February 22, 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.
Mayor Rundle recognized the Boys & Girls Club Youth of the Year nominees and the Youth of the Year.
With Commission approval, Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of February 28th – March 6th as “Peace Corps Week”;
Mayor Rundle recognized the Friends of the Park participants. The individuals, groups, and/or businesses were:
|
DONATOR |
ITEM (S) DONATED |
VALUE |
|
Anonymous |
Nature Center Playground |
$4,000.00 |
|
Bert Nash Community Center - Pat Roach Smith, Scott McMichael & David Johnson |
donation from Nash Dash for Wee Folks Scholarship Fund |
$1,708.00 |
|
Bill Self - Joni at B-ball office |
Assisted with Golf Classic |
|
|
Breakfast Optimist Club - Sharen Steel |
Donates $350 in support of the Special Events Division’s Halloween Paint-In and also donates another $350 for the Douglas County Science Fair. |
$700.00 |
|
|
Donation to Youth Sports |
$500.00 |
|
|
donation to Wee Folks Scholarship Fund |
$75.00 |
|
Bowersock Mills & Power Co. - Stephen & Marcia Hill, Sarah Hill-Nelson |
Landscaping/renovation of area west of the Bowersock Mills building |
$6,000.00 |
|
Central National Bank - Amanda Vail |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Classic Eagle - Wes Lynch |
Donations to BSLPRD YSGC |
$600.00 |
|
Checkers - Jim Lewis |
Supplying turkeys at cost for the Special Events Division’s Turkey Trot |
$400.00 |
|
Complete Music |
Reduced rates for DDDN |
$300.00 |
|
Crown Casting Club - Cecil King |
Donation of fishing equipment, bait, prizes, as well as assistance for both fishing derbys of the Special Events Division |
$200.00 |
|
Crown Chevrolet/Toyota/Scion |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Curt Baucom |
Crab Apple Tree in Memory of Laura Owens |
$75.00 |
|
David Wright |
Donation of Equipment for Youth Sports |
$300.00 |
|
Dean Wright |
Memorial Tree Program |
$225.00 |
|
Downtown Lawrence Association-Maria Martin- |
Co-sponsors Brown Bag Concerts during the summer months by donating $500 |
$500.00 |
|
Eldridge Hotel - Rob Phillips |
Facility for Wine & beer tasting seminars |
$400.00 |
|
Englewood Florist - Susan |
Daddy/Daughter decorations |
$200.00 |
|
Faye Watson |
bronze plaque for sculpture in Watson Park |
$412.50 |
|
Francis Sporting Goods - Jon Fra |
donation of gift certificates, supplies and co-sponsoring the Special Events Division’s Mass. Street Mile |
$600.00 |
|
Free State Walkers - Jane Tedder, treasurer |
2 gifts of money to be used to upgrade park shelter (2 $300) |
$600.00 |
|
Group Shots Photography - John Dye |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Hacks Outfitters - John or Susie Hackathorn |
donation of $400 in prizes for the Special Events Division for both fishing derbies |
$400.00 |
|
Hereford House - Melissa Waters |
Provided Meal for the BS/LPRD YSGC |
$2,500.00 |
|
Hy-Vee of Lawrence -John Olson- |
veggie and fruit trays for Doug Vance Reception |
$50.00 |
|
Hy-Vee of Lawrence -Shawn Brown- |
Co-sponsored with the Special Events Division’s on the Community Egg Hunt. |
$1,000.00 |
|
|
King cakes for DDDN |
$78.00 |
|
Intrust Bank - Don Johnston |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Jayhawk Beverage Dennis Kiliany |
Provided Beverages for BSLPRD YSGC |
$260.00 |
|
Jayhawk Trophy Monty Hobbs |
of medals for the Special Events Division’s Mass. Street Mile |
$260.00 |
|
Jerry Morton |
donation of bench in memory of uncle Walt Morton in Broken Arrow Park |
$421.00 |
|
Joanne Lind |
South Park Playground |
$7,000.00 |
|
Jock’s Nitch Sporting Goods - Doug Dobbins- |
donation of gift certificates for the Special Events Division’s Turkey Trot and Dam Run. |
$400.00 |
|
Judy Wilson |
Memorial Tree Program |
$225.00 |
|
Kansas Wildscape Foundation - Amy Saunders- |
of prizes and lunch for the Special Events Division’s Fishing Derby |
$800.00 |
|
Landplan Engineering - Phil Struble |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Laura Owens Memorial Fund |
Beautification of South Park |
$2,865.00 |
|
Lawrence Soroptimist - Jude McDaniel |
Soroptimist Memorial Garden Donation |
$100.00 |
|
Let It Ride - John Niswonger |
Donation of prizes, supplies and staff for the Special Events Division’s Skateboard Event |
$500.00 |
|
Mary Lynn Stuart |
Volunteered 250 Hours and donated plant materials to develop the Heirloom Garden at the Hobbs House garden - designed, planted and cared for garden during the 150 tour season. |
$150.00 |
|
McDonalds |
Sponsor for Mini-Munchkin Camp |
$100.00 |
|
Minuteman Press - Dee Bisel |
Provided Printed Materials for BS/LPRD YSGC |
$790.00 |
|
Montana Mike's Steakhouse - Daman Hoar |
Provided Meal for the BS/LPRD YSGC |
$500.00 |
|
PackerWare - Christy Stocks - Atterberry |
DDDN Dinnerware |
$300.00 |
|
Pachamama's -Ken Baker |
Daddy/Daughter food |
$3,000.00 |
|
Papa Murphy's - Ray Cross |
Sponsor for Mini-Munchkin Camp |
$100.00 |
|
Pat Lechtenberg and Douglas County Master Gardener Group - Bruce Chladny |
developed 150 year tree tour (held 3 events), tree tour brochure, and tree markers for private historic trees in Lawrence. |
|
|
PepsiAmericas Sheila Ward- |
of Powerade for Special Events Division’s Dam Run |
$100.00 |
|
|
Provided Beverages for BSLPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Pet World - Sherry Emerson |
Sponsor for Mini-Munchkin Camp |
$100.00 |
|
Pinnacle Career Institute - Sharon Miller |
Spa Night Sponsor - Time |
$250.00 |
|
Ray's Liquor - Ron Hassen |
Conducting Wine tasting seminar |
$120.00 |
|
Rob Phillips |
For the Wagon, Horses and assistance for LPRD appearance in the 150 parade |
|
|
Rotary Clubs - George Woodyard |
Arboretum |
$35,000.00 |
|
Safe Kids Coalition / Lawrence Memorial Hospital - John Drees |
donation of helmets, $500 for prizes and assisting with the Special Events Division’s Skateboard Event. |
$500.00 |
|
Salty Iguana - Dan Chandler |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
Sheridan's Frozen Yogurt - Duke Frye |
Sponsor for Mini-Munchkin Camp |
$100.00 |
|
South Wind Theater- Jon Ratzlaff- |
discount movie tickets for our youth programs |
$863.00 |
|
Sunflower Rental - Stacie |
Daddy/Daughter Tablecloths |
$288.00 |
|
Teller's - Matt Hyde |
Sponsor for Mini-Munchkin Camp |
$100.00 |
|
The Sports Section - Kevin Gunnels |
Daddy/Daughter photos - reduced price |
