February 15 , 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 20 year anniversary of L.I.N.K. (Lawrence International Nutrition Kitchen) which has served more than 362,000 meals to hungry people in Douglas County.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 1, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of December 15, 2004; and the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of October 26, 2004 and December 7, 2004; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of January 6, 2005; the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of January 6, 2005; the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of January 18, 2005; and the Uniform Building code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of December 12, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 599 vendors in the amount of $3,417,674.47 and payroll from January 23, 2005 to February 5, 2005 in the amount of $1,389,998.51.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Stu’s Midtown Tavern, 925 Iowa Street; On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina, 3080 Iowa Street; and the Retail Liquor License for Topless Liquor, 1805 West 2nd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to appoint Loralee Stevens to the Grant Review Board to a term which will expire December 31, 2007; appoint Jay Antle to the Historic Resources Commission which will expire March 1, 2007; and reappoint to the Lawrence Arts Commission Margaret Morris and appoint James Schaefer, Liz Kowalchuk to terms which will expire January 31, 2008 and Evie Rapport to a term which will expire January 31, 2006 and appoint Mary Kennedy McCabe, and Elizabeth Hatchett to terms which will expire January 31, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.          

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve purchase of one (1) crew cab pickup for the Public Works/Solid Waste Division from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP bid in the amount of $22,451.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                               (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to award the contract for the re-keying of City Hall to Best Access Systems in the amount of $22,108.72 per Kansas Contract No. 31361, Addendum.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                         (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with Cutting Edge Solutions in the amount of $39,010 for purchase of the OnBase Document Management System and professional services.  Motion carried unanimously.           (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of two used Highway Patrol cars for the Police Department/Investigations from the State of Kansas in the amount of $13,150 each totaling $26,300.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                             (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of one pickup for the Utilities/Quality Control Division from Raytown Dodge off the MACPP bid in the amount of $15,529.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                         (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of three one ton 4x4 trucks for the Public Works/Street Division from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP bid for $24,093 each totaling $72,279.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                  (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to set a bid date of March 1, 2005 for the 2005 Downtown Waterline Improvements. Motion carried unanimously.                                                              (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7812, rezoning (Z-05-21-04) a tract of land approximately 2.63 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District to C-5 (Limited Commercial District). The property is described as being located at 3300 Iowa Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                               (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7815, rezoning (Z-05-20-04) a tract of land approximately 15.02 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District).  The property is described as being located at 3400 Iowa Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (9)

Ordinance No. 7857, establishing “stop signs” on Rhode Island Street at 12^th Street, was read a second and final time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.       (10)

Ordinance No. 7854, establishing “yield signs” on Wheat State Street at Eldridge Street, was read a second and final time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously        (11)

Ordinance No. 7858, establishing an “all way stop” at 9^th Street and New York Street, was read a second and final time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.      (12)

Ordinance No. 7856, establishing an “all way stop” at 10^th Street and New York Street, was read a second and final time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.       (13)

Ordinance No. 7855, removing “stop signs” on 9^th Street at New Jersey Street was read a second and final time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.      (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield,  to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-39-04) for Quail Valley Townhomes, a replat of Lots 67, 68, and Lot C of the replat of lots 69 and 70, Alvamar Estates, a proposed three-lot planned unit development residential subdivision containing approximately 0.961 acre, located at 2113-2143 Quail Creek Drive; and accept the dedication of easements and right-of-way subject to the following conditions:

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; and

c.         Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-40-04) for Carpenter Addition No. 2., a proposed three-lot commercial/office/residential subdivision containing approximately 3.41 acres, located at 1017 East 23^rd Street; 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; and

c.         Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.

2.         Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;

3.         Provide an indication on the Final Plat that //// represents area of prohibited traffic access;

4.         Pinning of Lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2; and

5.         Provide MEBO’s on Lots 2 & 3 per Section 21-301.5.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-38-04) for Hanscom-Tappen Addition (also known as Parnell Park PRD), a proposed planned residential development containing 30 single-family homes on approximately 8.020 acres, located at 1503 Haskell Avenue; 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 15^th Street and Haskell Avenue;

2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to change the name of “Oliver’s Trail” to “Oliver’s Court”;

3. Provision of a revised Final Plat to add a note to refer to the Final Development Plan of Hanscom-Tappen I PRD for the ownership, use, and maintenance of Tracts A-D;

4. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works Department including:

a. Interior sidewalks within pedestrian easements;

b. Water lines;

c. Sanitary sewers;

d. Streets, curb & gutter profiles including driveway approaches,

e. sidewalks; and

f. Storm drainage system;

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

6. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and

7. 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.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-11-36-04) for Locust Street Project, a proposed two-lot commercial subdivision containing approximately 0.58 acres, located at 642-646 and 645 Locust Street; 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; and

c.         Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.

2.         Pinning of the lots per Section 21-302.2;

3.         Execution of a Temporary Utility Easement; and

4.         Provide the following revisions to the Final Plat:

a.         Modify Lot 1, Block 1 to locate the east property line 0.5 feet east in order to allow the existing commercial building to be located entirely on the Lot;

b.         Modify the centerline distance and right-of-way for N. 7^th Street;

c.         Add N. to N. 7^th Street name;

d.         Correct the lot size for Lot 1, Block 1 to include the area created by the modified property line; and

e.         Remove the building setback and parking setback lines.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-54-04) a tract of land approximately 1.93 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District).  The property is described as being located at 1535 Haskell Avenue; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-44-04) of approximately 0.86 acre from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to RO-1 (Residence-Office District).  The property is a portion of the parcel located at 1045 East 23^rd Street (with frontage alone East 24^th Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                               (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-45-04) of approximately 2.55 acres from C-4 (General Commercial District) and RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to C-4 (General Commercial District).  The property is described as being located at 1045 East 23^rd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                              (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield,  to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-12-11-04) for Parnell Park II Single Family Homes, a proposed planned residential development containing property approved as Parnell Park and additional adjacent property which includes 42 single-family homes on approximately 10.16 acres, the property is described as being located at 1503 and 1535 Haskell Avenue, subject to the following conditions:

1.  Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show and note a 5’ side yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1 of Hanscom-Tappen II PRD;

2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to restrict occupancy of the homes to comply with the definition of family applicable to conventional single-family (RS) districts;

3. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to correct and update the site summary;

4. Correction of the site summary to calculate the required open space based on the total net residential area and not the total open space summary;

5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following changes as noted by City Staff:

a. Delete Stormwater Data diagram on Sheet 2;

b. Correct PE between Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 to show a tract and not a pedestrian easement on both Sheets 1 and 2;

c. Note use of Tracts A, C, and D on face of Preliminary Development Plan;

d. Label line work along west property line on Sheet 2;

e. Delete stormwater line along south side of Tract "A" of Block 1 Hanscom-Tappen II PRD on north side of cul-de-sac of Hanscom Road, per City Stormwater Engineer’s approval; and

f. Note that sidewalk ramp between Lots 11 and 12, Block 2 Hanscom-Tappen I PRD cannot be located within 10’ of inlet.

6. Initiate discussion of traffic calming for streets within the entire subdivision with City Staff and determine what, if any, calming elements should be included with the submitted public improvement plans.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (22)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the site plan (SP-12-88-04) for a building expansion for the Cottonwood Facility, located at 2801 West 31^st Street, subject to the following conditions:

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

2.         Execution of local and state floodplain development permits prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit; and

3.         Execution of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) for this project prior issuance of a building permit and all construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation per City Code Section 9-903(B),

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                      (23)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield,  to approve the site plan (SP-10-72-04) for the construction of a church at the northwest corner of Stonecreek Drive and Branchwood Drive, subject to the following conditions:

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

2.         Execution of an Agreement Not to Protest Formation of a Benefit District for Street Improvements on Branchwood Drive/Queens Road;

3.         Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states a revised site plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to construction of Phase 2 improvements;

4.         Filing of Final Plat prior to release of the Site Plan to Neighborhood Resources; and

5.         Provision of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) per Section 9-903(B), prior to the release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (24)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign agreement for LPA Services for the improvements at 7^th and Kentucky Streets.  Motion carried unanimously.                    (25)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve request from Pilot Club International to put directional signs on the U.S. Bank property at 23^rd and Harper Streets from March 4 – 6, 2005. These signs would be considered “signs of community interest.”                                                             (26)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to execute a five year agreement with the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Department for participation in the Community Fisheries Assistance Program.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (27)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Gale Fleming, 204 N. Minnesota.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (28)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Request for Bethany Willets, 2113 Kentucky.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                 (29)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the SpringHill Suites signage alterations on the City Riverfront Plaza parking garage facility.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (30)

The approval for an extension of a site plan (SP-01-09-04/SP08-61-00), 911 East 11^th Street was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion.

Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said the request was to extend the site plan approval for an industrial warehouse building located on East 11^th Street, east of Hobbs Park.  This was a project that had been approved in late 2000 and has had three previous site plan extension approvals.  She said because there was a corridor plan in progress and a building moratorium, staff had suggested that the City Commission extend the site plan approval for three months to provide an opportunity for formal referral of this request to the Area Plan Committee to allow enough time for formal comment from that committee back to the City Commission in terms of whether that site plan extension should be approved for another year. 

Mayor Rundle asked if there was reason not to refer this item to the Area Plan Committee before the City Commission approved this site plan.

Stogsdill said if the City Commission did not provide this interim extension the site plan approval would expire.  Technically, the site plan would have expired on February 10^th, but the City Commission meeting for February 8^th was cancelled, therefore, there was reason to consider the site plan valid until that approval was granted or denied.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked how many times had the site plan been renewed.

Stogsdill said three times.     

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if a site plan had ever been renewed four times.

Stogsdill said that question had been asked several times.  She said she recalled several sites where there had been at least two extensions.  The difficulty was that staff did not track those extensions with new numbers, but staff had started that type of process the past few years to keep better records, but usually it was a letter of request that went into that same site plan file and a memo placing that item on a consent agenda.  She said it would be fairly labor intensive to go back and find out how many extensions there had been in the past.

Commissioner Schauner asked what type of formality was required to request the extension of a site plan.

Stogsdill said the code did not give staff guidance.  Basically, it simply outlined that there was a $25.00 site plan renewal fee.  There was a policy that there needed to be a written request to extend that site plan and that request should come before the site plan had expired.  She said for the most part, staff had not had a lot of discussion about those extensions.  Staff had typically reviewed those site plan extensions to determine if there had been any changes in the code since the site plan had been originally approved.  The memo that was provided indicated that after the 2001 Flood Plain Maps were adopted, staff asked that the applicant revise the site plan to reflect the changed flood plain conditions so that it was up to date.  She said at that point in time that was the only code revision that had taken place.

Commissioner Schauner said on February 10^th 2004 a memo from Stogsdill was presented to the City Commission that stated that an applicant verbally requested an extension late last year, however, a written request was just recently received.  He asked if the verbal request was received before the prior extension had expired or after.

Stogsdill said she remembered that the verbal request came in before.  She said she assumed that the verbal request came in before the site plan expired which was why they carried that request forward.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the February 10^th date was before or after that particular extension had expired.

Stogsdill said the original approval was in November of 2000.  Typically the approvals would have been in November of each year.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the request for consent agenda approval on February 10^th of 2004 would have been approximately four months after the 12 months extension had expired.

Stogsdill said yes.

