March 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the month of March as “National Development Disability Awareness Month.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of March 1, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of February 3, 2005; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of February 3, 2005; and the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 10, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 398 vendors in the amount of $2,832,445.44. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Jeff Oliver to the Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals, for a term which will expire March 31, 2008; appoint Debbie Burns to the Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging, for a term which will expire September 30, 2006; reappoint Ralph Reed, Deb Taylor, Tiffany Hessler-Droge, Sarah Terwelp, and Captain Ed Brunt to the Lawrence Alliance; reappoint Frank Estrada to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals, for a term which will expire March 31, 2008; appoint Kelly Barth to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for a term which will expire December 31, 2008; and David Kingsley to the Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board for a term which will expire April 30, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
No bids were received for 2004 Miscellaneous Storm Sewer improvements. Staff will be reviewing options. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a mowing contract for various locations for the Parks & Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Master Lawns $16,230.00
M & R Mowing $19,758.00
Crew Cut Lawns $20,628.00
DuPree Landscape $23,520.00
Shelby’s Lawn & Landscaping $24,920.00
Green Acres Lawn Care $28,110.00
Downing Lawn Care, Inc. $29,575.00
Cut-N-Edge $46,830.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Master Lawns, in the amount of $16,230.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to amend the existing engineering contract with BG Consultants, Inc., for 6th Street and Indiana Street sanitary sewer improvements, in the amount of $32,127 for the preparation of construction plans and easement documents required for the alternate Mississippi Street alignment; and for construction observation services during the construction of the proposed sewer line. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Delich, Roth & Goodwillie, P.A. for design, bid, and construction phase services for the 24th Street/Crossgate and Wakarusa Street/Harvard Road relief sewers in the amount of $138,827. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the painting of the water storage tank at 19th Street and Kasold Avenue to TMI Coatings for $321,000. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement for $40,130, with Landplan Engineering for additional engineering services for the construction of Monterey Way, Stetson Drive to Peterson Road, Project 3-CP1-102(BD). Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Harvard Road, Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive, traffic calming improvements, to Pavers, Inc., in the amount of $396,552. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6582, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for an additional $100,000 bringing the total debt issuance for the project to $460,000. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7866, authorizing the condemnation of certain property interests for the improvement of Monterey Way (Brunfeldt tract). Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7868, amending sections 9-802 and 9-807 of Ordinance No. 7782, concerning smoking in public places, pursuant to Commission direction concerning the definition of “enclosed places” and establishing an exemption for certain qualifying employee break rooms. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7863, amending the City’s plumbing code concerning materials for drainage was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt on first reading Resolution No. 6579, establishing April 12, 2005 as the public hearing date to consider the establishment of a special assessment benefit district for the improvement of a westbound left turn lane on 23rd Street at O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously.(12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6583, a joint City/County resolution amending the residency requirements for the ECO2 Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the sidewalk dining license for Jefferson’s Restaurant, 743 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7867, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain City property pursuant to a Jefferson’s Restaurant Sidewalk Dining License. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve a Temporary Use Permit Upon Review (TUPR-02-01-05) for special events at Brandon Woods Retirement Community, 1501 Inverness Drive, the events will be held indoors in various common areas within the Brandon Woods complex. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve a Temporary Use Permit Upon Review (TUPR-03-02-05) for a promotional display of boats for sale at First State Bank located at 3901 West 6th Street, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-13-05) of approximately one acre from A-1 (Suburban Residential District) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located at 810 North Minnesota (E 1338 Road); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve a request from Friends of the Lawrence Public Library to place signs regarding the annual used book sale in various rights-of-way between 6th and 9th Streets and between Massachusetts and Tennessee Streets from Friday, April 1st to Saturday, April 9th, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said bids were received on Phase 1 of the Waterline project from Tennessee to 7th and Folks Road. He said staff received bids under the engineers estimate.
Wildgen also reported that Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, updated the stormwater web pages to include a watershed map. (20)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Prime Consultant Services for Lawrence Public Library Expansion Project..
