 6 from the Planning Commission stated: “Existing 33^rd Street access shall be eliminated if the City can provide alternate access to a public right-of-way. “

Commissioner Schauner asked if Pizzeria Uno access easement would provide that alternate access.

Finger said there were three businesses involved in that issue. She said JC Penny’s was the Nieder Road extension which was private. She said Pizzeria Uno or Culver’s would needed to be taken over and then JC Penny’s to 33^rd Street public right-of-way.

Commissioner Schauner asked if right-in only satisfied the land lock issue assuming they could not get an access easement from the other parties.

Patterson suggested that Commissioner Schauner hear the applicant’s presentation on how the applicant perceived this issue.

Mayor Rundle asked about the egress.

Patterson said the egress was at the south end and then out to the private road back to 33^rd Street.

Corliss said it was important to note if the applicant was unsuccessful in giving the City a public access easement over the Pizzeria Uno site and if the City was unsuccessful in declaring the private drive, Nieder Road, as an additional access point, then this project, as it was proposed, could not proceed. He said they had to have the southern access point in order for them to have a right in on 33^rd Street even as their proposing.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this matter was premature for the City Commission’s consideration. He said if the Commission said, for example, that they had to provide that access easement, not only to Nieder Road, but onto public access, he asked if they would be putting the applicant at a disadvantage in dealing with JC Penny’s and other landowners in terms of putting the other landowners in a better position to negotiate a different higher price for that access.

Corliss said the applicant could speak to their negotiations and where they were with Pizzeria Uno. He said it was represented to the City that they could successfully get a public cross access easement on the Pizzeria Uno site.

Commissioner Schauner said if he understood Finger right that was only part of it. He said they needed to move from the interior road to a public road and that would require the acquiescence of JC Penny’s as well.

Corliss said what that required was for the City to make that determination that that private drive was the public access easement that was referred to in the plat of that property.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the implications for the City were, if that determination was made.

Corliss said if they wanted to appeal that decision then they would need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any other cost issues related to declaring that public access.

Corliss said he did not see any cost issues associated with that idea. He said staff had talked to the property owner. The property owner was amenable to it. Their tenant, JC Penny’s did not want to sign anything. He said they were not opposed to the car dealership or the cleaning up of the Wright site. The tenant just did not want to execute any documents. He said it was clear that the Nieder Road area would not be blocked at 33^rd Street because that would hurt JC Penny’s.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was any way the Commission could make that finding apart from this consideration or could this issue be a separate action.

Corliss said this issue could be a separate action of the Planning Director to make that determination.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Planning Director would declare the public access.

Corliss said that would be an administrative decision and staff would advise them that they could appeal that decision if they wished.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the easement was granted across Pizzeria Uno’s property, what impact would that have on the need for the right turn in off of 33^rd Street.

Corliss said then they would have access to the property. He said it was required to provide reasonable access to the property. He said they were going to argue that was not sufficient and that they still needed the right in.

Commissioner Schauner said if right in was permitted at that location would there be curbing provided that would prevent right out access.

Corliss said there was not much frontage at that location and it would be difficult to do anything of any large consequence, but they would need to have street plans approved by the City and the City would have it designed in a way that within that right-of-way make it as much as a right in as possible and appropriate signage. The concern still was from the Public Works Department that southbound Iowa traffic would make a left turn onto 33^rd Street and then cross traffic to get into the right turn lane.

Patterson said the Planning Commission passed a motion to strongly urge the City Commission to investigate within 30 days receipt of this recommendation, alternatives to the existing 33^rd Street curb cut for providing access to the public right-of-way for the subject property.

Commissioner Schauner asked what that motion meant.

Corliss said staff would need to take a look at that intersection of 33^rd and Nieder because that intersection would need some type of improvement in the future. One of those improvements might include a median down 33^rd Street and some type of traffic control whether that would be a signal or a roundabout to move traffic. As the project had come through, they had signed agreements not-to-protest benefit districts. Similar to the traffic signal that was installed at 31^st and Nieder, which was completely paid by the property owners, staff would do something at 33^rd and Nieder as well.

Paul Werner, Paul Warner Architects, said there were no access easements. He said those access easements were noted in the plats, but those easements did not exist. He said this was a great use for the property in a sense of how low the traffic could be. He said the applicant was not going to service vehicles at that location and servicing would be done at a bigger facility. He said with the traffic counts, it was a good deal for a tough site.