$360.00 |
|
The Wine Cellar - Steve Berger |
Conducting Beer tasting seminar |
$30.00 |
|
US Bank- Chuck Warner |
Hole Sponsor at BS/LPRD YSGC |
$750.00 |
|
USDA (jenny) |
Furniture |
$500.00 |
|
Walmart Richard Chappelle- |
of prizes for Special Events Division’s Fishing Derby |
$200.00 |
|
Total |
|
$84,105.50 |
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of December 20, 2004; the Library Board meeting minutes of January 17, 2005; the Human Relations Commission meeting minutes of November 17, 2004; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 12, 2005; the Housing Trust Fund meeting minutes of January 12, 2005; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of January 13, 2005; the Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters meeting minutes of November 17, 2004; and the Uniform Building Code Board Code of Appeals meeting minutes of January 20, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 354 vendors in the amount of $1,267,985.43 and payroll from February 6, 2005 to February 19, 2005 in the amount of $1,410,003.97. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Old Chicago, 2329 Iowa; Gaslight Tavern, 317 North 2nd Street; Jackpot Saloon & Music Hall, 943 Massachusetts; Royal Peking Restaurant, 711 West 23rd Street; Free State Brewing Co., 636 Massachusetts; and the Retail Liquor License for Hird Retail Liquor, 610 Kasold, Ste: B-101. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the distribution of Request for Proposals to engineering firms for design services to Phase II of the Clinton Water Treatment Facility Expansion. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the purchase of one 4x4 extended cab pickup for the Stormwater Division from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP bid in the amount of $16,385. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of one ton truck for Parks and Recreation Department from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP bid for $16,566. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of one ½ ton pickup for Parks and Recreation Department from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP bid for $12,701. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to set a bid date of March 8, 2005 for Harvard Road, Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive, Traffic Calming Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to set a bid date of March 15, 2005 for Lake Pointe Drive, 22nd Terrace to Clinton Parkway, Street, Storm Sewer, and Roundabout Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7823, rezoning (Z-06-22-04) a tract of land approximately 1.058 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District); the property is described as being located at 704 Folks Road. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7833, rezoning (Z-07-30-04) a tract of land approximately 1.029 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District); the property is generally described as being located on the east side of Folks Road, south of West 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7859, annexing approximately 5.782 acres generally located in the right-of-way for East 23rd Street (K-10) for improvement of a west bound left turn lane on East 23rd Street at O’Connell, pursuant to City Commission direction on February 15, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
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), property is described as being located at 3300 Iowa Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
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), property is described as being located at 3400 Iowa Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, both the rezoning and preliminary development plan for 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. He asked if there was any benefit district consideration for traffic engineering or traffic control devices at that intersection which he assumed would be 15th and Inverness.
Paul Patterson, Planner, said the answer was in two parts. The first part was that there had been a traffic impact study on the proposed development and it had been reviewed and accepted by staff. The study showed that this type of development generally generated traffic at a different time than the normal peak flow because the person that would be living there tended to be more of a retirement age person.
The second part of that answer was that there was an agreement not-to-protest a formation of a benefit district that was part of the approval of this project. They applicant would need to sign that agreement for improvement of geometric and traffic improvements in the future should they be required. It was not determined that those types of improvement were necessarily warranted by this project at this time.
Commissioner Schauner said part of his concern centered a round the idea of converting research/industrial ground to PRD or residential ground. He read the report from the Planning Commission and he recognized they used the golden factors in arriving at their decision and that was an 8-0 approval. He remained concerned because they did the same type of rezoning for the Villaneche project several months ago and as they continued to nibble away at the limited amount of M-1 zoning of ground available, he questioned in the long run if that was ultimately good public policy. He said he knew this property had been vacant for a long time and purely a project that did not receive any written and verbal communications from the Planning Commission. He said he had heard a number of neighbors comment, since then, that they had some concern about density, building massing, height, and other issues. He said he could count on this issue being passed by the Commission, but again, he wanted to make known his concern about nibbling away of the limited inventory of research/industrial ground and it was not in the City’s long-term best interest.
Commissioner Dunfield said the Planning Commission and Planning Staff took that question seriously and took into account. He said it was a very difficult piece of property to develop. He said frankly, he looked at that property a couple of years ago for a client and felt that it was not feasible for what his client was trying to do.