James Grauerholz, Brookcreek neighborhood resident, said he had been involved in an interneighborhood effort to bring together the three neighborhoods east of Massachusetts and north of 23^rd Street to develop a new area plan concurrent with the 12 month building moratorium which was enacted October 26^th, 2004.

He said the existence of this approved site plan came as news to him on February 3^rd, 2005.  He said people in that region had a keen interest in this site which was the old sale barn lot east of Hobbs Park and west of Don’s Automotive for many years.  He said he was able to bring the matter to discussion of the 12 member Burrough’s Creek Area Plan Study Committee. He said at one of the meetings it was asked if the committee should sit back and let this happen and foreclose one more piece of potential influence looking at plan that was 4 years stale.  He said the answer was “no” from the 10 non-staff members of that committee.  He said the committee did not want to give them an extension even at 3 months in case that 3 months would allow a building permit which would defeat the purpose.

He said the committee asked that the Commission deny the extension for the following reasons:

1)  A renewal of this plan would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Ordinance 7841, the Burroughs Creek Area Plan moratorium.

2)  Conditions and circumstances in the vicinity of this site plan have changed substantially since the plan was first approved, and it is no longer appropriate for the site, in its current form:  viz., the Eastern Lawrence Rail-Trail project; the Hobbs Park Memorial (Murphy-Bromelsick House relocation); new Municipal Stadium improvements; a major stormwater project nearby; and now the Burroughs Creek Area Plan / Rail-Trail Corridor project.

3)  The site plan's renewal in February 2004 may not, in fact, have been legal, since the applicant slept on his rights, and his third one-year renewal expired on Nov. 7, 2003.  That was one month before even a verbal request for another renewal was received by the City, and two months before the applicant's written request in January.

4)  The applicant's "industrial land inventory benefit" argument in his Feb. 4, 2005, letter is unconvincing, since the City's future needs for such land are being addressed at this time, and there are already three other, larger and more appropriately-sited, industrial districts in Lawrence, with much undeveloped land.

5)  The late-2000 review process for the original submission was inadequate even under the then-obtaining conditions in the site's vicinity.  In particular, stormwater-drainage and traffic impact from this proposed pavement-intensive, 95-car, four-truck-dock warehouse use were insufficiently studied.

6)  The site's location is unsuitable for office use under current Horizon 2020 policy (Chap. 7, August 2004 draft amendment), and there is already a documented glut of vacant office space in existing buildings in Lawrence.

7)  Denial of this request does not impose an "unnecessary hardship" upon the applicant, as defined in Code Sec. 21-901.6 (47), and the Commission has no legal obligation to renew the site plan approval again.

He said the committee unanimously subscribed to the idea to deny this plan.  He said the City Commission might not to the letter of the moratorium be obliged to deny the site plan.  He said the committee would like to have a chance to have a say so on that piece of land.

Beth Anne Mansur, President of the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, said that the neighborhood had unanimously agreed to ask the City Commission to deny the request.  She said they were concerned about this particular site plan with all of the truck traffic that was brought to their neighborhood.  She said the EBB Area Plan Committee thought that the moratorium should supercede this request.

Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and member of the Burrough’s Creek EBB Rails to Trails Committee, said their association unanimously agreed to request denial of this site plan extension.  There was a growing consensus within the East Lawrence Neighborhood that this parcel of land was very important as they continued to lose greenspace to infill development.  She said their neighborhood had been waiting years for that Rails to Trails project to come to fruition and with the lack of undeveloped land along the proposed route those three acres were very significant.  That acreage was significant for other reasons as well.  In light of the City’s recent Sesquicentennial Celebrations and the growing interest in their neighborhoods with a long and colorful history, a warehouse on this particular 3 acres site seemed almost ironic.

She said 11^th Street was originally a main road into Lawrence and the rise of land that was still their on that parcel was manned by John Brown and his men watching out for raiders during the Bleeding Kansas era.  It was also part of the original homestead of John Speer, City Founder, who committed treason in the eyes of the government to denounce slavery. 

She said that the landowner should be paid a fair price for his investment, but all of the eastern neighborhoods together believe very strongly that this site had tremendous value to the City as a whole as an addition to their small neighborhood park that sits next to it.  She said people in the neighborhood for years had asked why this parcel of land could not be part of their park.  Only 3 percent of the Parks and Recreation budget was spent, east of Massachusetts Street and this was an ideal opportunity.  She said you just don’t get a 3 acre undeveloped land adjacent to a coming Rails to Trails project and next door to a park.  This was a once in a life time opportunity for the City to make a commitment to the neighborhoods and an opportunity for historic preservation.

Ed Tato, East Lawrence neighborhood resident, said the site plan was a bad site plan for that area, but the whole idea of that area as industrial zoning, he did not see how that was compatible with the current zoning code, the proposed zoning code, or the general plan.

He said the general plan had 4 goals for industrial development.   He said goal 2 stated that compatible transition from industrial/employment related development to less intensive uses ensures the compatible transition between industrial and employment related developments in less intensive uses.  He said M-3 was the second highest industrial use located directly across the street from residential and he did not see how a transition could be made.  He said the new proposed zoning code was specific about how transitions should be stepped down in uses and it was not a buffering of walls or landscaping.

He said goal 3 stated that criteria for location of industrial or employment related uses provide industrial/employment areas to meet the economic needs of the community.  He said if looking at the fact that this was the 4^th desire for renewal of the site plan for land that had not been sold and a building has not been built, showed that the market was saying there was no economic need for that type of use in that part of the City.

Finally, goal 4 stated transportation consideration which promoted a multi nodal transportation system which provided or improved access in circulation within, and adjacent to, industrial areas.  He said in the future development that would be going in southeast of the City and Haskell Street was going to be the route into the City and with a warehouse at that location, it would not meet this goal by a long shot.  He said there was very little way to improve those intersections and those streets to make that compatible with where the future of the City was going to go.

He said in the current zoning code, the M-3 intensive industrial district stated that this district was designed to accommodate the manufacturing/industrial activities which involved more objectionable influence and hazards. The M-3 district regulations were designed to encourage the uses of this district by such industries subject to the minimum regulations necessary for the mutual protection of the permitted uses.  He said whether this site plan was built, just the fact that this area was M-3 meant that in some point in the future, the owner could come back and say that he did not want that to build under that site plan and under the zoning code there would be no way to say “no” to that request.  He said if the City Commission could say “no” based on what was in the general plan and the zoning code, the City Commission could say no to this particular site plan.

He said the code talked about the character.  The appearance of existing neighborhoods and residential areas should be protected and enhanced and clearly this site plan was not going to do that.  The design site improvements and infrastructure shall be consistent with adopted neighborhood plans with the development of a neighborhood concept with area plans and sector plans.  There was a policy to minimize the encroachment of non-residential uses and a policy to involve neighborhood residents.  He said policy 3.3 encouraged compatible infill development. 

He said the new zoning code under the IG, General Industrial District, stated that the IG was primarily intended to accommodate moderate and high impact industrial uses including large scale or specialized industrial operations requiring good transportation access in public facilities and services.  The district was generally incompatible with residential areas in low intensity commercial uses.  He said the way he read the document was that the site plan was bad and the site plan was bad because the zoning was wrong. 

He did not want to see the owner’s property right taken, but the Commission needed to take a hard look at how and when that area became industrial and why that use was still there. 

He said in his view any well thought out program for Rails to Trails was ultimately going to the river and hopefully from the river to the downtown area. 

Jane Eldredge, attorney, speaking on behalf of the applicant for the site plan extension, said that this was not a land use discussion.  However, a number of land use issues had been raised that needed to be addressed. 

She said the staff recommendation was reasonable, but it certainly wasn’t their first choice but it seemed reasonable to allow the property owner to meet with the committees from the area plan committee particularly after they had the opportunity to resolve the outstanding legal issues about the railroad right-of-way and what the options would be within the study area. 

She said as she reviewed the minutes of the City Commission meetings from last fall and the wording of the moratorium itself, it seemed quite clear in the moratorium, that it provided that otherwise valid building permits might be issued for any and all projects that had submitted to the City either a building permit application prior to October 26, 2004 or had submitted a request for a development plan or site plan approval prior to October 26, 2004.  This request for approval had been submitted and had been noted in 2000.  It had been the practice and the precedence of this City to extend site plans upon request. 

She said there was the question about the number of request for extensions, but the other question would be if staff had ever turned down a request for an extension that was not for some reason because of the change in the code or failure to meet a condition on the site plan.  Those were instances where site plans were turned down, but there was no database to perform a thorough search.

This was not an unusual request particularly given the nature of the land.  She said she appreciated the efforts of the neighbors and others to work on a trail project and to work on expansion of a park project.  She said what she was hearing was that those neighbors were encouraging the City to do was to buy this land and make it part of the park and that was certainly a reasonable idea.  The way to do that idea was not to deny a site plan, but to talk to the owner of the property about a sale or gift or some combination purchase.  This type of end run not only left a bad taste in everybody’s mouth, but it unnecessarily delayed and complicated the ultimate goal.  Conversation with the property owner seemed like the first initiative.  It was clear from the moratorium ordinance that the goal was not to disrupt those types of issues in the planning, but to allow those plans that were already started to continue.

The discussion of land use in the area had to start with a comprehensive plan and in reviewing the comprehensive plan, Horizon 2020, it was very important to remember that the plan consisted of a policy plan, a physical plan, long range, comprehensive, and that it provided the vision for the community.  She said the plan was most often used a tool to assist the community’s decision makers in evaluating the appropriateness of land development proposals.  The physical description of the comprehensive plan map showed future land uses for the City of Lawrence.

She said the old sale barn site was shown as industrial and had been zoned industrial for a long time.  In fact, the new development code that was being discussed also showed that area as industrial and was part of the Santa Fe Railroad corridor.  In fact that was an industrial corridor that went from the river to 31^st Street and that was discussed with some specificity in Horizon 2020.  Horizon 2020 pointed out some of the goals that were sited by a previous speaker, unfortunately, that speaker did not talk about goal no. 1 which had to do with the established industrial areas.  The first goal was to allow for the retention, redevelopment, and expansion of established industrial areas.

She said the property owner took the old sale barn down rather than just leaving that barn at that location and it was that property owner that had been working on redevelopment of that project.  The redevelopment did not just consist of a site plan, but consisted of the surveys, preliminary plat, final plat, and proposed sewer work.  It was an expensive, time consuming process. 

She said under goal no. 1, policy 1.1 was to maintain and encourage new development to occur in existing industrial/employment related areas.  She said policy 1.3 talked about the need to concentrate industrial development to maintain an appropriate supply of industrial zoned land so that some choices were available and infrastructure expansion could occur in an efficient and orderly manner.  Existing industrial areas should be improved and upgraded as needed.  Much of this site work had already been done to improve and upgrade the site.

She said this was a plan that had been placed for a long time.  It was important for neighbors and developers to know what the plans were before investments were made. That was why the investments had been made in that property.  She said it was inappropriate to try and take away those uses that had been approved in which investments had been made through a site plan process when all of the existing site plan regulations had been in compliance.  No one had spoken about any site plan regulation that had not been in compliance.

She addressed Grauerholz’s letter and the 7 points that were in that letter.  She said this was a request that was consistent with the moratorium and allowing what was already in progress to continue.  She said it was appropriate to say that the 3 month request to allow the property owner and the existing committee to get together made sense.  This was a regularly scheduled meeting that had an agenda, but that the sale barn site plan extension was not part of that agenda so there was no notice or opportunity to be heard. 