He said they did the Preliminary Plan in April and had talked with Pizzeria Uno. He said Pizzeria Uno, at that time, indicated that since they were agreeable to a cross access easement to cross their north property line, Pizzeria Uno wanted this lot improved because it looked terrible. Culver’s did not want to be included and did not want traffic going across their site. He said their first submittal showed exit only on the northern portion of their site to go through Culver’s. Because the Culver’s lot was so bad, they received a negative recommendation from staff in that they would be forcing even more cars to make essentially 180 degree turn outside of Culver’s lot.

He said at that point, they proposed 4 solutions. He said they looked at a right out from Culver’s which was further west a right out on 33^rd Street thinking they would be further back from the light. The exit through Culver’s which they had received a negative recommendation of a right out from their site which was ultimately what they came back to the Planning Commission with. He said they were told all of those ideas were bad solutions.

He said in the meanwhile, they sent their plans to JC Penny’s and thought that there would be no way that JC Penny would not want to be a part of this solution, but they received a letter back from JC Penny informing them that they did not want to sign anything. He said he did not think JC Penny’s would go to the extreme to stop that cross access and he did not see Penny’s blocking access through Pizzeria Uno’s lot.

He said they had submitted a right out under the guidelines that they could have access through Pizzeria Uno’s. He said they thought the right out was the best solution and that was why they agreed to Condition 1. He said Condition 6 came up at the last minute and the Planning Commission wanted to send the City Commission a message that if there was anything the City could do to help close off that access to 33^rd Street that should be done.

After looking at that idea, they did not think the Planning Commission realized the ultimate affect of the way Condition 6 read. He read that provision to mean that providing that access through Pizzeria Uno’s, essentially they were getting rid of their own access to 33^rd Street by meeting their condition. In their minds, that site did not work and Planning Commissioner Hasse admitted that that idea would create a dysfunctional site. He said they had to have internal circulation through the site and they would take it wherever they could get it, but closing off the north end did not work. He said they disagreed that Condition No. 6 was thrown in as an effort to get rid of that access.

He said if alternate means of reasonable access could be provided some time in the future that the access to 33^rd Street could go away. He said just access through Pizzeria Uno’s lot did not make this work and it was a horrible idea. He said instead of all the concerns of the cars leaving and going north on Iowa that the right in was the better solution. He said let’s funnel the traffic in and go out though Pizzeria Uno’s to Nieder Road because they could go either north or south and there were lights in both directions. He said Conditions 1 and 6 needed to be changed or the site would not function.

Commissioner Highberger said the traffic study numbers seemed counterintuitive in that the numbers would be less on the weekend.

Werner said he would need to look at those numbers. He said the numbers were so low that they did not jump into looking at those numbers.

Commissioner Schauner said if in the business of selling vehicles, you would want vehicles to go in an out and to suggest that the number were going to be that low, struck him as counterintuitive.

Werner said some of that had to do with that it was based on square footage and this was so unique.

Todd Thompson commented about proposed Condition 6 and how it was worded. He said if the intent of that condition was to eliminate the access on 33^rd Street, then that would have been a lot easier to say. The key was to keep the flow of traffic either in from the north and out through the south or in from the south and out through the north. The proposal brings it in from the north because it was a safer way to exit. If the traffic was exiting from the north and people wanted to go north on Iowa Street they would have to cross over to the left turn lane. This way they were coming out onto 33^rd Street from back of the entrance to the entire center after they had exited across Pizzeria Uno’s lot.

The applicant was not opposed to losing the 33^rd Street point, whether it be the entrance or exit. If the City could find a way to get the vehicles either in or out through the north part of the lot then the applicant understood the issue of 33^rd Street as willing to give up that point, but for the time being, and until such time as there could be access across the Culver’s property or ingress or egress, then the 33^rd Street curb cut needed to stay. He said they believed that right in to be the safest and most viable approach for everyone.

He said because of the signage regulations in the City, if the entrance were down at the south end of this lot, they would not be able to put a sign on the Uno’s property or the Culver’s property and there would be no sign telling people how to get into the lot. He said they could however sign the property properly if they used the right in on 33^rd Street and then exit down through the Uno’s lots onto Nieder Road. In terms of public safety and practicality of operating the business at that location, there needed to be a place to come in and a place to go out. He said they believed this proposal provided the best safety for the public and was also very workable for the applicant.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the applicant would be opposed to constructing a right in that would provide a concrete barrier to right out at that access point.