He said Commissioner Schauner was right in that the City Commission should not casually allow potential industrial land to be rezoned, but he did not think that was happening in this case. He said the property had been well considered and that was going to be a good development for that location.
Commissioner Schauner said when the project would be built, it was going to be a surprise to a lot of people who see it out their back window, not that it would be an unattractive building, but he thought they could always find a reason to say that an exception could be made. He said ultimately he would like to see the City have a somewhat higher standard before rezoning a limited inventory of research/industrial ground.
Mayor Rundle said the availability of ground was the top of the issues for the Chamber.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt the findings of fact, approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-53-04) of land approximately 8.24 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District); the property is described as 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (12)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-12-14-04) for Bella Sera at the Preserve, a proposed planned residential development containing 99 units and is approximately 8.24 acres; the property is being described as being located at 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway, subject to the following conditions:
a. Modify the density calculation to show the 99 dwelling units and 14.2 dwelling units per Net Residential Acre.
2. Provision of the following notes on the face of the Development Plan:
a. “Public improvement plans will be submitted to Public Works before the Final Development Plan is filed at the Register of Deeds;”
b. “We hereby dedicate to the City of Lawrence the right to regulate any construction over the area designated as common open space, open air recreation area, and non-encroachable area and to prohibit any construction within said areas and spaces inconsistent with the approved use or enjoyment of residents, lessees and owner of the Planned Unit Development.” (Per Section 20-1010(b)(18);
c. “The maximum residential density will be 14.2 Dwelling Units per Net Residential Acre” and
d. Include a statement as to the form of ownership proposed to own and maintain the common open space, recreation facilities, non-encroachable area and any other area within the area proposed to be developed that is to be retained primarily for the exclusive use and benefit of the residents, lessee and owners of the Planned Unit Development. (Per Section 20-1010(b)(16).
3. Provision of the following requirements of the Stormwater Engineer:
a. Revise the east entrance to prevent site stormwater discharge into Bob Billings Parkway;
b. Provide a DE (through replat or separate instrument) for the stream channel along the east boundary. In lieu of hydraulic calculations, provide this DE to enclose the 904 contour;
c. Show all on-site storm sewer pipes, structures, discharge points and scour protection; and
d. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be submitted and approved for this project prior to any construction activity, including soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, and any release of building permits.
4. Within 15 days after approval of the Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission, the landowner shall file with the Douglas County Register of Deeds a statement concerning the Preliminary Development Plan per Section 20-1012; and
5. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Traffic Signal and Geometric Improvements to Bob Billings Parkway and Inverness Drive.
. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (13)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s report, Linda Finger, Planning Director reviewed the staff memo regarding the development code. She said after staff met with some of the individuals who had originally been part of an ad hoc group it was concluded that there was a serious difference of opinion on how long the City Commission intended to wait between the Planning Commission and City Commission action. She said the individuals that staff met with firmly believed the City Commission was giving them 3 to 4 months and if that was the case, that was fine, but staff needed to remove the special public hearing notice from the City’s website and not publish the additional display ads. She said staff was seeking clarification on the City Commission’s intent.
She said what staff had taken back to the Planning Commission was the revised document based upon the table of other revisions that were talked about several times at the City Commission meeting to address non-conformities and single-family types of structures in duplex zoning and remediation or proposals to amend that plus a series of other incidental changes.
Mayor Rundle asked what type of delay was being discussed.
Finger said if the intent was 3 or 4 months, they would be looking at May or June before the Planning Commission actually acted on the document.
Vice Mayor Highberger said it was his impression that the City Commission was clear in scheduling it for the March Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Dunfield said he also thought the March date was made clear. He said the City Commission discussed whether it was going to be possible to complete the development code before he left the City Commission and they would not be discussing this issue if it was a 3 or 4 month process.
Mayor Rundle said he hoped if there were major issues that the public hearing would be the chance to bring those up.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Mark Andersen, Attorney, said, based on the minutes there was a reference to this being sent back to the Planning Commission in March. It was their understanding that it would be referred back to them on their March agenda, not that there would actually be a public hearing in March.
In reading the City Commission minutes there was discussion about the Mayor referring to 2 to 3 months. Also, Commissioner Dunfield made reference to if the City Commission did not approve the development code at this time then it would be several months before that document came back to the Commission. He said he did not agree that Commissioner Dunfield was of the opinion that this was going to all occur within 5 weeks.
He said three weeks ago, he stated to the City Commission that in a roughly a ten day period they had reviewed that proposed development code from a perspective of implementation trying to evaluate some of the consequences if that code was adopted in its current form. He said they had been advised by lenders, real estate brokers, appraisers, and insurance brokers that there were problems that needed to be addressed before the development code was adopted. In that short period of time, prior to the February 1st meeting, they had met with staff and came up with a substantial list of revisions. Planning staff recommended those revisions and a memo from the Planning Director had approximately 20 revisions that night. Since then, they had approximately two weeks to prepare for and then meet on Friday with staff again. He said he did present an eight page letter that contained 20 to 24 more issues and mistakes.
He said there were several things that needed to be addressed, but for example, section 20-601(b) was a grid showing the minimum lot area, minimum side area, and minimum set backs, etc. for the different zoning categories for non-residential use. It was suggested to City staff that as much as 90% of all the commercially zoned property in that new CC category would be non-conforming and that figure was met with skepticism. He said when in fact when looking at that section, as drafted, it required a minimum lot size of 5 acres. All the property along 6th Street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street down to about 31st Street, west 23rd, south Massachusetts, north 2nd Street, almost virtually every commercial property along those corridors was going to become non-conforming which would lead to title insurance issues, potential issues with being able to refinance their properties with a lender, sell their property to somebody that could not finance the purchase of their property, remodel, expand, and if their building burned or blew down because there was not hardly a single lot in those areas that would meet or exceed the 5 acre minimum. It had to be a mistake and needed to be fixed, but it affected a vast majority of the commercial properties in this community. He said that was just one example regarding existing construction.