She said there were no substantial changes that had taken place in that vicinity.  If there were any substantial changes, the Commission would have been notified in the staff report.  The only one was the study area that had been identified and that study area moratorium that went with it provided for an exception for the existing uses.

The industrial land inventory benefit that Grauerholz took exception to was precisely what Horizon 2020 was talking about in having a variety of choice available.  Horizon 2020 pointed out that the distinctions between the large industrial parks such as Santa Fe, East Hills, and perhaps in the southeast area where there were 80 or 100 acres, this type of older industrial area was concentrated as Horizon 2020 required industrial to be and it was also allowing for small lots.  She said this was a one lot, one building, one user industrial use or possibly office use that would comply with the code. 

There were no code requirements that had not been met.  The location was suitable for the policies set forth in Horizon 2020.  It was part of the Santa Fe industrial corridor. 

She then presented a map of the area of the many industrial uses. 

She said she hoped the property owner and the committee would have the opportunity to discuss the fact that if there was a Rail to Trail, north of 11^th Street, there was a least a 50 foot right-of-way on either side of that railroad track which was not incompatible with industrial uses.  She said there might be other reasons to change the land use, but it certainly wasn’t to provide for a corridor for a bike or hiking path when there was an access of 100 feet.

She said Grauerhotz quoted the unnecessary hardship definition from the subdivision regulations and she did not think that had any application to the site plan provisions and the zoning ordinance. 

This location was suitable for industrial and one of the reasons it was suitable for industrial and one of the transition zonings that Horizon 2020 suggested, be used, were the medium to high density park areas.   There was a ball park next door and that was not passive recreation and that was medium or higher density recreations and was a suitable buffer to the residential use.

She said 11^th Street was a minor arterial and a truck route. She said industrial uses were to be sited on arterials.  Haskell Avenue was also a minor arterial and was also part of the truck route.  Every single truck that the City of Lawrence owned came down one or two of those streets.  A proposed small industrial use at this location was not going to have a significant impact on the truck traffic that was already there. 

She said their first choice to the City Commission was to ask that this site plan be extended for 12 months because that was consistent with all of the plans, ordinances, and policies and procedures.  Secondly, they were asking that if the Commission was not inclined to approve that request, the alternative would be to send this issue to the committee, have the property owner present, and have a full discussion of what the possibilities were, once the committee had the opportunity to have the full impact of the legal implications of what was available with the Rails to Trails.  She said this was not the appropriate way to try and acquire property.  If the City wanted to buy this property, then the City should talk to the property owner.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked what was the standard to be met for approval or denial of the site plan.

Eldredge said there were no standards in the existing code.  She said a planner had stated that it had been the practice to review site plans to see if any changes had been made and that practice should be continued.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Eldredge agreed that the site plan had a life of 12 months.

Eldredge said yes, that was what the ordinance stated. 

Michael Almon, Brookcreek Neighborhood Land Use Committee Chair and a member of the Burrough’s Creek Area Corridor Plan Committee, read a prepared statement.  He said he found it a bit curious that Eldredge said in her opening statement that this was not a land use discussion, but 75 percent of her comments were on land use.  He said in all due respect, he thought this was very much a land use discussion.  

“As a statement in opposition to this site plan extension, let me provide you with a bit of history about the East Lawrence Neighborhood Plan of 2000 (updated from the 1979 Plan), and the current efforts to revitalize the residential character of East Lawrence, Brook Creek, and Barker Neighborhoods by means of the Burroughs Creek Area Corridor Plan.

About the time that the current owner of this parcel was acquiring his initial site plan approval on 7 November 2000, the East Lawrence Neighborhood Plan Update was being completed.  Like many of the business owners in the neighborhood, Mr. Schwada opposed any restrictions on commercial uses, and before the Plan Update could be approved as policy, he got in just under the wire with site plan approval for the M-3 zoned land.  Having no apparent intention to act on his site plan, Mr. Schwada has simply been using repeated extensions as a place holder.

Here are some of the more salient elements of that ELNA Plan Update of 2000, that have bearing on this requested site plan extension for 911 East 11^th Street.

General Plan Goals, ELNA Plan Update of 2000

1) Four of the Plan's six Primary Goals contradict industrial use on this parcel (and several other parcels as well).

a) Goal: “Preserve and conserve existing physical neighborhood landmarks.”

If ever there were outstanding East Lawrence landmarks, two of the finest are Hobbs Park with it's historic stadium (named after Lawrence's first woman dentist), and it's exception-ally historic John Speer Memorial commemorating one of our strongest abolitionists.

b) Goal: “Protect and enhance neighborhood greenspace.”

911 E. 11^th St. is the keystone candidate for protecting and enhancing Hobbs Park, its purchase by the City being desired for many years by East Lawrence.

c) Goal: “Support neighborhood institutions and programs and preserve, retain and improve existing activity centers.”

Hobbs Park & Memorial Stadium are East Lawrence's only activity centers of their type.

d) Goal; “Enhance pedestrian and automobile routes.”

911 E. 11^th St. may be crucial for establishing logical, convenient and safe connectivity with the north end of the Burroughs Creek Trail, and a truck depot would be in severe conflict with park and trail uses.

During the two year planning process for the ELNA Plan Update, the neighborhood initially included the standard planning format of “goals-policies-objectives” for Land Use, Transportation, Residential, and Non-Residential uses.  For reasons unknown to me, most of  these were deleted from the final document, leaving us only the Six General Goals.  Following are some of the deleted goals and policies and objectives.

2) Land Use Goals & Policies

a) Goal: “Lessen the impact of high and medium intensity land uses.”

b) Policy: “Expansion or intensification of existing industrial uses is not recommended and                                              

must be discouraged.”

c) Policy: “Industrial zoned land not in use or developed which is adjacent to residential uses should be considered for downzoning.”

d) Policy: “Evaluate present zoning classifications of land on the basis of plans and recommendations in the East Lawrence Plan to determine whether it is desirable for the Planning Commission or the City Commission to initiate a change in zoning.”

3)  Transportation Policies

a) Policy: “As in other neighborhood plans, use parkland, open space and the existing streets for bicycle ways, while avoiding those streets with heavy motor traffic.”

4)  Protect/Enhance Neighborhood Green-space, Streetscapes and Other Physical Assets

     a) Objective: Create a park on the old Sale Barn lot with a trail leading to Brook Creek Park, currently listed for sale as an industrial site. (This item was one of the few that was retained in the final document).

Weaknesses of the East Lawrence Plan Update of 2000

The final ELNA Plan Update minimized standard planning format of goals, policies and objectives, and instead heavily weighted the document towards that of implementation by unrelated Task Forces.  The Plan became ineffective for four reasons.  First, with implementation being the key to any useful plan, this one begs the question “Following what goals, policies, and objectives?  Secondly, there is no coordinated oversight of the Task Forces.  Thirdly, the lead agency for most of these Task Forces was impractically given to the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, a volunteer, unpaid, though dedicated group of non-professionals with little time.  And forth, the Planning & Design Task Force lead agency is collectively the businesses of East Lawrence, with no inherent interest in protecting any neighborhood amenities from outside forces of industrial and commercial expansion.

The most glaring example of this conflict of interest came in early 2000, when the Oregon & 13^th Street Warehouse Project was pushed through by an individual who was both an investor and designer of the project, as well as an ELNA Board member.  It was built on fill dirt in what was then the 100 year flood plain, while this man was quoted as “working on a neighborhood friendship park thing, green belt, hike/bike path between East Lawrence and Brook Creek Neighborhoods”.

And now we are faced with another inappropriate warehouse/distribution center, pushed by similar business interests, and amazingly, at possibly the keystone connector point of that long sought after park/trail connector between our neighborhoods.

Connective corridor plans possibly thwarted

While the attitudes and conditions on the East side of Lawrence have been progressively changing with each passing year, the effects of outdated plans and zoning may close out our options before we can realize them.

The most current policy development that has bearing on this site plan is the Burroughs Creek Area Corridor Plan, a joint effort of East Lawrence, Barker and Brook Creek Neighborhoods.  It is intended to finally acknowledge, and then modify, the totally inappropriate industrial land uses that act as a wedge between our three neighborhoods, and which came into being in an era of rail service that is now defunct.  It is a year-long process to study how to restructure the land uses in this corridor and develop a cohesive connectivity of parks and trails.  Included is a year-long building permit moratorium that extends from 9^th Street south to 23^rd Street.  Mr. Schwada's site plan parcel falls into both categories.

The moratorium, of course, is to prevent an industrial project from slipping under the radar before the planning process can reach completion, thus making the whole plan an exercise in futility.  This three acre, M-3 zoned parcel east of Hobbs Park is the poster child of such cases.

Legally, I think this site plan has already expired on 5 November 2003, when Mr Schwada failed to request an extension by 4 November.  I believe staff acted inappropriately by accepting his late request and placing it on your 10 Feb. 2004 consent agenda.  Therefore, this site plan was not “in the pipeline” before the moratorium.  It has expired, and you have every right to require him to file for a new site plan. 

Mr. Schwada claims he has, quote, “several prospects for the land, but these kinds of projects take a great deal of time and patience”.  I do not believe him any more than three or five years ago.  Mr. Schwada has no such intent, no serious plan, no design.  He is merely using these yearly repeated site plan extensions to indefinitely perpetuate his illusory scheme.

911 East 11^th Street is in conflict with the East Lawrence Neighborhood Plan.  It is within the outdated industrial wedge along the defunct rail line.  It is an obstruction to community desires for expanding Hobbs Park and for linking our neighborhoods with a linear park/trail connection.  It has no current legally extent site plan, and a new one will fall under the moratorium.

Mr. Schwada paid only $80,000 for this parcel, and I feel that the City should recognize the dramatically changing conditions in Eastern Lawrence, pay Mr. Schwada $160,000, and develop the site for park/trail use.”

Grauerholz said he agreed with Eldredge in that this was not a land use discussion in spite of all the discussion.  It was a question about the site plan renewal.  What the legal status of the site plan was as of right now, in policy 1.3 Eldredge read that policy, but she did not read the entire 1.3 policy.  He said the sentence that was not read was “Annually evaluate current land use and land availability.”  He said this was a site plan question.

Mayor Rundle said the provision for sunsetting of site plans and other approvals had a common sense background.  As time passed, it allowed them to step back and have another look and reassess so it was not unreasonable to approve the extension, but he noted that this parcel of land had several extensions.  He said one reason to reconsider was to make sure that good planning was done. The moratorium and area plan were already underway and there was a lot of reaction to this particular plan.  He said having a moratorium placed everyone on notice that they were suspending the normal process and taking some time out.  He said they were balancing all those decisions, interest of the community and individuals and all those differences were natural.

He said it was appropriate that the City make an offer to the owner if that was the City’s interest, but this issue gave the City Commission time to think about that issue.  He said it was not unreasonable to deny renewal of the site plan.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he had some concerns about the process and failure to request a timely renewal.  He said it was not good public policy to let a site plan sit for 5 years because he thought there had been some substantial changes in the meantime. 

He said he understood that the land owner had made some investments in that property.  It had been repeatedly said that this was not a land use decision, but a site plan decision.  If the site plan was not renewed, the landowner still had his land and zoning at this time. 

He said it was not good public policy to let a site plan sit for this long.  He said he did not see any precedent for renewing a site plan for the fourth time.  He said even though this was not a land use issue, in looking at that area, the zoning situation would not be tolerated in any other part of town.  The land was across the street from single-family residents and adjacent to a park which was bad planning.