Bruce Flanders, Library Director, reviewed the RFQ. He said by approving this RFQ it would allow the move forward to the next step of the planning process for the expansion of the Public Library. The New Direction Task Force had been working throughout the year in 2004 on a report that the City Commission received in December. He said they would like to engage the services of a prime consultant to assist them in taking the next step. He said they were seeking to follow this process for two main reasons.
He said they realized the significance of what they were doing because this was a process that was going to result hopefully, in an expanded library facility that would serve the community of Lawrence in an excellent manner for the next 20 to 50 years. He said this was a project that was incredibly significant to this community. He said none of the Library Board members or staff members had particular expertise in the area of engaging the services of a consultant for this type of work. Although they had some expertise in working with other consultants in seeking automated library systems, but this was a new process and they wanted to make sure that they were accomplishing that process in a professional manner. Thus, they felt it would be appropriate to bring on a prime consultant who would be able to look at the work that had been done to date and to advise them in terms of the kinds and numbers of consultant to then carry the process forward the later half of this year.
The second reason he felt this was important was the development of a significant destination library in downtown Lawrence had the potential to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment of that entire area of downtown Lawrence and they wanted someone who had some development skills and expertise to be able to look at that bigger picture and to advise them as well.
He said what they were seeking, through this RFQ, to identify a consultant firm or individual who would help identify specific consultants to provide the in-depth research needed to produce the final document, hopefully by the end of this year. He said certainly from his experience one member of that team would be a library building consultant, someone who had specific knowledge about public libraries throughout the United States, public library trends, information about the existing programs at the library and the kinds of programs that they felt were important to provide in the future to serve this community. He said in addition they might seek someone who could perform feasibility studies of the surrounding sites and to look at an overall master plan for the library facility.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they wanted someone selected by April.
Flanders said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said that was a short timeline April to July for selection.
Flanders said they believed it was possible based on some information they received from the New Direction Task Force Chair who was a practicing architect. He said the Chair said what they would be engaged in, if this was approved, would be a process of interviewing and reviewing the responses to the RFQ potentially interviewing two to four individuals firms and making a selection by the end of April and then allowing ten weeks for this initial consulting study. He said they believed it, while an aggressive timetable, was realistic.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed like a lot of work in a short period of time.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize distribution of the RFQ. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Mayor Rundle and Commissioner Highberger requested consideration of City participation in the Community Housing Assessment Team (CHAT) process, sponsored by Aquila Networks.
Mayor Rundle provided the background information on this item. He said the city would consider committing to funding part of what that was not picked up by Aquila, up to the total amount because it was possible that they could receive other partners to participate in the funding.
He said information was provided on the web from Aquila, but the only issue that he was not quite clear on was the use of focus groups with enhanced facilitation by the contactor. Those would be distinct groups in the community such as the financial community, developers and builders, homebuyers, and neighborhood groups.
Lorissa Long said the consultant indicated if the names of the participants in each of those focus groups could be provided to him within three weeks prior to his visit to this community, he would also send a survey out to each of the participants so he could have some information relative to their perception before he actually went into those focus groups.
Long said if the scope of the assessment was expanded to include the County, it would be an additional range of approximately $2,000, a total of $9,000. Aquila would pay $3,000 and would host a luncheon on the last day where the consultant would actually present results.
Mayor Rundle said he was in a meeting at the Chamber of Commerce with Charles Jones, Douglas County Commissioner, and Jones was the one that initiated the idea that perhaps the County would participate.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Highberger said he was in favor of moving forward with this item because it would give them ground work to move forward and answer questions about affordable housing and what that was and what it meant. He said from the results of this process that he had seen in other places, there were actual strategies identified for some of those problems identified.
Mayor Rundle said he would like to be prepared to appoint a Task Force because even if there were strategies identified, implementation would be better if there was some Task Force identified from the start .
Commissioner Hack said this idea had great potential. The questions that they had at this time, they could not get a handle on such as definitions and terms and where they would go. She thanked Aquila for its participation and it was exceptional that they were willing to help the City solve a community problem.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City’s participation in the Community Housing Assessment Team (CHAT) process; make application; and, fund up to the maximum amount that was needed to cover the balance of the expenses. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Receive memo from the Recycling and Resources Conservation Advisory Board (RRCAB) on recommended energy conservation strategies.