He said an example affecting new construction was 20-1108 which required the market impact analysis. He said he had made a reference to staff regarding the market impact analysis applying to an office building. He said staff corrected him and said that did not apply to an office building, but to retail. He said they engaged in an argument. He said he finally handed a sheet to staff and told them to read the sheet and upon reading it, staff agreed. He said it applied to all commercial property as drafted and it was not limited to retail as suggested in Horizon 2020. In Horizon 2020 it referred to commercial shopping centers. The language that was drafted in 20-1108 referred to all commercial zoned properties. That same section also contained no exclusion for owner/occupied property. He said if he wanted to build a new office building and occupy that building with his company, he would need to do a market impact analysis and as drafted, if there was more than an 8% vacancy rate in this community, he could not build a new office building if he was building it in an area that would otherwise be a node and it contained the minimum square footage and other issues. He said if he fell under that category, probably a better example than an office building was a bank. He said there would be a bank at just about every shopping center. He said if he wanted to build a bank for his financial institution and the way the code was written, he might not be able to do that. He said it certainly was met with skepticism by staff. He was told that he was not correct in his interpretation, until he pointed out to staff and had them read it and staff concurred.
He said those were two examples and they also had came up with another 20 to 24 problems on Friday. Those were in addition to the 20 that they talked to the City Commission about three weeks ago. He said most all of the existing zoned commercial properties would be non-conforming unless the code was revised and it would make it extremely difficult for anyone to go out and build an owner/occupied new commercial building. He said the City Commission was not under any timeframe to do anything. He said it was not wise to move forward with the adoption of a code that they had pointed out was so flawed that the code could not be interpreted.
He asked if anyone could give a definition of the term node. He said he knew staff couldn’t because it was not in the code and yet there were provisions that were tied to that. He said he did not know whether 23rd and Iowa node started and where it ended and neither did staff, but the City Commission was on the verge of pushing through the adoption of that code without stopping and asking practical questions that affected mundane issues like getting a loan, selling property, buying insurance, and remodeling. He said until the City Commission could answer those types of questions, he did not think the Commission should be imposing a code on the community that was impossible for Planning staff to interpret.
He said he got into this as a volunteer and he had no idea when he stepped up to advise some business acquaintances, what impact that would have on their businesses. He said he did not get into this to find all those problems, but to help business owners adapt to the code once it was put into effect. He said now that they had reviewed what was there and the mistakes that were there, he could not imagine why the City Commission wouldn’t want to fix those before adopting it.
He said if the City Commission wanted to have a planning hearing in two weeks, he doubted in two weeks time that staff was capable of drafting the language necessary to fix those mistakes. He said they certainly would not have a revised draft for the public of this code before March 9th.
He said once again, the public did not know what it was discussing. Until he saw the language that staff drafted for section 20-1008, regarding nodal development and the market impact analysis and whether or not he needed it for his new bank or office building, until he saw that language, he asked how was he supposed to get up in front of the Planning Commission and tell them whether he agreed or disagreed. He said it was impossible for him to address what was not before him.
He said the mistakes were so vast and significant that an outside consultant or legal counsel was needed for the drafting and the fixing of this document. He said he was not talking about typographical errors, but substantive issues that did not match up with Horizon 2020 document.
Mayor Rundle asked if there were a range of actions that the Planning Commission could take such as sending it to the Zoning and Codes Advisory Board.
Finger said the document could go back to that board. A large portion of the revisions that had been drafted had come from public hearing testimony and fitting them into the document as the City Commission and staff thought would work.
She said there were approximately three types of actions that had been identified such as 1) policy issues where the policies differ from how they could be implemented in the code; 2) issues with the current code which had been carried forward and there was a question about that practice or that regulation today; and 3) there were some that were just errors that needed to be corrected.
She said what the Planning Commission action could be on March 9th would be to provide direction on the timeframe desired for the Development Code to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and returned to the City Commission. Testimony on the issues previously raised by the public to the City Commission and the revised KU/City agreement could be heard on the 9th and the public hearing recessed until a later date if that is the direction of the Commission. She said some of those issues were not easy fixes because if it required policy to be rewritten or to be revisited such as the 8% vacancy rate in 20-1108 came directly out of Chapter 6 as far as market analysis. She said if that was to be reviewed from any market analysis then they needed to take it out of the policy and fix the regulatory portion.
She said there were other issues as to policy that had come up in previous conversations, but the short answer that was asked was the Commission could act if that was their direction on March 9th and just not close their hearing, but recess the hearing.
Todd Thompson, Attorney, said he was a little more optimistic than Andersen. He said this was a very big project and there had been great progress made. He said the issue was one of timing and whether it was prudent to push forward at an undue speed at this particular point in time. H said to do so, in his opinion, would be a mistake. There were a lot of issues that needed to be fixed and corrected. He said it would be easier to do that if the language was there to look at in advance before the public hearing. He asked the City Commission to defer the adoption of the development code so that the language could be drafted on most, if not all, of those issues that had come up before the hearing. He said that March 9th date was too quick and he asked to Commission not to rush it at this late date.
He said if there were major issues, the ball should be back in the Planning Commission’s court and he did not know how to get that ball there other than to hold it and call a public hearing. He said he did not want the Commission to try and redraft the development code and send that draft back to the Planning Commission for review.
Commissioner Highberger asked Finger whether she thought Andersen raised significant issues enough to justify a more thorough review of the development code that could be done at the March 9th, Planning Commission meeting.
Finger said there were several questions that Andersen raised that staff could not have a thorough response to by March 9th.