Thompson said to the extent that that could be done within the limited amount of feet they had, they tried to design it to be as difficult as possible to make a right out, out of there. He said it was also a narrow throated driveway which helped discourage that and one of the reasons they needed both ingress and a separate egress was the only way to turn around and head out the other way would be to make a three point turn. After coming in off of 33^rd Street, the natural flow of the entire design was to push you out the south end and it would be counterintuitive to do a three point turn and try to go back out.

Commissioner Schauner said he was thinking more of people southbound making the right on to 33^rd Street and then trying to make a left into that driveway rather than the people who might try to egress from that lot once they were on that lot.

Thompson said visually and with landscaping and by curbing it as much as their dimensions allowed them, they tried to discourage that to the maximum extent possible.

Mayor Rundle asked how he anticipated traffic getting to that access point.

Thompson said he did not know if they would use 34^th and Nieder to get back to 33^rd Street or turn around in the parking lot. He said he thought all of those would occur. The one that was most troubling was the immediate attempt to turn left after coming around the corner off of Iowa. He said the Culver’s project was not done by an engineering firm that commonly did land use projects in this community. He said this was the only one that they had ever done. He said the current applicant was not the landowner of this lot at the time. He said what they had was a problem lot that needed to be addressed and was at the gateway of this City which needed to be enhanced in appearance. He said there were a limited number of ways to solve the problems that exist. This particular use provided the only or best solution, certainly a better solution than leaving the existing building and the existing uses that were permitted in that building which generated higher traffic and had both ingress and egress without any enhancement from the driveway right onto 33^rd Street and that could not be taken away. He said this was not a perfect solution to a bad problem, but it was a solution and it certainly improved things over what existed today.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if there was only an access point on the south, would staff recommend approval.

Finger said that was a design element that was certainly not desirable. The limitations of the actual size made it a limited use type of property for application. She said Terese Gorman, City Engineer, was the one who approved parking lot designs. If she approved something that would require a 3 point turn then staff would support that idea.

Commissioner Dunfield said so it would not violate any standards that she was aware of.

Finger said no it would not.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they were designing that intersection from scratch, how close would they permit this point of ingress/egress to be from the 33^rd and Iowa intersection.

Finger said if she could answer that question on how staff tried to get ingress/egress, it would be Nieder Road.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a policy in place that would provide some internal checking to see if they could avoid that lack of internal access easements in the future. He said it seemed that this was an unintended consequence of the way that area was developed. He asked if there was an internal mechanism that would try to eliminate that in the future

Finger said Corliss’ department was much more involved in any type of review of legal documents. This was a tail end piece that Culver’s was trying to get it to fit and there was a lot of effort by both the project owner representatives for the 34 Street Investors which was the JC Penny property as well as Culver’s to try to get cooperation with the property owner at that time of that piece of property that remained.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not thinking of this particular discussion, but whether the City had in place a process that would significantly reduce the likelihood of repeating that cross access easement question regarding land lock property. He said the process that was used in approving those legal documents was insufficient.

Corliss said he agreed. He said for example, in this situation, he would not recommend a cross access easement. He said it needed to be a public access easement to the City. He said he wanted the City to be the grantee and not between two private parties because that would have that level of assurance because the City would be relying on that as public right-of-way.

He said Finger and the Planners knew that Legal Services was always available to respond to those questions. He said he did not review every instrument of every plat for those legal requirements.

Commissioner Schauner said what that said was that the City did not have a written policy or procedure for having legal review and some level of assurance for public access in which the City would be a person of interest.

Corliss said Planning Staff was increasingly focused on those issues and knew when to ask questions. He said staff did not need to have him look at every plat to see whether or not it was dedicating right-of-way the correct way. He said there was streamlined boiler plate language that was used every time. He said as this area was developing staff tried to get the right property involved in the final solution, but they were unsuccessful.

Commissioner Schauner said the events of the past led them to where they were, but the property owner appeared to have an interest in being able to get some value from the property after the fact when apparently there wasn’t a willingness to think ahead about the possible consequences of the land lock issues.

Mayor Rundle asked if any of the waivers that the Planning Commission granted impact the future ability of widening Iowa Street to six lanes would that be necessary down the road.

Finger said there was nothing in this project nor in any project north or south that would impact the need, if they needed to go to six lanes, for acquisition of that property. He said staff did not ask for additional right-of-way dedicated at this point. She said that meant that this property would have proportionately less greenspace if another lane was there. She said they tried to keep the greenspace consistent along that west side of the right-of-way.