Chuck Soules said at the January 11th City Commission meeting the Commission received the memo from the RRCAB on their recommendation for energy conservation strategies for the City of Lawrence. The Commission asked at that time that that be brought back for further discussion as a regular agenda item.
He said he provided a memo to the City Commission with additional information with respect to what the City currently practiced in regards to energy conservation, but one additional piece of information that staff was reviewing was the use of hybrid vehicles.
He presented recommendations and comments with regard to energy conservation.
Adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IEC). A memo from Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, which explained the potential impacts to this department’s staffing level if that code was adopted.
New/existing City facilities. In discussions with all City departments, energy conservation and efficiency was evaluated with all newly designed facilities. Alternative materials and efficiencies were evaluated to provide the City with the most practical and efficient project. The City’s Environmental Procurement Policy was written for the reuse of recyclable products. This policy could be expanded to specifically express energy conservation and efficiency.
Lawrence Public Library Expansion Project. City staff could work with Library staff to insure that any expansion design included the components of a “pilot” energy conservation project. City staff was consistently evaluating energy efficiencies in existing City facilities:
Public education and outreach programs. The City had many avenues available to provide for the distribution of any newly developed informational material to the community. Staff time for the development of an educational component/program could consist of the following:
The City has supported the Annual Home Energy Conservation Fair and Sustainable Home Tour for several years. Although we had not specifically budgeted for this event, it has made a fiscal impact of approximately $1,500/year. (energy conservation balance sheet 2004) Staff time for coordinating, promoting, setting up and managing the event was also significant. The Home Energy Fair had been a significant component of the Waste Reduction & Recycling specialists’ responsibility, taking about 20% of the position’s time. It was estimated that the Waste Reduction and Recycling personnel costs for this event was approximately $12,000/year.
The City and Westar had been proactive with respect to energy conservation and street lighting. Between 1989 and 1991, the City had retrofitted with high pressure sodium bulbs which provided the most energy efficient lighting available. We were also replacing traffic signals with LED fixtures. The cost of the LED’s was expensive versus a standard bulb but uses less energy and had a longer life (7-10 years). As an example, last year the intersection at Clinton Parkway and Kasold Drive was converted to all LED’s. The March 2004 electric usage cost prior to the conversion was $93.12; the February 2005 electric usage cost was $31.20. Over one-half of the City’s signals had LED’s. Finally, the City’s Code Article 20-14A contains specific requirements for facility and parking lot lighting to avoid light trespass and glare.
Commissioner Dunfield asked about the LED fixtures and whether staff measured how long the bulbs had been lit in order to know when to replace them.
Soules said they did not measure how long the bulbs had been lit but only knew to replace them when the bulbs started failing. He said the LED’s lasted approximately 5 years and the regular bulbs had approximately a one year life span.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a particular timetable for the purchase of future hybrid vehicles.
Soules said he did not have the schedule, but staff had been working with K.U. to get a hybrid bus. Staff also worked with the K.C. Metro APWA Chapter in looking at the biodiesel fuels.
Commissioner Schauner said it would be good to have a timetable to actually acquire that package of biodiesel and/or more hybrids. He said he remembered an email from Wildgen that light duty pickup trucks would be available in a hybrid format in the near future.
Soules said he thought that was the 2006 model year. He would provide the Commission with additional information.
Steven Hughes, RRCAB, said the adoption of the International Energy Code (IEC) was obvious. He said their feeling as a board was that they were behind the curve. He said when looking at the Big 12 cities, two thirds of those cities had adopted the IEC and the only one that had not adopted that code was Manhattan. He said other items as far as the City’s expanding role in energy conservation was the City’s participation in the Home Energy Fair and Sustainable Home Tour.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked what was the nature of the commitment that they would like to see from the City regarding the Conservation Fair and Sustainable Home Tour.
Hughes said right now it was all coming out of Mollie Mangerich’s, Waste Reduction/Recycling Operations Supervisor, budget. He said Mangerich had to take resources from other things to help out and he thought there should be a commitment from the City.