Commissioner Dunfield said that was the impression he had as well and would have to concede. He said it was unfortunate that it had taken so long for these issues to surface. He said they designed a process that they thought brought an awful lot of people into the picture and that had given to this point a year of time for public comment and review of the drafts and it was disappointing that they should still be raising questions of such substance after so much time had passed, but that clearly seemed to be the situation that they found themselves in and the next Commission would need to resolve those issues. He said he genuinely felt very uncomfortable about passing this issue on to at least one new Commissioner. He said there was an awful lot to be learned in that development code and he would be hard pressed to act on it in his first couple of months as a Commissioner.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to go back to the discussion the Commission had three weeks ago about this issue. He said he moved and Commissioner Hack seconded to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. He said the idea was to send it back and to try and get it as right as they could rather than adopting something that the Commission knew had a lot of flaws and would need to be reworked later.
He said it seemed that there were two issues. One issue was some disagreement about the policy like the 8% vacant rate question and then there were questions about were there sufficient definitions, was the code interpretable as at was currently written, but those were different issues than policy questions. He said he would like the Planning Commission to bring to the City Commission fixes on the technical aspects and some recommendations with respect to policy as well because that seemed to be the appropriate place to have that discussion.
He said Andersen’s volunteering produced a lot more work than Andersen thought and he appreciated the work that Andersen and Thompson had done. He also thanked Finger and Planning staff for the work that had been done.
He said when they were going to have a public hearing he would like to see a large ad placed in the local newspaper notifying neighborhoods and other people who were not professional stakeholders of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested taking a look at the subdivision regulations too so there was not a problem when those regulations came up. He said there were some very important changes that he hoped would not significantly delay the adoption of the code.
Mayor Rundle asked what needed to be done to get this back in the Planning Commission’s court.
Finger asked whether the City Commission wanted the March 9th meeting to not go forward.
Commissioner Schauner said that was his preference.
Commissioner Hack agreed. She said the Commission’s original intent was to clarify and simplify and they had muddied and lengthened this document. She said that was a concern, but within that document there were some land use issues and legal issues and the legal issue was where the City Commission needed some help. She said that might be a subject that the City Commission had not addressed in giving Planning staff some legal help to clarify some of those issues. She said what the City Commission was doing with Planning Staff was giving them tools to implement Horizon 2020.
Commissioner Schauner said to the extent that the Planning Commission thought they needed legal assistance, the Planning Commission should make that recommendation to the City Commission.
Wildgen said staff would work on that idea.
Finger said she would inform the Planning Commission of the need to postpone the March 9th meeting. She said there were several display ads that were going to be published two weekends before the meeting and staff would go ahead with that thought, but staff would postpone the meeting until at least May so that staff had the ability to find responses and work with staff to get legal assistance that Andersen and others believed was needed.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger if it would be helpful in managing this process to have some specific legal assistance.
Finger said another set of eyes would be helpful because she had personally been so involved in the development code that she knew the nuances, but perhaps she did not see some of the bigger picture issues that Andersen and his contemporaries had brought up. She said to her the development code seemed intuitive, but it was not that intuitive to other people.
Corliss said his involvement in the development code had been limited to the K.U. agreement. He said an additional set of eyes to review this code would be helpful. He said the comments that had been set forth indicated there were a lot of concerns to the document.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not want Planning staff to feel that they were being picked on. He said the point was that the Commission wanted to get the code as right as they could as early as they could.
Finger said staff didn’t feel picked upon. Actually to have a document that the community felt comfortable with would help staff in presenting that document and working with the public.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if it was at all possible, since the K.U. agreement was mentioned to put that issue to rest or did all that need to come together.
Corliss said he saw those items as two separate issues for the Planning Commission to review. He said he did not know if it made sense for the Planning Commission to consider that at their March 9th meeting. He said it might be appropriate to place that on another agenda for them to be brought up to speed as to where that document was and what it meant. He said staff would want to make sure the rest of the community was involved in that discussion as well. He said he was not sure that staff knew what the best timing was for that issue right now.
Mayor Rundle said if that could proceed at least through comment.
Finger said they would meet on the 15th, but it was not published because there was no statutory requirement to publish that meeting. She said if the City Commission wanted staff to add that to the March 15th agenda, staff could do that.
Mayor Rundle said that was a good idea. He said if there was a large agenda, he suggested placing that on the earliest reasonable agenda.
He said on the non-conforming issue that issue had came up when down zoning was done in Old West Lawrence when the floodplain regulations were changed. He said he would appreciate any additional help in clarifying or giving good examples of how that played out because it had applicability and had been raised before in other situations.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he would not like this process to be open-ended and he would like to set at least a tentative goal for getting a final document back to the City Commission in approximately 4 months.
Finger said to take it to the Planning Commission in 4 months was reasonable.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked what would be a realistic date to have that document back to the City Commission.
Finger said June or July because staff would be receiving outside help and she did not know who that was or how staff would acquire that help. She said it would take a while for the outside help to get familiar with the document.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested 6 months.
Finger said 6 months would be adequate to bring the document back to the City Commission. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive letter from Bob Schumm concerning plumbing code change.
Bob Schumm, Lawrence, said he would like the City Commission to accept his request to amend the 2000 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code under section 701.1.2(materials) to the original code requirements as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Drive South, Walnut California. By amending this section back to the original language the Commission would allow for the use of PVC pipe in commercial building projects.
He said this request was based on the fact that during the 35 years that he had been in business, he had numerous failures of cast iron pipe which had resulted in expensive replacement as well as health and sanitations problems when cast iron soil pipes leak, split open, or generally rot out. Because of the volume of waste and the type of waste they generated they were seeing rapid deterioration of those cast iron products. He said he had failure on new cast iron pipes as few as 8 years. He believed that cast iron pipe products were not the same quality today as those pipes were years ago. Therefore, due to the sanitary and health consideration in his restaurants as well as the high cost to replace when cast iron pipes failed, he requested the City Commission amend the plumbing code and allow for the use of PVC pipe in commercial structures.