Mayor Rundle said regardless of this project they would need to acquire right-of-way and the project did not encroach upon that.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the waiver of the required 30 feet to proposed 15 feet for peripheral setback from Iowa affected that greenspace along that west side.

Finger said certainly it would affect the remainder which was virtually none.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the front face curb of that property would be right up next to the sidewalk.

Finger said very near. If there was a third lane, it would be very near it.

Commissioner Schauner said if the Commission was to grant that waiver from 30 feet to 15 feet and at some point needed to add a third lane southbound on Iowa, what affect would that lack of distance from the sidewalk to the property have on the ability to add that third lane.

Finger said she did not believe it would impact their ability to add the third lane, but it would visually impact what was remaining. The Planning Commission was actually the body that had the authority to grant that waiver. The Commission was forwarded a document that already had that waiver as a part of its approval.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission had to accept that waiver.

Finger said no, but that would require additional separate findings and a super majority vote to not send it back.

Werner said they were dedicating ten extra feet to align with everybody north and south for the right-of-way. He said there was enough right-of-way there for the third lane.

Commissioner Schauner said right-of-way was different than the peripheral setback waiver.

Werner agreed. He said the 15 feet came from a more consistent commercial zoning as opposed to a PCD zoning.

Commissioner Hack asked if Finger looked at the changes that Thompson suggested for Conditions 1 and 6 in his letter.

Finger said when looking at the Planning minutes under Commission discussion paragraph 4, it was made clear that a condition be added that would communicate the Planning Commission’s opinion that the City should try to acquire the right-of-way and needed to provide alternative access and close the 33^rd Street access.

Commissioner Hack said it sound that a reinterpretation of that intent was that needed to be closed A.S.A.P as opposed to at such point that another access could be discovered.

Finger said Corliss and Patterson worked on that letter.

Corliss said his concern with Thompson’s proposed language on No. 6 was in looking how it differed from what the Planning Commission approved, “existing 33^rd Street access shall be eliminated if the City could provide alternate access to a public right-of-way.” He said the law required them to allow for reasonable access for a property to public right-of-way. He said they had that now. If they took 33^rd Street away, they needed to be able to provide reasonable public access.

He said as to the language in Condition No. 6, he was concerned that it did not allow the Commission to take it away in the future unless the City provided alternate access to the north one-third of the subject property. A reading of that could be that if for some reason in the future there could be appropriate access to the property to the south or combined, they could not take away the 33^rd Street access unless they provided access to the north one-third of the property.

Commissioner Schauner said that struck him as significantly different than what he read as Condition No. 6 in the Planning Commission minutes because it did not make any reference to the north one-third.

Corliss said that was the difference. He said he would not recommend the language that was proposed in Condition No. 6 because it bound future governing bodies to say that they could not take that access away. He said you could take access away if you provide reasonable alternative access. What the Planning Commission was indicating was that they wanted the City Commission to affirmatively move to do that based on other access that would be provided.

Mayor Rundle asked what staff was recommending for Condition 6.

Corliss said it was the language as stated in the Planning Commission minutes.

Commissioner Dunfield said it seemed that by making this, whether it was a right in or right out only, either way they had already made the decision that they had to have another point of access. He said his interpretation of Condition 6 was, assuming that there was a southern point of access to the property, there was no access anymore at the north end of the property. He said that was his interpretation and he did not disagree with that. He said he did not think that site plan worked.

He said nearly all of the traffic into that property was going to be coming from Iowa Street turning on to 33^rd Street and then having to find some way of wondering around and coming back to a right in situation. He said he thought there were going to be a lot of people cutting across those three lanes of traffic. He said there were going to be a lot of people who find their way in through the south entrance and then they would need to make that three point turn and get out of the property because they would not be able to leave at the north end anyway. He said he could not see how the right in situation would work on 33^rd Street. Irrespective of all the arguments about what the Planning Commission intended about the language, it seemed that if this project could not work with only the south access then the project was not going to work at all.

Commissioner Hack said that area was a lousy and brutal site. She said the obvious thing to do was to be able to eventually someday close that 33^rd Street access. She said this was not perfect, but it was the best they could do at that location.

Mayor Rundle concurred with Commissioner Dunfield. He said he was concerned from the beginning when it was referred to as a brutal site.