Vice Mayor Highberger said that issue could be addressed during the budget process.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Hughes had some sense of what that commitment would look like in terms of staff.
Hughes said Soules outlined that issue in the memo.
Lauri Routh, RRACB, said this memo was something the Commission asked for and the Board worked long and hard on that memo trying to pare down a lot of divergent ideas into a fairly coherent series of recommendations.
She said her background was in hazardous waste and with that lens she presented the Commission the following fact for their consideration. She said energy conservation was ultimately pollution prevention. The largest source of airborne mercury emissions in the environment today result from coal fired power plants. She said in her mind reducing energy consumption could reduce the amount of that poisonous neurotoxin entering this environment. The City of Lawrence was well poised to take proactive steps to reduce the amount of energy that this community consumed. She asked that the Commission look favorably on the recommendations that had been made by the memo and particularly, the adoption of the IEC and certainly the project that the library was proposing having that being a lead type of building.
Nils Gore, Architect and Professor of Architecture at the University of Kansas, said he wanted to promote the adoption of the IEC. He said building codes were written for the public good. Those codes did not serve any special interest and they were living documents in a sense that those codes were constantly revised in response to perceived needs. He said the development of the IEC was in response to a perceived need of an energy crisis. He said the adoption of the energy code would keep Lawrence at the leading edge and in the production of buildings and houses would ensure that new building that came on-line would be less energy intensive so that future buyers that purchase those buildings could have some assurance that it was not going to bankrupt them when they continued to occupy those buildings.
Vice Mayor Highberger said it would be useful to go over those points one at a time. He said the first point was the adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code. He said they had been looking at the residential portion of that Code and he would like the Commission to move forward with adopting the residential portion and directing that the remainder be reviewed further.
Commissioner Dunfield agreed, but said he had a concern that the building code adoption had to be a priority and the Commission needed to make sure that they were not sending the signal that the Commission wanted to slow that process down in order to make this one happen. He said he would like to get both of those done immediately, but the Commission could not do that.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that was work that could not occur concurrently. He asked if they fitted together
Commissioner Dunfield said he was assuming that the Building Code Board of Appeals would want to look at the International Energy Code and they were the body that was also looking at the International Building Code adoption.
Barry Walthall, Code Enforcement Manager, concurred. He said it would be possible to do a concurrent review, but it would take two different bodies to do those reviews. The codes were developed to blend together and a concurrent adoption process would be ideal.
Commissioner Dunfield said he would like to see some way to expedite the adoption of both of those codes. He said if they could come up with a process that could help move through those adoptions quicker he would like to see that happen.
Commissioner Hack concurred.
Mayor Rundle said if the recommendation was to adopt those codes in a sequence then this should take second place to getting the Building Code adopted.
Walthall said one of the proposals in the Recycling Board’s memo was a separate board be appointed for the review of the energy code and that was something staff would be willing to participate in. He agreed that the sequence, if it was unable to be done concurrently, would be the building code and then the energy code.
Vice Mayor Higherger said the second recommendation was the new/existing City facilities and the expansion to specific energy conservation and efficiency seemed like a good idea.
Commissioner Schauner concurred.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the third recommendation was the Lawrence Public Library Expansion Project and it was his impression that the Commission already gave strong approval to proceed with the construction of the library as a lead or pilot energy conservation facility.
Commissioner Schauner and Commissioner Hack concurred.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked staff to clarify the fourth recommendation which was the cost effective opportunities for energy conservation within City programs.
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, said it was just that staff had not looked into those types of energy conservation opportunities much and staff would like the opportunity to do that.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the fifth recommendation was the Public Education and Outreach Programs which seemed like a good idea.
Wildgen said it was a budget item at this point.
Mayor Rundle asked if it would be appropriate to put a timeline on recommendation No. 4 for the cost effective opportunities for energy conservation within City programs.
Soules said Alan Bowes, Director of Tenants to Homeowners, was going to discuss that issue. He said Bowes had some information with respect to that issue.