He said the people in those neighborhoods felt like they had been treated like second class citizens for a long time.

Commissioner Schauner echoed Vice Mayor Highberger’s comments, but added that he thought there wasn’t a site plan before the City Commission to be renewed.  He said he believed that site plans had a 12 month life that began on the date the site plan was approved and ended 365 days later.  He said if the City Commission approved this site plan last year, then it would have been an approval that related back to November of 2003 and that site plan that would have arguably been effective November 5, 2003, expired in November of 2004.  Now it was February of 2005, and the City Commission was now hearing for the first time a request to renew a site plan.  He said if that was the way the City Commission was to going to handle that, then essentially they would be giving that site plan 15 months of life.  He said that was not what the code said and, in addition to the reasons stated by Vice Mayor Highberger, he believed that the Commission did not have a site plan to approve.  He said the site plan expired, at the very latest, in November 2004.

Commissioner Dunfield said from the discussion that was heard there did not seem to be a lot to be gained by referring this matter back to the Burrough’s Creek Area Plan Committee for negotiation.  He said if the City was interested in purchasing the property if the corridor plan made recommendations as to the disposal of the property, he thought that would come back to the Commission, but it did not appear from the discussion that there was a lot of room for common ground concerning that particular site plan.

Commissioner Hack said, concerning the moratorium that was approved prior to this site plan, the Commission had been extremely careful to honor those types of projects that had been in the chute.  She said the Commission was looking at property rights and this was clearly in that realm.  She said she understood the neighborhood concerns, but it seemed that there was an opportunity to bring about collaboration between the property owner and the neighborhood.  She said the meeting was set without the property owner and that was setting bad precedent. 

Commissioner Schauner said he did not view this issue as a land use discussion, but strictly as what was the life of the site plan.  If the site plan by code had a 12 month life, that life was extinguished in November of 2004.  There had been no request, nothing from staff until arguably last week when there was a 3 or 4 month delay in getting that request to the City Commission.  He said they were dealing with sophisticated owners and people who knew what the rules were for the zoning code.  It was reasonable to expect those owners to follow those rules.  He said he did not think the City Commission ought to be making an exception to those rules in this case.  He said in his view this was not a matter of whether it was a good or bad use, but he did not think they needed to visit that question.  The question was did the Commission have something before them that they could approve.  He said the short answer was that the Commission did not.  There was no extension to be had and no site plan in existence for the Commission to extend.

Mayor Rundle said he hoped those planning meetings had not been conducted excluding anyone.  He said he wanted to see that corrected if that was the case.  He said going through the re-planning process should benefit everyone mutually.  He said when they had prior discussion about urbanism that was a point that was drug home emphatically that well planned urbanism areas benefit the property owner, community, and the people who live there.  He said planning was going to be helpful to everyone in the end.     

Vice Mayor Highberger said he did not think denying this site plan extension cut off opportunities for collaboration between the land owner, the City, and the neighborhood.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to deny the extension of site plan (SP-01-09-04/SP-08-61-00) for 911 East 11^th Street.  Aye:  Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Hack.  Motion carried.                                                     (31)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

During the City Manager’s Chris Stewart, Assistant Utilities Director- Water, discussed the Downtown Waterline Project and upcoming waterline projects to the City Commission.  He presented maps to the City Commission showing the water lines that had been replaced and future water lines.         

Commissioner Schauner asked if a decision had been made about whether to replace the parking area between 6^th and 7^th Street on Massachusetts with saw tooth parking or go back with the existing straight curb line.

Brian Kingsley, BG Consultants, said there was some staff discussion between the City Engineer and their firm and the decision was made due to budget constraints that during that particular project that saw tooth parking would not be installed at this time.  That would be something in scope that would be beyond the water line project.  There were also some particular concerns about saw tooth parking within that block.   He said there was storm drainage that drains to the curbs unlike the cross section of the blocks that were south of that location.  The storm drainage south of those blocks drained out to a point that was at the edge of the parking or street.  He said there would be storm sewer issues unlike that to the south.  He said the discussion was complex where they ended up scaling back recognizing that some point in the future there would need to be some significant maintenance that happened on that block and that might be a better time to look at saw tooth parking, replacement, and expanding islands.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be an open trenching of the waterline from 6^th to 7^th Streets on the west side of the street.

Kingsley said correct.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the curb and sidewalk would be interrupted in that project.

Kingsley said the curb and sidewalk was going to remain intact with the exception of whatever they had to do to get into a water meter.  He said hopefully they could bridge underneath the existing curb and there might be 2 or 3 foot sections at times.  The entire curb plan was to leave it in place.

Commissioner Schauner said when there was an open trench, would that be an appropriate time from an engineering standpoint to alter the drainage easement along that stretch to accommodate a different style parking.

Kingsley said that was a street reconstruction rather than just removing it and replacing on grade the existing surfacing.  He said there would be an area approximately 5 foot wide disturbed as a trench.  He said in order to change the cross section of that road they would be impacting a small area of that cross section with the waterline project.

Mayor Rundle said he appreciated that Stewart showed the City Commission the overall, long-term history of that project. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what would staff do to announce to people, well in advance, that there would be interruptions in traffic flow along 6^th Street and then up Massachusetts.  He asked if signs would be placed at those locations in advance.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said signage and direct contact.  The contractor, per specifications, would be assigned the responsibility of advising all those businesses when and when they would not be there. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was thinking of the traveling public.   He said he had a feeling that would not be a pleasant stretch of 6^th Street to be on when that project took place.  He said to the extent that staff could make that information widely available it would be helpful.

Kingsley said they had a plan to involve downtown business owners.  He said they would have a project informational board that would hopefully convey a lot of information to people driving by and in addition, they would send out flyers to each and every business and encourage that they put a copy of that project sign in their storefront window.  He said the sign would have the phasing information for that particular project along with some details so that the people in the block further south also know of the waterline project.

Wildgen said the only day that they would not be working on the waterline was the sidewalk sale in July.

Mayor Rundle asked if staff could think of ways to divert traffic that did not need to go through that area.

Wildgen said when approaching the east, there would be signs that would indicate to use Tennessee to avoid Massachusetts Street.

Commissioner Schauner said the 27^th and SLT Pedestrian Bike Signs Installation might have been on a previous agenda, but he asked when KDOT would be installing those upgrades for the traveling public along the SLT that came as a result of the fatality at that intersection.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said those signs had been ordered and staff anticipated getting those signs in before next soccer season, but their goal was a March timeframe.                                                                                                            (32)

REGULAR AGENDA

Receive request from Investment Resources Corporation (IRC) for a resolution of support for State of Kansas tax credits for Vermont Towers, 1101 Vermont Street.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report.  He said this item was on a prior agenda to receive the request.  Staff had placed their letter and references and some information about the Federal Tax Credit that this project was seeking to be eligible for.  He talked to Matt Cantanese, Vice President, Investment Resources Corporation, who indicated that he would not be able to attend the City Commission meeting, but he was still asking for City Commission consideration on this item. 

He said in response to some of the questions that were raised by Vice Mayor Highberger, there was a HUD requirement that the occupants of the Vermont Towers would be notified, but he was not aware of any other independent notification.

He said he asked Cantanese if he would object to including in the resolution a condition that there would not be any involuntary relocation of tenants, but that was not their plan.  He said they had indicated that their improvements to the facility would not require any relocation of the tenants.  The various improvements were outlined in the staff memo along with the requirement of not relocating tenants.  He said there was no objection by Cantanese and that was their promise. 

Commissioner Schauner said was that commitment on not having any involuntary relocation something they were willing to put in writing.

Corliss said they were willing to put that in writing, but staff wanted to place that as a condition of approval and there were no objections.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he had talked to a staff member of the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation and they had worked on quite a number of projects and although the person he had talked to had not worked directly with him, he had stated that they had a good reputation.

Mayor Rundle called for pubic comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Dunfield, said if they had the opportunity to get some help from the State of Kansas for affordable housing, they should take it. 

Mayor Rundle said those projects could change because of the market rate and it was always great when those companies decide to continue the original use and purpose.  

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6577, regarding a request from Investment Resources Corporation (IRC) for a resolution of support for State of Kansas tax credits for Vermont Towers, 1101 Vermont Street, on the condition that the proposed rehabilitation will not cause the relocation of existing tenants.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                    (33)

Receive letter and staff report concerning construction of westbound left turn lane at the intersection of 23^rd Street and O’Connell Road.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report.  He said the Peridian Group was the engineering consulting firm for Southwind Capital for this project.  He said when the final plat for the development on the west side of O’Connell Road was approved the preliminary plat indicated that the development would be responsible for an east bound right turn lane on 23^rd Street.  As they had proceeded with the design of that project, they had been in consultation with Kansas Department of Transportation.  He said KDOT officials along with City Public Works officials felt strongly that the preferred and first public improvement on 23^rd Street at that location should be a west bound left turn lane on 23^rd Street.  He said when staff heard that concern staff convened a meeting and had discussions about how best to proceed in light of those interests.  He said KDOT and Public Works emphasized that while the right turn lane was desired the left turn lane was something that was wanted right now.  There was no requirement for the left turn lane to be built on anything that the Commission had approved at this time.  He said the thinking on the westbound left turn lane was that you had 23^rd Street traffic moving along at a fairly good clip and in many cases having to stop at O’Connell to make the left turn to go south onto O’Connell and as that area developed, that left turn lane was desired.

He said what staff was suggesting was that a special assessment benefit district would be established that would pay for the costs of the improvement.  The City would be reimbursed from Southwind Capital and the amount that they would pay now for that eastbound right turn lane and then the rest of the costs for the improvement would be assessed on the property that was already annexed into the City. 

The property owners also were agreeing before they would pull any building permits on any of the remainder of the development here or on the property that they wanted to develop on the east side of O’Connell, that they would then be required to build the right turn lane.  He said essentially what was being done was swapping out the public improvements.  They were still getting the same public improvements at a little bit of a different timing and there was no additional public costs for those improvements.  He said the City was helping to finance through special assessment financing, but the City was getting repaid.  He said staff thought this achieved a better goal for the public at this time to get that westbound left turn lane in.  He said it would require the City to annex the right-of-way on 23^rd Street and he wanted to make it clear that they were not talking about annexing the property east of O’Connell because that was part of the Southeast Area Land Use Plan that the Commission would be reviewing in the coming weeks which was a separate issue, but the City did need to annex property that a public improvement would be built on.

He said the City Commission’s action would be to alter the plat requirement on the property to the west of O’Connell and direct staff to proceed with the necessary requirements to establish the benefit district which included the annexation and a public hearing would be held on the establishment of the benefit district.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve Option 1 as outlined in the February 3, 2005 staff memo regarding O’Connell and 23^rd street intersection issues and authorized the construction of a westbound left turn at this time which would require the annexation of some KDOT 23^rd Street right-of-way at the place of construction; a benefit district would be established after annexation.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                       (34)

Receive proposed revised University of Kansas/City of Lawrence land use agreement. 

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said in December 2004, the first draft of the agreement was not acceptable and was not accepted by the Planning Commission.  Staff subsequently met with K.U. and had came up with a second draft to submit to the Planning Commission.  This draft agreement would be on their March 9^th meeting that would involve the development code.  He said it was fairly accepted that this was a better draft agreement in which it addressed a number of issues that the Planning Commission was concerned with and the member of the public.  He said if the City Commission wanted a detailed description staff could accommodate that or the agreement could be referred to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not need the detailed comparison now, but he would like to have some written comparison of the two drafts.