He said the Building Inspections Department in Overland Park informed him that they allowed the use of PVC pipe for a number of years. He said Overland Park built a lot of commercial buildings and a lot of those buildings were larger than the buildings Lawrence had.
He also talked to the Building Inspections Department in Topeka and received the same answer.
He said after listening to a discussion at a Plumbing Board meeting it seemed that Lawrence was one of the very few cities that did not allow PVC in construction usage and drain pipes.
He asked the City Commission to consider this issue and he thought it was important, not only as a health and sanitary consideration, but it was also a real economic situation for people who build, buy, and operate buildings.
Mayor Rundle asked if the Plumbing Board recently had a unanimous recommendation to allow PVC piping.
Schumm said he was given an approval for a two part motion that passed by a 4-0 vote, which was for a change of materials per his request, but they based that change on the fact that they intended to recommend to the City Commission some change in the code.
He said he subscribed to an authority that produced a code that he felt comfortable with in terms of building regulations. He said this section was amended by the local authority to not allow for the provision that was normally thought to be reasonable construction material.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, said Schumm was correct in his assessment in that was a local amendment to the plumbing code. He said the Board met on February 17th and recommended the portion of the code, the local amendment that prohibited the use of PVC pipe. He said staff could have something back to the City Commission in a couple of weeks amending the City’s current local ordinance.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if the City Commission’s action described on the agenda was not correct.
Wildgen said what had happened was that Schumm was having a meeting after the agenda was going to be published. He said staff did not know what the outcome of that meeting would be at that time. He said an ordinance could be drafted that required two readings and there would be time for public comment on that issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked Schumm if there was any current work to replace pipe that would require something quicker than the two weeks.
Shumm said he was fine with that timeframe. He said he was granted a change of materials which was site specific.
Wildgen said the City Commission would be receiving all those code recommendations in the near future. The Board had met and approved the minutes and that would be coming to the City Commission.
Mayor Rundle said when the Commission did the initial review of the International Code, he voiced a desire that they were not simply adopting amendments because they already had them before, but because those amendments were justified.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it made more sense to bring back this issue as part of their general review of code updates.
Wildgen said those updates would be coming to the City Commission in March.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the letter from Bob Schumm concerning a plumbing code change (use of PVC pipe as an acceptable material); approve the requested change; and direct staff to bring the appropriate Code change back to the Commission through the code review process that was currently underway. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Receive a report from Neighborhood Resources Department concerning storm shelter/safe house concerns.
Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, presented the staff report. He said staff had received a letter requesting that the City consider immediate access to underground storm shelters or safe rooms. This request went to the Building Code Board of Appeals on September 16, 2004 and they reviewed the request and their recommendation was to not mandate storm shelters in new single-family homes. However, if the City Commission elected to require storm shelters, the Board further recommended that a certain standard of construction be established.
He said staff contacted other communities and looked online for any type of amendments, state laws, or jurisdiction that had some type of requirement for a storm shelter, but staff could not find any information.
He said staff had a couple of options for the City Commission to consider which were:
1. Concur with the recommendation of the Building Code Board of Appeals to not require storm shelters in new single-family homes;
2. Require a FEMA approved design storm shelter in all new single-family homes constructed after a predetermined date.
He said staff also received correspondence from the Lawrence Homebuilders Association and members of that organization provided information on costs for those storm shelters. The letter indicated that a minimum of $20,000 would be required in a single-family home added to the cost for a basement. He said regarding a safe room, it was estimated at an additional $5,000.
He said on FEMA’s website, their estimated cost of the type of construction that would be required ranging from $2,500 to up to $6,000. He said staff received a building application today, for the construction of a storm shelter in an existing basement and their cost was $6,000 with $1,000 went to a FEMA approved door. He said it was expensive to build a safe room and there were other approaches that could be taken. The FEMA Design Guidelines provided a variety of different approaches, but obviously the most economical approach was to use an existing structure.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if FEMA had any guidelines for multi-family structures.
Torres said FEMA might have some guidelines, but he was not aware of any standards. The only standard he was aware of was for single-family homes.
Mayor Rundle said he received an email from someone who happened to find an article about another community and also people from the Planning Commission had also looked into this issue.
Mayor Rundle called for pubic comment.
Jane Graves said, in response to Commissioner Highberger’s question, FEMA had group and community shelter guidelines.
She said the proposal was based on facts and it was not something that was dreamed up and was based on research by a team composed by the engineering staff of FEMA Mitigation Directorate, consulting engineers from the private sector, Wind Engineering from Texas Tech, and the National Association of Homebuilders Research Center.
She said the safety measures were necessary because Lawrence was located in an area where the most F3, F4, and F5 tornados had been recorded. While tornadoes did not happen every year and sometimes not for 20 years, people still needed to be prepared when a tornado did strike. The same way people prepared for floods by mapping out a floodplain and requiring insurance, for automobile accidents by requiring seatbelts, and fire with measures such as having solid doors between a home and a garage.
She said the cost was a consideration, but did it actually create a barrier to affordable housing. The Homebuilders Association estimated that a storm shelter meeting FEMA requirements would be a minimum of $5,000. She said no one wanted to make it so that people could not afford homes.
Last year one of the Commissioners suggested contacting Habitat for Humanity since they required storm shelters in their housing and the organization was the epitome of affordable housing. She said she contacted Habitat for Humanity and Mark Brooks, Construction Coordinator, said that they had built their safe rooms for $1,500 to $1,700 which included materials and labor.
She said a safe room was a shelter in a closet, approximately 3x4 ½ feet and was nothing fancy, but it met all FEMA and HUD standards. It took approximately a half of day to construct and for that model there were no secondary cost increase rooms or house size. She said FEMA said that there would be an increase of 20% if trying to retro-fit a house and sometimes it was cost prohibitive to do that.