Commission Schauner said the more staff could develop those ideas in house the better.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the sixth recommendation was the Annual Home Energy Conservation Fair and Sustainable Home Tour. He said the Commission already discussed this issue during the budget process.
Vice Mayor Highberger said finally, concerning the energy conservation and street lighting, he did not see a recommendation other than a report on what was already happening.
Soules said he did not know if there was much more staff could do. He said there were zoning codes that addressed the light trespass issues. He said staff had worked with Westar on all of the street lighting and were currently working on all the LED’s. He said if there was something specific that the board had in mind in addition to that staff could look at that. He said staff was also looking at interior lighting.
Kevin Dobbs, RRCAB, said as far as street lighting goes, the Board was thinking about eliminating the use of the drop lens. He said there was an idea of a phased plan to introduce full cut off fixtures for the street lighting as Westar maintained those for the City to ease the cost.
Mayor Rundle asked if it was possible if the Advisory Board could come up with a plan so they could see how that could work for both time and cost.
Soules said staff had discussions with Westar and it was something staff could do. There was a cost because the City would need to pay for all new light fixtures throughout the City. He said the rates would be the same as far as the electricity usage, but he did not have those costs to switch those fixtures out.
Commissioner Hack asked if those fixture and bulb replacements could be done over time.
Mayor Rundle said he assumed there would be a cost savings.
Dobbs said there would be some indirect cost savings because, in the long run, because you would be lowering the brightest light source around.
Commissioner Schauner asked if less wattage could be used and received the same amount of illumination if the drop lens was eliminated.
Dobbs said less light could be used in some places and it depended on the wattage of the bulbs that were available. He said in some cases yes, and in some cases no.
Commissioner Hack asked if this issue was more of a light pollution issue.
Dobbs said the light pollution issue was a component.
Soules said as far as the rate went, the City paid on per pole basis. He said they did not meter all of those lights so the rates, depending on the wattage, would be the same regardless of the fixture.
Commissioner Dunfield said it seemed staff and Westar could get together and put together a couple of different alternatives for replacement at over different periods of time so that the Commission could get an idea of the financial costs and make a decision on that basis.
Vice Mayor Highberger encouraged staff to keep thinking big because he thought Lawrence should be on the cutting edge of energy conservation. . (23)
Receive memo from the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals (UBCBOA) requesting direction in regards to Chapter 11 of the International Residential Code.
Lee Queen, Chair Building Code Board of Appeals, said as late as yesterday they had an emergency meeting, and voted to support adoption of Chapter 11 of the International Residential Code. He said the way to comply with Chapter 11 was a prescriptive mode or a person could follow the International Energy Code. He said their board had not reviewed the International Energy Code and that was a big area that they did not know about.
He said yesterday he sat down with Ron Durflinger and used a process called RESCHECK that was a software program designed by the Department of Energy for telling someone if their home as in compliance with the IEC. He said most of the Board feared that this was going to be a huge problem with affordable housing, but most of those fears had gone away. He said by using that RESCHECK process it would still, in certain cases, increase the cost of homes, but, in his personal opinion, the prescriptive method was going to be disastrous.
He said the board would meet again and perform a thorough review of Chapter 11 and hopefully come back with a recommendation to adopt the building portion of the International Residential Code.
He said the RESCHECK was designed by the Department of Energy so that it could be used as a tool to prove compliance with the International Energy Code. He asked if it could be specifically noted that the RESCHECK was an acceptable form of proving compliance.
Commissioner Dunfield said that was good news and the Commission appreciated their willingness to call an emergency meeting to discuss that issue.
Queen said he heard about RESCHECK and people had spoke to the board about that type of software, but he did not realize that it specifically proved compliance. He said the process was fairly simple, but it would still add some costs in some cases. The entry level house, the house that would be punished the most by the prescriptive process of Chapter 11 would not be hurt that way.
Mayor Rundle said it was always good to include the specific citation, but it seemed that most codes usually have a prescription and/or industry standard. He said it was always good to have the flexibility to know that there might be alternatives.
He said in the Boards deliberations he thought it would be good for someone to gather the information on energy savings especially if it could be figured out over a monthly payment because it would push a mortgage payment up slightly, but it might also bring the energy cost down so that the net affect on the homebuyer was minimal.