Mayor Rundle said the University contacted the City Commission immediately after that action last year and said that the University was going to set aside three days to discuss this item.  He said you might think those were slight changes, but it was important.  He said they did not need those three days to discuss that matter, but they had good dialogue and a better understanding on both sides. 

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Jason Boots, Student Senate, University of Kansas, said he thought the City and the University had both bit the bullet on some issues to make this work.  Between the past revision and this revision nobody has had to bite the bullet.  The things that had been changed were by pure compromise.  He said he wanted to submit to the City and Planning Commission that as far as the University was concerned, they found that this was an acceptable document and they hoped that it would pass through as quickly as possible.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to refer the proposed land use agreement to the Planning Commission as part of a March 9, 2005 public hearing on the development code.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (35)  

Commissioner Dunfield said he hoped the Planning Commission would act positively on that agreement.  Since this issue came up as they were discussing the new development code, he searched and noticed a number of articles about University expansion in relation to City zoning and City development regulations.  He said as far as he knew this was the only case in which a City and a University had sat down together voluntarily and came to a mutual agreement without threats and attempts to force the issue on the other.  He said that spoke well of the City of Lawrence and the University of Kansas.       

Commissioner Hack echoed Commissioner Dunfield’s comment.  She said it had been a long process, but to have had agreements and disagreements on both sides and to iron out something that was a good compromise which could be a model for other communities with Universities.  She said she hoped the Planning Commission looked upon that proposed land agreement favorably.

Mayor Rundle said he searched for University zoning information when this issue first came to the Planning Commission.  The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, had University zoning and they worked through that process.  He said one of the Universities in California had a need to expand and went through a planning process and the community and the University came to an agreement on an expansion plan.  He said this was a similar model, but it was certainly not the only model for cooperation.             

Receive staff report on traffic calming improvements. Consider Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) recommendation of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association Traffic Calming Plan.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report.  He said in November 2004, the Traffic Safety Commission heard a proposal from the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association to install traffic calming in West Lawrence.  The West Lawrence Neighborhood Association submitted a plan for speed cushions along Harvard, from Wakarusa west and 2 gateway treatments.     

The Traffic Safety Commission recommended that all the speed cushions that met the policy be approved and that there was no need for the gateway treatments.

He said the furthest west speed cushion at this point the traffic volumes and speeds did not meet the policy, but at some point in the future, they might.  Staff reviewed this improvement with the Police and Fire Departments and staff concurred that the speed cushion located between Deer Run and Langston Court should be approved.  The speed cushion furthest west, west of Stoneridge was not needed. The two speed cushions furthest to the east just off of Wakarusa were not necessary.  The speed cushion on Congressional, staff would agree with and staff did not have any problems with the gateway treatments provided that the gateway treatment just to the east of Harvard did not interfere with the improvement that they might make at some point in the future.

He said the City Commission had approved several traffic calming plans with several neighborhoods and they did not have an identified source for funding those plans.   The University Place Traffic Calming Plan was also in the middle of some streets that staff was looking at and placing on the 2005 Mill and Overlay Program.  Last year staff presented Louisiana and 17^th Streets, but because staff needed to address the curbs, it did not seem that staff would want to perform the mill and overlay and come back to tear some of that mill and overlay out to redo the intersections.  He said staff was looking for some direction on how to pay for some of those improvements.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked why the Traffic Safety Commission was opposed to the gateway treatments.

Alan Cowles said the TSC comment was that they had not done those gateway treatments before.    

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if staff received speed numbers for the areas where the middle speed cushions were on Harvard.

Soules said there was a range from 38.2 to 48.9 at the 85^th percentile.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked for the location of the 48.9.

Soules said it was east bound between Columbine Court and Colonial Circle.

Commissioner Schauner asked when those speed counts were done.

Soules said April 5^th.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there were any speed counts for those locations further west.

Soules said 38.4 westbound and 34.9 eastbound and going further west it was 35.3 westbound and 35.1 eastbound.

Commissioner Hack asked Soules to describe the gateway treatments.

Soules said there was a gateway treatment on Folks Road and Mulberry.  He said staff was narrowing the width of the street to 11 foot face of curb to face of curb.  They were also putting in some speed humps.  He said there was also landscape medians put in the middle separating the two lanes of traffic. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about the current Capital Improvement Plan discussion about improvement the intersection of Harvard and Wakarusa.

Soules said right now David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, and Bill Ahrens, Planner, were taking traffic counts and they would come back with recommendations on that corridor for improvements in that area which would be later this spring or summer.  He said the TSC would be reviewing in March a priority system to schedule and prioritize those traffic calming plans when they should be put in.  He said TSC was looking at accidents, traffic, and speeds.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Alan Cowles said he assumed that the discussion would not go deeply into funding at this time.  He said funding was a big concern because there were a lot of other demands on the City budget.  Traffic had been a big concern for quite a long time in their area and was one of the biggest concerns, not only the speed on Harvard, but the fact that the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa was slated to at time become over saturated the way Congressional was built and they would have a lot of cut-through traffic.

He said he had a petition signed by over a hundred people which was done last April without reference to a particular plan and it was just a general expression of the concern and need for some type of a traffic calming plan. 

He said City staff had presented to the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association a detailed lecture on traffic calming devices which helped a lot.  He said the TSC approved the plan with the exception of the gateways and staff approved the plan with the exception of the two speed cushions on Harvard.  He said he objected to staff’s disapproval of those speed cushions because of the traffic speed.  He said even though there were no homes that faced on to Harvard, a toddler could get from the end of the cul-de-sac to Harvard Road in less than two minuets and a five year old on a bicycle could get to that location in less than a minute.  He said it was little consolation that there were no houses facing on Harvard. 

The vast majority of the neighbors agreed that there should be some type of traffic calming and the neighbors wanted to go slow with the implementation to see how things would work with the speed cushion in other areas.  He said the vast majority of neighbors would like to avoid traffic circles.  He pointed out that Harvard was going to become the main corridor for children going to and from Langston Hughes School from hundreds of houses.

Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said they were allowed to perform some traffic studies of the area and one corner alone had 50 accidents. 

She said there were plans to signalize 15^th and Wakarusa, improvements at Harvard and Wakarusa, and Inverness and Wakarusa.  She presented a map of the area and explained the problems that would occur in that area such as cut-through traffic and high speeds in the area.

She said the speed cushions would be a benefit for the most part and the speed cushions were going to be part of both gateways. 

She presented data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association to the City Commission concerning speed cushions. Speed cushions would cost between $10,000 to $20,000 however, traffic circles would cost between $15,000 to $25,000.  She said a gateway was compatible with traffic circles.  She said they would like for the people to have the option to understand while at 6^th and Congressional or Harvard and Wakarusa that they would be able to see a gateway to decide whether they wanted to go through a residential area.

Kevin Loos said he moved into that neighborhood along Stonecreek Drive which was three blocks off of Harvard about a year and a half ago and was shocked at the number of kids that lived in that area.  He said on his block alone there were probably 15 or 16 houses developed and 10 to 12 kids who were grade school or younger on that street alone.  He said as thinking about Harvard being the main thoroughfare to Langston Hughes, it became a concern because that was the route those children would take.

Mark O’Lear, resident living on Stonecreek Drive, said there were a lot of young kids in the neighborhood and would like to see as many speed cushions as possible to slow the traffic down in their area.

Commissioner Schauner said he supported the notion of slowing traffic in that area along with both the gateways and speed cushions.  He said there was one other piece that had not been discussed, but needed to be considered which was that as soon as the park was developed on the east side of George Williams Way by the school there would be an increased volume of pedestrian traffic across George Williams Way and as that street was opened to 6^th Street or 40 highway, that speed was going to increase dramatically because it was a wide open street with a long uninterrupted run.  He said part of what he would like the TSC to consider was what they could do to make that a safe pedestrian crossing as part and parcel of this speed control issue in this West Lawrence neighborhood.  He said the City Commission needed to do what they could as soon as they could to place those traffic safety devices.

Soules said there would be a roundabout at the intersection of Harvard and George Williams Way and traffic would need to slow down.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not know the distance from the school to Harvard and George Williams Way.

Soules said the school abutted that intersection so Harvard was on the north end of the school property.

Commissioner Schauner asked how far it was from the building itself because that property extended north of the building.

Soules said he would need to check.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like the TSC to look at how they could provide a safe pedestrian crossing for those children who walk to Langston Hughes from the West Lawrence neighborhood.          

Commissioner Hack said the speed cushions and gateway treatment was a good idea.  

Vice Mayor Highberger supported the request with the exception of the furthest west speed cushion.  He said there was some disagreement about whether the gateway treatments involved speed cushions or not, but that could be worked out down the road. 

He said approving traffic calming devices did not calm traffic and they needed to have discussion of how they would fund those devices.  He said he was glad the TSC would be going through a prioritization process on those traffic calming devices and the City Commission’s job would be to identify a funding stream so those devices could start being placed.

Commissioner Dunfield said he agreed with the traffic calming proposals, but as a soon to be retired politician, he said it had been suggested from various source that one of the way neighborhoods could help slow down traffic in their neighborhoods was for the neighborhood residents to drive 5 miles an hour under the speed limit on those streets at all times.  He said in some community’s people even identify their vehicles as neighborhood pace cars.  He said that idea was something the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association might want to discuss.

Mayor Rundle said the comments about going slow in terms of implementation should be discussed.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to receive the staff report on traffic calming improvements and direct staff to proceed with all proposed gateway treatments and proposed speed cushions except the western most speed cushion request on Harvard Road.     Motion carried unanimously.                                                   (36)

Commissioner Hack suggested as the City Commission went through their budgeting process to have some prioritizing, directions, and options to explore funding.

Commissioner Schauner suggested that to be more concrete about the Capital Improvement Projects that that would be an appropriate place to have a discussion about speed devices, gateway treatments and other options so they could have a date that people could look forward to as firm enough to rely upon for the installation of those devices.

Consider approving City Commission meeting minutes from January 25, 2005.  City staff requests that the Commission review the conditions of approval for the Auto Exchange site plan in the January 25, 2005 minutes.  Specifically, conditions 1 and 6.  Condition 1 does not reflect the recommendation of Assistant City Manager Corliss, that “Filing of a public access easement to the City, in an instrument form acceptable to the City, across Lot 3A Dunigan Subdivision.”  Additionally, staff believes that the wording of Condition #6 reflects Commission direction, but desires that the Commission confirm the wording of this condition

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said at the January 25^th meeting the Commission established conditions for the preliminary development plan for the Auto Exchange at the intersection of 33^rd and Iowa.  As staff was reviewing the City Commission’s minutes, staff had questions as to whether or not the minutes adequately articulated conditions no. 1 and 6.  He said condition 1 dealt with the issue of the access easement across lot 3A Dunigan Subdivision (a.k.a. Pizzeria Uno site).  He said condition 6 dealt with the issue of the removal of access onto 33^rd Street if alternative access to pubic right-of-way was established.

He said when looking at the January 25^th minutes on condition 1 was a requirement dealing with the cross access easement.  He said as he recalled the meeting and discussion, Commissioner Schauner and he had a discussion about the importance of the wording of those conditions and he had emphasized the necessity of the City being a party to the access easement and the desire that the Pizzeria Uno property owner dedicate a public access easement to the City.  He said when looking at the end of the meeting minutes, the City Commission approved the conditions and then there was a statement from Corliss stating that he understood there would be the public access easement and the minutes did not reflect any response.  He asked for clarification of that item.                               