Commissioner Schauner said he was empathetic to the property owner because it was a bad situation all the way around. He concurred with Commissioner Dunfield and Mayor Rundle. He believed the traffic on 33^rd Street would want to find a way into that site and whether that meant making an illegal left or a turn cross three lanes traffic, he thought that would be done. He said public safety needed to be placed ahead of this particular preliminary development plan. He said he did not support the site plan.

Vice Mayor Highberger said it was unfortunate that they were stuck in a situation where each property had their own parking lot and access. He said he was going back and forth but he agreed with Commissioner Dunfield. Ultimately he thought it would be in the best interest to cut off that 33^rd Street access. He said he was inclined to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Commissioner Hack asked Vice Mayor Highberger if he was suggesting that the 33^rd Street exit be shut down right now.

Vice Mayor Highberger said when access to a public road was provided.

Commissioner Dunfield said assuming there was access from the south through Uno’s and the Penny’s property that meets the criteria in Condition 6 in that they had provided public access and therefore there would be no access onto 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Hack asked if that public access and that access to the south had been established.

Commissioner Dunfield said without that access this site plan did not work at all because now there would be a right in and no way out.

Mayor Rundle asked if Commissioner Dunfield was proposing to approve the PDP with the elimination of that access.

Commissioner Dunfield said for clarification it would be better to say that they approved the PDP with the revision to Condition 6 that access to 33^rd Street be closed.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-04-02-04) for an auto dealership, property generally described as being located at the southwest corner of 33^rd Street and Iowa Street, subject to the following conditions:

Filing of a cross access easement across Lot 3A, Dunigan Subdivision;
Provision of the following revisions to the Preliminary Development Plan:

Note the recorded book and page numbers referenced for the cross access easement from the subject property across the Pizzeria Uno Chicago Bar and Grill property (Lot 3 Dunigan Subdivision);
Graphically show the access easement from the subject property to the public street;
For note No. 16, change 1 space/400 SF to 1 space/200 SF of floor area of commercial use;
Verify sanitary sewer line location and reflect accordingly;
Reflect all utility, sanitary sewer, and access easements (may be separate instrument);
Access to the sanitary sewer main is greater than 15’ through easements. The public sanitary sewer will need to be extended from its actual current location to a point in which the service line can properly access the main;
Provide a trash enclosure area or appropriate trash service note to the approval of the Solid Waste Division;
Provide ADA sidewalk access where the sidewalk crosses the one-way exit lane;
Show the location and identify any waiver(s) granted by the Planning Commission;
Provide a note on the Preliminary Development Plan that states, “The City shall have the right to manage traffic along 33^rd Street and should operation and/or safety problems develop in the future the City may construct a median along 33^rd Street;” and
Show proposed signage on an elevation.

Provision of an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for future improvements for 33^rd Street and the intersection of 33^rd & Iowa Street;
Provision of an executed agreement with the Southern Star Central Gas Company to permit and define type of encroachment over the Gas Pipeline Easement;
Additional landscaping shall be placed on the eastern property line according to the landscape design guidelines for gateway development; and
Existing access to 33^rd Street shall be eliminated if the city can provide alternative public access to this site to a public right-of-way.

Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (8)

Corliss asked if the Commission would include that the access easement to the south, be a public access easement to the City.

Consider motion to recess into executive session for non-elected personnel issues and consultation with an attorney for matters which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship. The open meeting will resume in the City Commission meeting room in 30 minutes.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purpose of discussing non-elected personnel issues and consultation with an attorney for matters which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

The Commission met back in regular session at 9:45 p.m.

Moved by Schauner , seconded by Dunfield, to recess until 1:00 pm Wednesday, January 26, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reconvened on January 26^th at 1:40 p.m.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to recess into executive session for two hours to discuss non-elected personnel issues. Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reconvened at 3:07 p.m.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 3:07 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

City Commission meeting minutes of January 25, 2005

1. Art Permit – Unity Church of Lawrence, 900 Madeline Ln.

2. Waiver from bldg permit moratorium at 917 Ward.

3. Ordinance No. 7853 – Declare Emergency --1^st and 2^nd Reading, extending the building permit moratorium until April 25, 2005 (Old West Lawrence Neighborhood).

4. Housing Tax Credit Application – from Investment Resources Corp for Vermont Towers, 1101 Vt. St.

5. City Manager’s Report.

6. Agreement – BG Consultants for improvements to the intersection of 19^th & Louisiana.

7. Report Update – 23^rd St. Access Mgmt Project.

8. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-04-02-04) auto dealership, SW corner of 33r & Iowa.

9. Executive Session