Queen said the new homes in town, the homes that would be affected by this code, were actually the most energy efficient homes unless a custom home was built and was designed specifically for huge energy savings. He said he thought the problem was making the new homes even better and not looking at other homes that were energy wasters.
John Craft, Building Code Board of Appeals, said when it came to the point where the Board presented a recommendation to the City Commission for adoption of the International Residential Code, it was going to take some additional effort to make sure those standards were followed and that might require additional staff and inspections.
Mayor Rundle said getting the residential code completed was a priority. . (24)
Receive information concerning the Planning Commission’s consideration of (A-01-01-05): an annexation request for approximately 54 acres, located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction).
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the subject property was currently undeveloped and was provided access via a county road. It was also located south and east of a recently purchased school district property.
The Planning Commission struggled with the discussion about providing affordable housing versus not approaching leap frog development. This was an area that was within a watershed area and a new area in the community to begin planning and looking at development. The area was upstream of the existing water source.
She said staff’s recommendation was to proceed rather prudently and the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the City Commission without a specific recommendation, but because of the need for affordable housing in the community, that they thought this item warranted special consideration. That item would then come before the City Commission and the Planning Commission and staff were looking for direction on how the City Commission wished to proceed with this particular item.
Mayor Rundle said the staff report pointed out that infrastructure would need to be extended. He asked if there was any cost estimates.
Day said the applicant had addressed some of that and that would be the extension of the trunk lines.
Mayor Rundle asked Day to recap the work that needed to take place in order for this plan to fit with stormwater and other issues.
Day said only the most very most basic planning for this area had been looked at. She said it was in the service area and urban growth area, but beyond that staff had to look at access land uses, the extension of sewer and water, access capacity of those facilities both for the subject property and other areas both developed and undeveloped within the City limits and very near proximity. Stormwater would need to be reviewed and transportation networks would be part of that analysis.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff knew what the school district’s timetable was for construction on the ground to the north and west of this property.
Day said the school district did not comment, but staff said if this particular project were approved and built out in the next several years that the students that would be generated from this property would be attending Langston Hughes school.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the school district had done any demographic study based on this rough information about how many students it would generate.
Day said no not to her knowledge.
Commissioner Schauner asked how students living in this development would access Langston Hughes.
Day said based on the network that was in place today, they would be going to Clinton Parkway taking K-10 Highway either to the north or Clinton Parkway over to Wakarusa to 15th and up to George Williams Way.
Commissioner Hack said those students would be bused because they were far enough away. She said there was special consideration for kids that had to travel a major arterial.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would be a school district cost to bus those kids as opposed to a fee for busing.
Commissioner Hack said she believed so.
Craig White, Principal, Windover Communities, presented a graph to the City Commission depicting average and median prices of homes currently available in the City of Lawrence which ranged from $276,052 for average new homes and $211,900 for median new homes. The third graph was for the moderate housing limit for Douglas County which was $172,632. He said the top of the graph showed people making 80% median family income which many people would define at that point or below as affordable housing.
He said the project that they were proposing would produce housing in $100,000 or under in duplex town homes up through $170,000 for the larger single family detached homes with basements.
He quoted from President Franklin Roosevelt saying “The test of our progress as a society was not whether we add more to the abundance of those who had too much, is whether they provide enough for those who have too little.” Providing affordable workforce housing within Lawrence spoke directly to what Roosevelt said, but providing this type of housing was very difficult. He said their experience to this point was their project spoke to that struggle.
He said first it required a developer with a low basis in land that the land component of this process was affordable. Next that developer needed to be willing to be not only the land developer but also the home builder in that way not taking a traditional land profit but one profit out of the combination of the land and home. The right developer however with the right priced land was only half the requirement. It took a community committed to doing what it took to make affordable housing happen.