She said she contacted a loan officer from Capital Federal and a house loan based on a 30 year fixed rate would increase payments by $5.76 per $1,000. To put in a safe room for an additional $1,500 to $2,000 into house, the loan payment would increase by $9.00 to $11.50 a month. She said she had asked the loan officer if that amount would usually keep someone from being able to qualify for a loan and the officer said it would not under most circumstances “make” or “break” the loan.
She said from her perspective as someone who actually lived in an apartment without a storm shelter and had actively searched for a home with a basement and found that she could not afford it for her first home, she would have absolutely paid $1,500 to $2,000 more for her first home if it had a storm shelter in a closet.
She said more options should be considered by the City Commission. In her initial proposal she asked the Commission to look at storm shelters in all new dwellings including apartments and multi-family housing as well as in schools. For some reason the focus had been on single-family housing. Surely there was an answer out there that would make Lawrence a safer place to be for the thousands of residents in apartments, slab houses, and developments where basements were hard to find. The answer tonight should not be to simply say “no” or “yes” to the proposal about single-family housing and leave it at that. Some options might be to provide storm shelters in slab type houses rather than all single-family homes; provide community shelters in subdivisions where a certain percentage were slab type homes; and perhaps group shelters or in-room shelters should be required in apartment complexes. The City of Wichita did require group shelters for mobile home parks and that could be done in this community.
In a March 2004 article issued by the Associated Press, it was reported that houses could be better constructed to withstand strong winds for as little as $1,000. It was not a storm shelter, but requiring this upgrade in construction would be an improvement over the City’s existing standards. There was also precedence for low interest loans for homeowners who wanted to retrofit a storm shelter. The point was that the proposal needed to be fully considered and explored.
She was optimistic that an answer could be found when all the parties came together in a common purpose to provide safety and affordability. She said she did not believe the answer was to say that enough had been done, it was too expensive, invest in a weather radio, and fend for yourselves. Houses were long term investments, buildings were lasting commodities and lasting statements. The structures that were built this year with standards and quality workmanship, pending no disasters, would remain standing for decades. When the next big tornado hits, she asked what type of building would persons want to be in. If children were living in a home, would a person want a home with a storm shelter or make due with an un-reinforced closet and a mattress. It would be easy to use cost as an excuse, but there was plenty that could be done. She said she did not know what would be acceptable to each of the City Commissioners, for the Home Builders Association, and all the other parties involved, but she believed it was their responsibility to find out.
Kelly Drake, President of Mallard Homes, and Vice President of Lawrence Homebuilders Association, said his company of the last five years had built more storm shelters into slab on grade homes than any other construction company in Lawrence, Kansas. He said they had built 15 storm shelters in the last 5 years.
He said consumers had a choice whether they wanted a storm shelter or not, but it was at a cost. It was not necessary to construct a storm shelter or safe room on an ordinance basis. Requiring storm shelters would cause an impact on affordability. Most of their storm shelters go into homes that were 1700 to 2000 square feet and those homes were price ranged from the mid 150’s to the low 200’s.
He said they were closing on a home tomorrow that had a storm shelter in it. That specific storm shelter, not a FEMA compliant storm shelter, but a storm shelter build out of concrete with a concrete cap and a commercial steel door because, as Torres stated that it was very difficult to find an affordable FEMA compliant door, that storm shelter door cost was $5,800 which was a 6x6 and it was at the back of a garage. He said to put in a concrete shelter it was not feasible in a laundry room or most closets because it would take up, in this case, an 8 inch wall plus a 4 inch wall to hide a shelter as a regular room. He said the only feasible place to put a storm shelter was in a back of a garage and once that storm shelter was constructed, a person would need to extend their garage for their vehicle to fit.
He said a pre-made FEMA shelter could be bought. A FEMA compliant 4x4 steel shelter was $6,800. He said in the end it was a cost that was going to be passed on to the homeowners and in a $150,000 to $200,000 house he questioned whether they could add $5,000 or $6,000 mandatory.
Commissioner Schauner asked if some of the homes he had built had storm shelters in the interior of the house as opposed to in the garage.
Drake said they had one plan that had a large enough area between the garage and the laundry room. It was an oversized laundry room and that portion was taken out. He said that was an interior storm shelter, but most of the other shelters that they had built were in the garages.
Commissioner Schauner said if they constructed an interior storm shelter, what that added to the cost of the product.
Drake said the cost was approximately $4,500 to $5,000. He said they constructed that storm shelter standard on their slab on grade houses, but they stopped constructing those shelters because they felt the consumers were not really asking for those shelters. In the last set of homes that they had sold over the last two years, they sold approximately 40 slabs on grade homes and only had a request for one shelter.
Graves said she believed the discrepancy was the type of storm shelter that Drake was discussing was concrete versus the lower end type of storm shelter that protected you during a storm, but did not look good, fit into a small closet, and would not change the outside of a house. The person from Habitat for Humanity said if they could fit a storm room into an 1100 square foot home, a storm room could certainly fit it into a bigger home without it changing the inside or outside. She said a person did not need to go high end to have a storm shelter.
Jason Boots, Communities Affairs Director, Student Senate, University of Kansas, said Neighborhood Resources had made their recommendation to not mandate storm shelters in new single-family homes and he trusted that decision. However, it seemed in the original letter there had been a focus also on multi-family dwellings. He said even if the City Commission decided not to mandate those shelters, he suggested sending this back to the Building Code Board of Appeals to clarify that they were not implementing any code for multi-family.
Mayor Rundle said he received the earlier memo from the Planning Commissioners and did not have a chance to review that memo. He said he was not in favor of a code change right now, but he wanted to keep open the avenues for finding lower cost alternatives for education both for homebuyers and builders.