He said another item that staff would like the Commission to look at was condition no. 6 dealing with the issue of the removal of access to 33^rd Street access when alternative public access was available. 

He said subsequent to staff’s desire to clarify in the minutes, the applicant had provided staff with additional communications concerning this development plan.  He said staff had met with the applicant to discuss the development plan, condition and to look at alternatives.  He said the one thing he thought and the Public Works staff agreed was that if the City Commission would initiate a special assessment benefit district to establish a roundabout at 33^rd and Nieder and as part of that project include a median along 33^rd Street, full access for the Auto Exchange site would be allowed because there would be a median constructed.  He said staff thought that was a good final solution to this area.

He said the action of the City Commission was to approve the minutes for clarification, but staff also thought it would be good to try to clarify the development plan as to what those conditions were.

Mayor Rundle said, concerning resolving the access, he asked if that was a new idea.

Corliss said the preliminary development plan that the City Commission approved established conditions on providing a right turn only access point and required that there would be a southern access point and that they would obtain a cross access easement from the Pizzeria Uno site, but he encouraged a public access easement that the City would be partner to and then in condition 6 stated that when alternative public access was available to the site through public right of way, in other words the Pizzeria Uno access and the Nieder access, the access on 33^rd Street would be eliminated.  He said that was the intent of the wording.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if Corliss’ interpretation was that both the southern and northern access points needed to be established before 33^rd Street was closed.

Corliss said correct.  He said the City could not take away access to the 33^rd Street location unless they provided alternative access to public right of way.  He said that did not mean that the City Commission needed to approve any development plan that came through that had access at 33^rd Street.  It also did not mean that the Commission could not condition that access on 33^rd Street, for example, for a median construction.  It had been staff’s opinion that access on 33^rd Street could be allowed to be continued if there was a median on 33^rd Street.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said the short answer was that they would access the property from the south if the City could provide a public access easement or to 33^rd Street if they could meet the conditions that were previously discussed.  He said when they discussed the roundabout it was thought if they could initiate a benefit district that might be the best solution for that property and other properties in the area. 

He said the appropriate action would be that the City Commission reconsider the conditions of the previous approval and City staff was in agreement.  He said that idea would solve the problem and that would get the project moving. There were a few conditions such as condition 1, 6 and 2a, 2b, and 2j that needed to be changed because those conditions referenced a cross access easement that in theory would no longer apply.  He said the median along 33^rd Street was great, the roundabout helped get traffic in and they could deal with other issues on that site with the development plan.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the status of the cross access easement with Pizzeria Uno.

Werner said it was a surprise when they received a letter that stated the change from a cross access easement to a public easement which was a semi-major difference.  He said he tried to contact the manager, but the manager had not contacted him.  He said there was no incentive on the manager’s part to go out of his way. 

He said the next step was the problem with Nieder Road.  He said in their minds the benefit district and the improvement along 33^rd Street was a better answer.  He said to have a property owner spend a million dollars and even with whatever the type of easement that went across Pizzeria Uno’s, to have Nieder Road that would not have legal access was not the right thing to do, but if the City could accomplish that they would access it from the south.  If that was not going to work then the access to 33^rd Street with a median and a roundabout was the right way to go.

Commissioner Schauner asked who would be in the benefit district that would pay for the construction of the roundabout and the median.

Corliss said that would include the subject property Auto Exchange, Culver’s, McDonald’s, Target, J.C. Penny’s, and the properties immediately at that intersection.  He said the benefit district might go north.  He said when McDonald’s had acquiesced in an agreement not-to-protest the benefit district there was that specific discussion about improvements at 33^rd and Nieder Road and staff could already forecast that in the future that was going to be a need.  There was also additional right-of-way dedication that staff thought at that time would be sufficient.

He said a good traffic needs case could be made to those property owners in that they would benefit from having smoother traffic on 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Schauner asked what would happen if those properties did not acquiesce.

Corliss said if they protest out the benefit district, then that would kill the benefit district.

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff knew at this point whether those other merchants were willing to pay some proportionate share of that cost.

Corliss said no.  He said he had not contacted those property owners.  If the City Commission wanted to proceed, that would be the issue that needed to be addressed.

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was if staff did not know with some certainty that benefit district could be assembled to pay for those traffic improvements, was the applicant willing to sit and wait until staff figured out whether that benefit district could be assembled.

Corliss said the applicant did not want to sit and wait, but it could be contingent upon approval.  If they wanted full access on 33^rd Street, then they would need a median. The vehicle for the median was the benefit district.  If there was no median, then the only access they could have on 33^rd Street was right-in which meant they would need to get access to the south.

Werner said a number of those property owners had signed agreements not-to-protest a benefit district.  He said to make revisions to the preliminary development plan, submit a final plan, and a final plat was 4 or 5 months worth of work.  If the City Commission initiated that benefit district it could be discussed within a month or 6 weeks.  He said he did not think their process needed to stop.

The other issue that was discussed was that sometimes they shot for a bigger project than they needed.  He said they needed a median.  He said their property was only 70 feet wide.  He said if worst came to worst, they could have a 100 foot median.  He said there was a problem at that location now and it did not function.  He said an 80 foot long median would solve their problem and they would have direct access to 33^rd Street.  He said Culvers, McDonald’s, Target and Auto Exchange had already signed agreements not-to-protest.  He said that being said there were enough property owners to get the benefit district moving along.  He said they did not want to wait and they had a lot of things to do. 

Commissioner Hack asked Werner that with a median, Auto Exchange would have a right-in and right-out.

Werner said since Auto Exchange property was so close to the curb and the radius along Iowa, it would be a 25 foot wide direct access.

Corliss said with a median, there was no need to have the pork chop right-in/right-out.      

Commissioner Hack asked what would that do with the other request and could they live with just that median.

Werner said the applicant would live with just that median.  He said obviously a through lane was the best solution for everyone.  He said the 33^rd Street access would solve their signage issues and getting people in and out.  The median and the roundabout in the long run was the best answer, but all things being equal, the best thing was the benefit district.

Mayor Rundle asked if Corliss looked at the requirements for protest to determine whether there was enough property and ownership to avoid that protest.

Corliss said he had not looked at those requirements yet.  He said the larger property owners would be key.  He said if Target participated in the benefit district, then it would happen.  He said McDonald’s and Auto Exchange would already participate in the benefit district and was advised that Culver’s might, but he had not had chance to pull the recorded agreements not-to-protest to determine that.

He said the City Commission needed to adopt the minutes and reflect their action on that night.  He said it would be appropriate for the Commission to direct staff and the applicant concerning their proposal.  He said he did not think it would be genuine to the minutes to change an action from what was done a couple of weeks ago.  He said the Commission would want to adopt what was the correct wording and if there was a successful benefit district established and a median in place, then full access was allowed on 33^rd Street.  Otherwise there needed to be only right-in access and southern access.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if the correction for the clarification of the minutes was the question of the first condition and whether that meant a public easement.

Corliss said yes.       

Commissioner Dunfield said that was his understanding.

Corliss asked the Commission to look at condition no. 6 as well to make sure that was the correct wording.  He said the Commission’s action would be to approve the minutes with the language that he provided on condition no. 1.  After that was done, then the Commission could reconsider that action.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to approve the minutes with the suggested language change for condition no. 1 which condition should read, “Filing of a public access easement to the City, in an instrument form acceptable to the City, across Lot 3A Dunigan Subdivision.”  Motion carried unanimously.   

Mayor Rundle said the variation the Commission was going to consider on the access was not substantial enough to go back to the Planning Commission.

Corliss said he did not believe so.  He said the Planning Commission would see the final development plan.  Essentially the Commission was saying that this was alternative no. 1.  Alternative no. 2 was that full access could be had on 33^rd Street with a median and they would facilitate a median with a benefit district.

Werner said alternative no. 1 did not work and could not be done.

Commissioner Dunfield asked what form that needed to come in.    

Corliss said the Commission might want to reconsider approval of this preliminary development plan and add a condition no. 7 that indicated that if full access on 33^rd Street would be allowed with a median.  The only way that a median was going to be constructed was with the roundabout special assessment benefit district.

Commissioner Dunfield said that was not what he had heard.

Commissioner Schauner said he heard a roundabout and median as a benefit district.

Werner said the median could be its own benefit district. 

Corliss said staff’s preference was to solve this issue all at once.

Werner said their preference was the roundabout and the median.

Mayor Rundle said the median restricted left turns into the property and that seemed like that was not full access.

Werner said the concern was what Commissioner Dunfield talked about during the last Commission meeting.  He said with Terese Gorman’s, City Engineer’s, comments was if it was just the median you would still have people to 20 feet past and make a u-turn.  He said they wanted the roundabout benefit district and again, there was already a problem at that location and why it was already studied.  He said if they could add a median to that benefit district and do it all as one was better.

Commissioner Hack asked if Werner did not want to be held to the roundabout, but the median.

Werner said he did not want to separate the two.

Mayor Rundle said if there was no roundabout, you would have people making 3 point turns and other conflicts.

Soules said that issue was a possibility.  He said traffic was making those conflicting movements on 31^st Street by Home Depot. 

Corliss said the Commission’s action would be to reconsider the approval of the preliminary development plan and add a condition no. 7 that required a construction of a median and a roundabout at 33^rd and Nieder Road if the property owner was unable to attain access from the south.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was anyway the City could facilitate getting the access from the south and if it was going to be a public easement could they do a condemnation.

Corliss said it could be condemned, but those costs should be borne by this applicant and might be significant costs.

Commissioner Hack said if it was public access, then why would the applicant need to pay those costs.

Mayor Rundle said he did not want that issue to be completely dead if there was a possibility someday for that access because that seemed preferable.

Commissioner Schauner said condition no. 7 would be that there be a benefit district created to construct a roundabout at 33^rd and Nieder Road and a median as further conditioned on the site plan on 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if the Commission was saying something to the effect that access from that site to 33^rd Street would not be eliminated provided a successful benefit district was formed to create a roundabout and median.

Corliss said yes.

 Finger said it should say to retain access to 33^rd Street for a roundabout and median would be required.

Commissioner Schauner said and if they did not have a successfully formed benefit district, what would happen to the access on 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Dunfield said they already had that.

Mayor Rundle said Finger had captured the language in which to retain access to 33^rd Street.

Finger added that at benefit district shall be formed for a median and roundabout at 33^rd and Nieder Road.

Mayor Rundle said that would be condition no. 7.

Mayor Rundle said that the applicant may retain access to 33rd Street with a successful formation of a benefit district for the completion of a median and roundabout.

Thompson said if that were to happen in that they were successful in getting the median and the roundabout built and the benefit district established to pay for it, but were not able to obtain a cross access easement from lot 3A, technically the project would fail and they would not be allowed to proceed.  He said condition no. 7 needed alternative language that stated in the event this was done, but the cross access easement could not be obtained across lot 3A, then the project could still proceed.

Commissioner Dunfield said successful completion of the benefit district project would eliminate condition no. 1 and condition no. 6.

Mayor Rundle asked what if in the future for some reason that that intersection had to be changed and had cut-off the 33^rd Street access, could it be said that in the event that there was ever loss then that requirement would still be in effect. 