He said Planning Commissioner, Holly Krebs, in their meeting before the Planning Commission said it best during their presentation. He quoted Krebs” The Planning Commission dreamed of a project like this and she hoped that the concerns described could be dealt with to allow this project to proceed.” The Planning Commission’s positive 6-3 vote said “To forward the annexation request to the City Commission with the understanding that the Planning Commission viewed the property and the request as having unique characteristics that might warrant special consideration.” In so many words the message from the Planning Commission was that the City should work with them to work through the issues to make this project work. He said they believed that this project could work.
He commended the City Commission with the work that they would be doing with Aquila. He said Aquila had taken their company to four communities to talk to those communities about the concepts of affordable housing.
Mark White, White & Smith Law Firm, said it was critical to keep in mind that this was not leap frog development, but was entirely within the urban growth boundary. He said City policy provided expressly that it was the City’s policy to aggressively annex inside the urban growth boundary and that was all they were asking for which was the very first stage of the development approval process. He said, as the affordable housing graph that was presented earlier showed, there was an undisputed need in the City of Lawrence for affordable housing. Nobody had ever seriously challenged that there was an affordable housing issue in this City. He said the planning and development regulations were contributing to the issue, and they were offering a very limited way, without opening the floodgate and without impairing in anyway the integrity of the City’s growth plan, a way to help meet that compelling need. He said they were requesting approval or at a bare minimum guidance to the Planning Commission in favor of what they were proposing.
He explained the concept plan which was a very pro-active process. He said Gould Evans met with area residents in order to give the neighborhoods some voice and some say in how the project was going to be designed. The comments that were heard from the surrounding neighborhoods formed the concept plan that was before the City Commission. He said there were lower density lots that provided a buffer from the property to the north that was in response to comments from neighbors. He said the City was also pursuing policies in favor of traditional neighborhood design designs that replicated the neighborhoods closer into the City and those designs were reflected in the proposal and reflected in the comments. He said there was a visual preference survey that was presented to the neighborhoods. He said this was also a concept plan as well. There were comments made by the Planning Commission that provided connectivity, a better connected street system and they could work through that if the annexation was approved.
He said there was green infrastructure to the south and open space that was also a detention feature that provided a dual purpose of stormwater preventing sedimentation issues with Clinton Lake and also usable open space for the subdivision. He said they had addressed all the land use issues proactively with the surrounding neighborhoods and it was also consistent with the low density designation of neighborhoods across the highway and also inside the urban growth boundary and City limits extending up to the highway.
He said with regard to the utilities, EBH Engineers had done studies that demonstrated that there was adequate capacity with regard to water and sewer up to the trafficway. There was only 1,650 feet of water main extensions that they would need to make. There was a lift station that was in the approximate location that the Wastewater Plan provided. He said this would all be done at the applicant’s expense. This was not an expense that they expected the City to incur.
This project was also was at a two minute response time for the new Wakarusa Fire Station that would be constructed in January. The staff report indicated that there studies that showed that the response times were inadequate. In reality there were no written criteria that the City had adopted and the National Fire Protection Association, Standard 1710, actually provided a four to eight minute response time as being adequate. He said they were well within adequate fire response times using national standards. With regard to capacity, location of infrastructure, and with any regard to any cost to the City, they felt they had addressed all of those issues adequately.
In closing, people would say this project and the issue of leap frog development had arisen, but this was not leap frog development. This was inside the growth boundaries of the City. The City’s policies expressly call for aggressive annexation inside the growth boundary. He said this would not open the floodgates for sprawl development outside the City limits. He said they were asking for special considerations as the Planning Commission mentioned this provided affordable housing and provided a level of design that were not seen in most new subdivision in the City of Lawrence.
There was also an issue raised about developing inside service area one before opening up development to service area three. He said Horizon 2020 Plan expressly acknowledges that the policy to develop all of service area one was not a hard and fast policy. It was something that was to be interpreted in a flexible way. It was also important to consider that the applicant looked for land inside service area one and it did not exist. There was no land left for large scale affordable housing development inside service area one. If that were true, they would be talking about a project inside service area one. He said that was important not only when the City Commission considered the affordable housing issue and workforce housing issue and then availability of housing in the City of Lawrence, but it also showed that this project was consistent with the timing and sequencing and development policies that Horizon 2020 laid out. He said there was a compelling need for affordable housing that this provided.