He said one of the main concerns was having a congregate shelter for groups of people who had slab homes or the multi-family situation.
He also was interested in hearing about the actual building structure so that it was stronger and more able to withstand storms as another alternative.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he concurred with Mayor Rundle. He said what he had heard was that some relatively simple construction changes could drastically increase a typical home’s ability to survive high winds.
He also would like to refer back to the question of multi-family. He said with a structure of a given size, he thought the cost benefit ratio did make this worth looking at. He did not support mandatory storm shelters for single-family dwellings, but he would like to look at those other options.
Commissioner Dunfield said, given the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals’ own workload, did it make sense for this issue to go to another committee. He said it might be worthwhile if they could find some homebuilder, citizens, and engineers who would be willing to volunteer to look into this issue. He saw the potential much more in the multi-family area.
He said it was certainly not at all a bad idea to have a home shelter, but people should be aware that there was a real difference between a $1,500 shelter and a $5,000 shelter in terms of the amount of protection that would be provided.
Commissioner Hack concurred with Commissioner Dunfield because that was a huge discrepancy. She also concurred with her fellow Commissioners that she was not ready to jump into the ordinance on requiring shelters for new single-family homes. She said she would like more information about multi-family and types of shelters.
She said there was concern about affordable housing and adding an additional $1,000 would knock a certain percentage of people out of being able to buy a home.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he was not sure that another couple thousand dollars in a price of a home was necessarily a barrier to affordable housing if it was a cost effective way to address a problem.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Vice Mayor Highberger, but she was just repeating comments that were made.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he would like to discuss the 20% for retrofitting a shelter. He said it did not seem like a barrier if people had a desire for a shelter.
Commissioner Schauner said a person from Mallard Homes had said that he only had one person ask about having a storm shelter in 40 or 50 sales. He said that did not surprise him at all because people want nice kitchens and pretty bathrooms and the last thing they think about was that their house was going to be hit by a tornado. He said that was human nature and he was not ready to support mandating shelter in single-family homes. He said they should find a way to get FEMA involved in helping put together a plan for providing shelter for multi-family units. He said he was not sure at what level they would make the cut-off, but it was worth further investigation. He said he was born and raised in Kansas and he never lived in a house that didn’t have a basement and was surprised that a lot of people did live in houses without basements. He suggested moving forward on the multi-family piece.
Mayor Rundle said that Commissioner Dunfield’s comments about being aware of the workload of the UBCA by either placing this issue on the back burner until there was time or staff could come back with some type of proposal.
Wildgen said it was his understanding that the Commission was interested in pursuing further research on the multi-family and that the Commission was not ready to mandate the single-family. He said staff would research which lower cost alternatives were available.
Commissioner Dunfield said the task was a little bit broad in terms of the single-family and other types of area. He said if there was something they could do in terms of putting together information about what types of shelters were available and what the cost was and to try to educate the public about the opportunities and possibilities would be worthwhile.
Mayor Rundle said it seemed that there were varying standards used in the country because prevailing winds differ widely. If a person never had high winds, then that person would not need to construct the same level than somewhere else.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the school question had not been addressed. He said perhaps that could be placed on the agenda for the next City/County/School Board meeting.
(16)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Mayor Rundle said he had identified a range of issues and concerns about local government effectiveness through a variety of efforts which included the Chamber of Commerce Business Retention Report that was recently updated and the Employee Survey. He said there was refinement of those issues that was continuing to evolve just as there would be new ideas surfacing, but he said he would like to shift the emphasis from studying those issues to developing responses and he would like to propose, with permission from the City Commission, to initiate a small work group that would work with the City Manager to develop some action steps for improving efficiency and effectiveness at City Hall. He said that group could serve as a liaison to the City and Planning Commissions and build on the work-to-date and focus on the City employees’ role in change to improvements in areas to consider.
Commissioner Schauner concurred. He suggested moving forward and actually put some things in play.
Mayor Rundle also said there had been some concerns about parking downtown. He suggested convening the Downtown Advisory Board about schedules and acquiring more information about spaces that had been lost with the Hobbs Taylor project. He said the Commission knew that there would be parking concerns.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. RFP – Design Services to Phase II of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant Facility Expansion.
2. MACPP Bid – 4x4 extended cab pickup for Stormwater Division from Shawnee Mission Ford for $16,385.
3. MACPP Bid – 1 ton truck for Parks & Rec from Shawnee Mission Ford for $16,566.
4. MACPP Bid – ½ ton pickup for Parks & Rec from Shawnee Mission Ford for $12,701.
5. Bid Date Set – March 8, 2005 for Harvard Rd, Monterey Way to Wakarusa Dr., Traffic Calming.
6. Bid Date Set – March 15, 2005 for Lake Pointe Dr, 22nd Terr to Clinton Pkwy Improvements.
7. Rezone – (Z-06-22-04) 1st Read, 1.058 acres from A to RS-2, 704 Folks Rd.
8. Rezone – (Z-07-30-04) 1st Read, 1.029 acres from A to RS-2, E side of Folks, S of W 6th.
9. Ordinance No. 7859 – 1st Read, 5.782 acres, E 23rd for turn lane on E 23rd at O’Connell.
10. Ordinance No. 7812 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-05-21-04) 2.63 acres, from RS-2 & PCD-2 to C-5, 3300 Iowa.
11. Ordinance No. 7815 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-05-20-04) 15.02 acres, from C-5 & PCD-2 to PCD-2.
12. Rezone – (Z-12-53-04) – 8.24 acres, M-1 to PRD-2, 4500 W Bob Billings Pkwy.
13. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-12-14-04) Bella Sera at the Preserve, 8.24 acres, 4500 W Bob Billings Pkwy.
14. City Manager’s Report.
15. Plumbing Code Change- 2000 Edition 701.1.2 (materials) to original code.
16. Storm Shelter/Safe House discussion.