Corliss said if in the future, the access needed to be removed on 33^rd Street, the City would still have the legal obligation to provide them with alternative access.  He said the City had the police power right now to remove that access on 33^rd Street if the City could provide them with an alternative right-of-way regardless of what any of the development plans said.  The fact that staff would say conditions no. 1 and no. 6 shall be removed upon the successful completion of a median and roundabout at 33^rd Street did not take away the City’s ability to remove access to 33^rd Street if the City could provide alternative access to that property. 

Commissioner Schauner said except that it would put the onus on the City to provide the access rather than the onus on the applicant.

Thompson said the City already had that onus and that was creating this problem.  Thompson said what the applicant had said was if they could give him a full public access on the south end of his lot across Pizzeria Uno’s it was okay.  He said it was not the applicant’s preference and created some problems in terms of circulation and signage, but the applicant was willing to live with that idea.  Alternatively, a better solution for everyone, was to construct a median and roundabout and then the applicant could have the full access and the concerns about the full access on 33^rd Street were gone because they would no longer be worried about people turning right off of Iowa and then immediately trying to take a left into the driveway.  The median took care of that problem and the roundabout created the appropriate circulation. 

He said either the City needed to give them the cross access on the south side, public access out to Nieder Road to 33^rd Street, or construct the median and the roundabout.

Commissioner Dunfield said the language that Corliss mentioned covered that idea.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the last time they discussed this issue was to the effect that the Commission could declare Nieder Road to be a public access point rather than a private road.            

Finger said they would extend the road, but it was not actually Nieder Road.

Corliss said when that issue was last discussed, it was believed that they could declare the private drive, known as Nieder Road, south of 33^rd Street, as the public access easement that was set forth or called out for in the development plan.  He said staff could make that administrative determination and notify the property owners so that the property owners had the opportunity to challenge that idea before the Board of Zoning Appeals as an administrative decision.  He said there would be some type of process in order to solidify that idea.  He said staff had not done that in other situations, but those were the facts that they had with the development plans as written.  He said there was some of that same authority on the Pizzeria Uno site.  He said it did not really speak to who maintained any of that across the parking lot and there might be an issue because it was not legally described on that site.  He said whether or not that was going to be sufficient public right-of-way for the City to take away that public access point on 33^rd Street was probably a point where staff would disagree with the applicant and that might be a point of contention in the future.

He said what staff was seeing was a solution to a traffic situation that was seen now and was likely to exacerbate in the future that took away staff’s concern about the access point on Auto Exchange and did not leave staff in that gray area on all those other instruments.  He said this was the preferred means that staff saw as an alternative.  He said he expressed his frustration about the Culver’s language as well and that was what staff had.    

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if flow through traffic was still the preference.

Thompson said absolutely.

Vice Mayor Highberger said that would be his preference too. 

Thompson said the roundabout and median end existing to the south was straight.  He said if they had a median, a roundabout, and an access to the south would be the best solution.

Vice Mayor Highberger said the discussion last time about closing 33^rd Street was based on the existing condition.  He said if they adopted a condition on the median and roundabout it would take that away and given that, flow through traffic was obviously the best solution.  He said he was thinking about sanitation trucks and how would they handle that site.  He said his preference was to condition approval on a benefit district for the median and roundabout and also not require proceeding with condemnation to obtain a public access easement for the property. 

Commissioner Schauner asked who would pay for the cost of the condemnation, the cost of the acquisition because that should not be a City cost.

Vice Mayor Highberger said that would be a question for the land owner and if they were willing to assume those costs, if not, they could go back to the single access on 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Hack said if that was going to be cross access to a public street, she asked why would that be totally borne by the applicant.

Vice Mayor Highberger said it was access through a private parking lot to a private road to a public street.

Mayor Rundle said his comments were directed at preserving the opportunity in the future for that flow through.  He said he didn’t see that they were necessarily going to get it right away, but he did want to see them leave their selves in the best position for future condemnation or whatever.  If there was a way they could leave that language in there, maybe it did not give them a better footing.  They would not be held responsible for getting that now and they would have the access on 33rd Street with the roundabout and median.

Corliss said he agreed and he thought the Commission should leave those options open.  He said he had not thought through the implications of a condemnation.  He said they might want to administratively determine that this was where the access easement that was declared on the plat was and let the property owner challenge it.   He said staff was laying out their cards for all the public to see, but that was his preference.  He said it was not that burdensome on the property and Werner indicated that his clients were willing to pay for some of the traditional cross access concerns about maintenance and other things.  

Commissioner Hack asked if the Commission was in agreement that they wanted staff to initiate the benefit district for the median and the roundabout, allowing for direct access on 33^rd Street, explore the possibility of an access to the south and not hinge the closing of one access on the opening of another access.  She said the Commission needed to look for ways to get that project going as opposed to ways to complicate things.   

Mayor Rundle said he thought he heard unanimous decision on the median and roundabout.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not have a problem with the median and the roundabout, but he thought the devil was in the details in terms of retaining conditions no. 1 and no. 6, and condition their operational status if the 33^rd Street exit was lost because of some unknown future event.  He said that was what he heard the Mayor stating.  He said this was a classic belt and suspenders approach.

Commissioner Hack asked if that was placing an undue burden on this particular situation more than anyone else.  She said there were always unknown situations.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was a way to make it more of an affirmative thing that kept this moving toward trying to get that right-of-way.

Corliss said the applicant wanted to keep the project moving and that would be platting and the final development plan.  He said staff could explore an action on the part of the City that established an access easement across the Pizzeria Uno driveway, much like as discussed doing on the private Nieder Road.  He said that might be sufficient to stop the log jam and to move things through.

Mayor Rundle asked if it was meaningless to simply say “if the City or the applicant were able to get those it was still desired.” 

Corliss suggested that condition no. 7 would read “access to 33^rd Street shall be retained upon the successful completion of a median and a roundabout at 33^rd Street and Nieder Road.”  He said condition no. 1 and no. 6 shall be removed from the development plan upon completion of the median and roundabout at 33^rd Street and Nieder.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said they could not get the project released because all of the conditions would need to be met.  She said if waiting for condition no. 7 to be met, then the project could not be released because condition no. 1 and no. 6 were there and she would not be able to release it if condition no. 1 and no. 6 were not met.

Corliss said he understood Finger’s comment.  He said condition no 7 would need to be released if they could accomplish condition no. 1 through 6.

Mayor Rundle said if the City wanted to exercise condemnation proceedings for that southern access and it was not mentioned in the site plan, what gave them the standing to do that.  He said the property owner could say that this site plan was approved without that requirement. 

Corliss suggested that staff would try to establish it on their own by pointing out that on the plat there was a requirement that there would be an access easement across the Pizzeria Uno parking lot.  He said the Pizzeria Uno plat had a requirement that the City would determine the appropriate location of a cross access easement.  The difficulty was there was no legal description and nothing on the plat that showed them exactly where the location was.  He said staff could go ahead and exercise that and say that this had been the administrative determination and the applicant could challenge the City if they cared to, but the City would see if that would stick.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not comfortable with this idea.  He said the applicant would be at a disadvantage.  He said if he was the applicant, he would not know exactly what the governing body had done.  He said he would much prefer to see a written game plan from staff for the next week’s agenda to know what the rules were.

Werner agreed.  

Thompson said what would need to happen would be a motion to reconsider and if that passed, table it and place it on next week’s agenda.  He said they would need a motion to reconsider the conditions and it had to come from someone from the majority side.

Moved by Mayor Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to reconsider the Commission’s January 25^th approval of the Auto Exchange preliminary development plan and to table the preliminary development plan until the February 23^rd City Commission meeting.  Motion carried unanimously. (37)

Reconsider the Commission’s vote at the meeting of February 1, 2005 to deny the Lake Estates rezonings, and consider a motion referring these items back to the Planning Commission, without approval.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, said he presented a memo to the City Commission indicating that he did not provide good advice on the wording of their motion when the Commission considered the rezoning of the Lake Estate Subdivision’s proposal.

The Commission’s action was to deny the two rezoning requests and there was a 3-2 vote on that matter.  He said he was reminded that was not the statutory proceeding in this case because there was a Planning Commission recommendation for approval, in which, the City Commission had three options which were: 1) approve what was recommended; 2) overrule with a supermajority vote; or 3) send the issue back to the Planning Commission.  He said it was his recommendation, given the Commission’s desire expressed at the February 1^st meeting, that they send this matter back to the Planning Commission and refer the Planning Commission to the minutes of the February 1, 2005 meeting.  He said he attempted to set out some of the rationale for non-approval of the rezoning in a proposed motion.  In addition, he said Vice Mayor Highberger commented that it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to examine the applicant’s suggestion to close the street to the north. 

Corliss said the City Commission’s action was to reconsider their previous denial motion and return this issue to the Planning Commission with the appropriate articulation.

Mayor Rundle asked if sending this issue back to the Planning Commission would only require a simple majority.

Corliss said yes.

Mayor Rundle asked what the reconsideration would require.

Corliss said the reconsideration would require that a Commissioner on the prevailing side of the motion make a motion to reconsider the action taken on February 1^st, and that would need to be a majority decision by the Commission.

Mayor Rundle asked if the City Commission’s action was invalid.

Corliss said the City Commission’s actions did not comply with the statutory requirements.  He said staff already placed this issue on the Planning Commission’s agenda to receive back the City Commission’s actions, but it needed to be done in a proper fashion.  He said denying those requests had the effect of killing the project and the statute provided that the items would go back to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Todd Thompson asked that the City Commission take a slightly different action.  He said it was his belief that it took a 4-1 vote to pass the motion that the City Commission considered at their last meeting.  He said there was not a 4-1 vote. Therefore, that motion failed and the City Commission could not reconsider that motion.  He said what needed to be done was to consider a new motion and that new motion would include sending it back to the Planning Commission.  He said then if that idea passed 3-2, then that would be the official action, but the motion, even though it had a majority of the votes, did not pass; it failed, and could not be reconsidered.

He said they would also ask that the City Commission send this back to the Planning Commission for consideration of closing the road.  He said they hoped the City Commission would instruct the Planning Commission to consider whether an area plan was needed and have the Planning Commission run through that process rather than telling the Planning Commission to wait for an area plan especially since staff indicated that it would be 2006 before they could start on an area plan for this area. 

He said the real issue was density.  He said they knew that area would be single-family housing, but the only real issue was density and whether the road would be closed.  He said he thought this issue could be addressed at the Planning Commission. 

He said their request to the City Commission would be a new motion to send it back to the Planning Commission asking the Planning Commission to consider all of the comments reflected in the minutes and to consider whether there should be an area plan and also consider if the road could be closed or alternatively have a security blockade which would allow access in emergency situations.

Mayor Rundle asked if public comment should be taken before the Commission made a motion to reconsider.

Corliss said that was the Chair’s prerogative.

Francois Henriquez, property owner in the Lake Estates neighborhood, said it appeared that public comment had already begun.  He said he addressed the Commission on February 1^st when this issue was first discussed.  He read Corliss’ memorandum and he understood that procedurally there might be some lack of clarity as to what was done.  Perhaps the City Commission’s motion wasn’t passed, but the Commission’s substance was very clear.  He said the City Commission heard from a number of people that night including the applicant and the applicant’s representative as well as a number of neighbors. 

He said it was very clear that the City Commission’s intention was that this issue should go back to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission prepare an area plan.  He said there was a lack of consistency with Horizon 2020 and Transportation 2025 and that the whole area was being developed on a piecemeal basis not in the manner that was intended when comprehensive plans were put into effect.

He strongly urged the City Commission to stand by the substance of their action two weeks ago and to request or direct the Planning Commission to prepare an area plan for this area prior to annexation and rezoning.

Vice Mayor Highberger said during Henriquez testimony last week, he mentioned that there had been an area plan developed for this area at some point.  He said that was a document that he had never seen.

Henriquez said in attempting to do research on this item, he met with Sandra Day, City Planner, in which she referred to a private plan that had been developed in 1974 and in Day’s opening comments on February 1^st, Day referred to that plan again.  Unfortunately, he did not have any access to that plan so he could not say how it was more generally characterized or described.

Mayor Rundle said he thought he had heard it was under the Clinton area plan.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said this area was covered under the Clinton Area Mini Comprehensive Plan, but that wouldn’t have been very site specific.  She said there was a degree of a service area plan that was put together by Day as she looked at this area because Day had worked with many of the different annexations in the area.

Mayor Rundle asked Vice Mayor Highberger if he wanted to see the mini plan.

Vice Mayor Highberger said no.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he agreed with Thompson’s interpretation.

Corliss said the motion was not valid.  The City Commission would need to address this item on the agenda and direct the items back to the Planning Commission with the reasons why they were not approving the rezonings.

Commissioner Schauner suggested sending this item back to the Planning Commission with the minutes from February 1, 2005 and to say parenthetically that the City Commission had a lot of discussion about this issue and they were not interested in rehashing those arguments.  He said the minutes were a reflection of what the City Commission said and what was decided and that should be the direction to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Rundle asked if the motion to reconsider was needed first.

Corliss said the argument was that it was not a valid motion.

Commission Schauner said he was agreeing with the February 1^st meeting minutes.

Commissioner Dunfield agreed with the language of the suggested motion in the staff memo.

Commissioner Schauner agreed with the suggested motion in Corliss’ memo except for the reconsideration language.

Commissioner Schauner moved to send this matter back to the Planning Commission to consider what was reflected in the City Commission minutes, including concerns about appropriateness of the rezoning as it related to adjacent rural residential uses and configuration and necessary property interest for collector streets to serve the proposed development.  The Planning Commission should also conduct and prepare an area plan for the property and the surrounding area and examine the possibility, suggested by the applicant, of closing the street to the north.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was a second on that motion.

Vice Mayor Highberger seconded Commissioner Schauner’s motion. 

Commissioner Hack asked if there was an area plan that was in existence, would it be possible to use part of that plan.  She assumed the Planning Commission would hand that off to the area plan committee.  She asked if there was something that could be used so they were not delaying the applicant a year.

Finger said if the Planning Commission had a project returned to them by the City Commission, they would deal with it directly, not rely on the older plan, and take it to their Comprehensive Plan’s Committee.  She said the length of time was because it would take awhile to work with a committee and the area planner to work with the property owners.  If it was sent to staff as an option, it would still take about the same amount of time but there would be fewer people that would need to be brought together to meet on a regular basis. 

Commissioner Dunfield said he thought Finger was saying “no.”     

Mayor Rundle asked if the 1974 plan had not been acted upon.

Finger said no, it was over 30 years old, was the private developer’s plan and had no relevance to the Clinton Lake area plan. 

Vice Mayor Highberger said his major concern at that time was the traffic impact of the proposed development on the road to the north.  He said he believed that area was going to develop.  He said if there was a viable plan to proceed without a traffic impact to the neighborhood to the north, then he was not sure of the desirability of delaying the project unnecessarily.

Commissioner Schauner said the area was going to develop, the question was would it be developed in a way that provided the best use, access, and traffic control for all the future residents, not just what they saw in front of them as a subdivision.  He said that was the discussion the City Commission had a week ago, not just the traffic, but to see if that area would develop in an appropriate, cohesive way.

Vice Mayor Highberger said the plan that was presented provided reasonable transitions to what was on the ground now.

Mayor Rundle said there was a question about the ultimate layout of the road, like the road connecting to the frontage road going right through a property.  If the Planning Commission stepped back a little bit, they might reconfigure streets.  He said if you were going to just postpone something bad going into the neighborhood, he wouldn’t want to do that and there needed to be some sort of planning.  He said maybe the language could be softened in terms of requiring an area plan, but the Planning Commission should certainly consider an area plan and report back to the City Commission.

Commissioner Hack said the portion that she was hung up on was the request for the area plan, when she thought there had been planning done in that area.  She said there was concern about traffic and it seemed at least asking them about that particular segment and the road closing to the north did make sense, but the whole push for an area plan delayed it unnecessarily for the applicant.  

Commissioner Schauner said if they were going to talk about all the issues again the City Commission wasted an hour and a half of discussion two weeks ago.  He said this issue was all hashed out and there had been a vote.  He said the minutes and motion accurately reflected the City Commission’s discussion and conclusion at that meeting.  He said the Commission was revisiting it without the opportunity for full public comment and there were only one or two persons present.  The other people who were present on February 1^st had made their case, got the Commission’s vote and now the Commission tonight was essentially backing away from what they agreed to.

Mayor Rundle said the conversation about the area plan two weeks ago was a private developer’s area plan and not an area plan in the sense of one the Planning Commission had developed.           

Commissioner Hack said the Planning Commission did allow for that opportunity for public conversation and the City Commission was not shutting that off, but questioned the need for an area plan.

Mayor Rundle said he would expect the Planning Commission to let the City Commission know if they felt that it was unreasonable or the area plan was impossible, but he said the Planning Commission should make an effort, but he was wiling that an area plan not to be an absolute requirement.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to send this matter back to the Planning Commission to consider what was reflected in the City Commission February 1^st minutes, including concerns about appropriateness of the rezoning as it related to adjacent rural residential uses and configuration and necessary property interest for collector streets to serve the proposed development.  The Planning Commission should also conduct and prepare an area plan for the property and the surrounding area and examine the possibility, suggested by the applicant, of closing the street to the north.  Aye:  Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Dunfield and Hack.  Motion carried.                                                                                                      (38)

Finger said this issue would go back to the Planning Commission this Thursday because of the holiday.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jason Boots, Student Senate, University of Kansas, said concerning the proposed legislation on living wages currently before the legislature, he assumed that as a City government that had passed this ordinance, that the Commission was not incredibly in favor of having it overturned by the State.  He said so far it seemed that the students agreed that the living wage in Lawrence was a positive issue and did not necessarily infringe on anyone else.  He said if the City Commission was interested at any point, tag teaming on lobbying, the Student Legislative Awareness Board at the University of Kansas would be interested and suggested that they contact him if the Commission was interested.  

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to extend the meeting for 5 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Mayor Rundle said at the retreat for the Homeless Task Force, the general concern of the community was the City’s ordinance not addressing behaviors.  It was clear that was not a matter of homelessness, but a matter of policing.  He said he made a suggestion to convene in some type of discussion group to begin that discussion.  He said he would work with City staff to come up with some type of proposal to start that process and to send a signal to the community that the Homeless Task Force took that issue seriously. 

Commissioner Highberger said regarding Boots’ question about the living wage, he suggested drafting a letter to the delegation expressing their dissatisfaction with it.

Mayor Rundle said it might be too late for the City Commission to participate at the legislative session on the other bill that was introduced regarding City’s and KDOT difference of opinion on speed limits and access points.  He said personally he did not support that concept and suggested that they have a City Commission discussion about it.

Corliss said it was not too late to participate. The Legislature’s turnaround date would be February 23rd.  He said there would be some bills out of either the House or Senate, but there would be opportunity on the other side and staff would work on a letter.  He said it was an active discussion among those in City Management, Public Works, and elected officials on that KDOT/City bill.  He said they would also draft a letter on the living wage bill.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 10:05.  Motion carried unanimously.                  

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 2005

1. MACPP Bid – Crew Cab Pickup for the Public Works/Sold Waste Division from Shawnee Mission Ford for $22,451.

2. Re-Key City Hall – Best Access Systems for $22,108.72.

3. Purchase Agreement – Cutting Edge Solutions for $39,010 OnBase Document Mgmt System.

4. Highway Patrol Cars – 2 used cars from State of KS for $13,150 each totaling $26,300.

5. Pickup Truck – Utilities from Raytown Dodge for  $15,529.

6. 4x4 Trucks – Public Works from Shawnee Mission Ford for $24,093 each totaling $72,279.

7. Bid Date Set – 2005 Downtown Waterline Improvements, March 1, 2005.

8. Ordinance No. 7812 – 1^st Read, rezone (Z-05-21-04) 2.63 acres, from RS-2 & PCD-2 to C-5, 3300 Iowa.

9. Ordinance No. 7815 – 1^st Read, rezone (Z-05-20-04) 15.02 acres, from C-5 & PCD-2 to PCD-2.

10. Ordinance No. 7857 – 2^nd Read, “stop sign” Rhode Island at 12^th.

11. Ordinance No. 7854 – 2^nd Read, “yield signs” Wheat State at Eldridge.

12. Ordinance No. 7858 – 2^nd Read, “all way stop” 9^th and NY.

13. Ordinance No. 7856 – 2^nd Read, “all way stop” 10^th & NY.

14. Ordinance No. 7855 – 2^nd Read, remove “stop signs” on 9^th at NJ.

15. Final Plat – (PF-12-39-04) Quail Valley Townhomes, .961 acre, 2113 -2143 Quail Creek Dr.

16. Final Plat – (PF-12-40-04) Carpenter Addition No. 2, 3.41 acres, 1017 E 23^rd.

17. Final Plat – (PF-12-38-04) Hanscom-Tappen Addition, 8.020 acres, 1503 Haskell.

18. Final Plat – (PF-11-36-04) Locust St., .58 acres, 642-646 & 645 Locust.

19. Rezone – (Z-12-54-04) 1.93 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, 1535 Haskell.

20. Rezone – (Z-09-44-04) .86 acre, RS-1 to RO-1, 1045 E 23rd

21. Rezone – (Z-09-45-04) 2.55 acres from C-4 & RS-1 to C-4.

22. Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-12-11-04) Parnell Park II Single Family Homes, 10.16 acres, 1503 & 1535 Haskell.

23. Site Plan – (SP-12-88-04) Cottonwood Facility, 2801 W 31^st.

24. Site Plan – (SP-10-72-04) NW corner of Stonecreek & Branchwood.

25. Site Plan – (SP-01-09-04/SP-08-61-00) 911 E 11^th.

26. Agreement – LP A Services for 7^th & Kentucky.

27. Directional Signs- Pilot Club International on U.S. Bank property at 23^rd & Harper.

28. Agreement – KS Wildlife & Parks Dept, Community Fisheries Assistance Program. 

29. Mortgage Release – Gale Fleming, 204 N. Minnesota.

30. Subordination Request – 2113 Kentucky, Bethany Willets.

31. Signage – SpringHill Suites, City Riverfront Plaza parking garage.

32. City Manager’s Report.

33. Resolution No. 6577 - Kansas Tax Credits – Vermont Towers, 1105 Vermont.

34. Construction of westbound turn lane at 23^rd and O’Connell. 

35. Land Use Agreement – K.U/City of Lawrence.

36. Traffic Calming Improvements – W Lawrence Neighborhood Assoc.

37. City Commission meeting minutes Jan 25, 2005.

38. Vote consideration – Deny Lake Estates rezoning.