He said he was an urban planner in addition to an attorney, and the firm that he was with before helped design a lot of the cutting edge growth management programs that were seen around the country and he knew how those programs worked. Good planning practice provided that to size urban growth boundary, the boundary would have to be sized in a way that accommodated all of the need for housing that was identified inside the boundary. He said one example was the City of Portland, Oregon, which a lot of Planners hold out as one of the national models for establishing urban growth boundaries. The State of Oregon required cities and counties in establishing urban growth boundaries to accommodate a 20 year supply of housing. He said accommodating affordable housing inside service area three of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary was very consistent with good planning practice.
He said it was also important to stress and consider where they were at the stage of the approval process. This was the very first step. Approving the annexation did not mean that they would get construction tomorrow. He said there was ample time to work out details such as the timing and phasing of development and utilities. He said they had already laid out their studies and they could formalize that in an annexation agreement.
Also, schools were mentioned. He said they checked with Langston Hughes and the school district and there was 140 to 150 person surplus of students today. The school district said that they were seeing a student generation rate of 0.4 students per household. He said this project would generate approximately 100 students well within the surplus capacity that the school had today and most importantly those students would come on-line gradually. He said approving this annexation did not mean there was going to be 100 new students in Langston Hughes tomorrow there was still an approval process that needed to be gone through with rezoning and subdivision, building permit approval and other issues.
He said they believed this project was consistent with Horizon 2020. They had worked with Horizon 2020 and they were following the sequence. There were utilities available and if utilities needed to be extended they would be provided at the applicant’s expense and most importantly this project provided a compelling need for the City as also recognized in the plan.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked where it was stated in the City’s policy that it was City policy to aggressively annex land in the urban growth area.
White said he did not know the page and policy number off the top of his head. He said he could look it up and get that information to Vice Mayor Highberger.
Bob Voth, landowner and Chairman of Windover Communities, said their attorney and acting CEO, Craig White spoke from the head, but he wanted to speak from the heart. He said on April 3, 2001, in his state of the City address, Lawrence Mayor Jim Henry, told fellow Commissioners that affordable housing was a prime challenge facing the City. He said Mayor Henry said escalating housing drove young families and single professionals out of the real estate market. He called for new alternatives to meet the needs of those who work but could not qualify for the available housing.
He said three and a half years later in December 2004, the City Commission recognizing that this need had not yet been met, listed as one of its strategic goals and priorities for 2005 the need for private/public partnerships to provide affordable housing. The need for this type of housing was so great that Bobbi Flory, of the Homebuilders Association, recently remarked “Lawrence did not have an affordable housing problem, but an affordable housing crisis.” However the reaction of civic officials had too often seemed to say just the first portion her remarks, “Lawrence did not have an affordable housing problem.”
This was the message given to young families, single professionals, modest income retirees and anyone who worked and contributed to this community and wanted to live in it, but could not afford to do so. With the average home cost around $200,000 this included a great many people crucial to the City of Lawrence such as teachers, firemen, EMT’s, policemen and nurses. There was no point in pretending that there was no low and moderate priced housing shortage. Everyone knew that there was. Recently, in one of his articles about this problem, Journal World writer, Joel Mathis, said it was a problem everyone talked about, but no one did anything about.
He said this was a serious proposal and they were there to do something about it. Their attorneys had outlined how this need could be met in ways consistent with the Horizon 2020 document. Their engineers had shown how the utilities were easily available.
The one missing ingredient to provide affordable housing was the political will to do so. He said there was a long litany of excuses and reasons not to do it. Frankly, the most offensive reason was that their plan was premature.
He said as far as their project went Planning Commissioner David Burress said the reason why this project made sense was because it was premature. He said if was not, the land would not be available. There might be more reasons and excuses, indeed, every time they answer an objection, more appear. He asked if they wanted people who made less than $50,000 a year living in this community. He said if not, let the political judgment be made. If so, let find a way to do it. He said no plan was perfect. No plan met every letter of Horizon 2020, but this plan came reasonably close and deserved a yes vote.
White said to answer Vice Mayor Highberger’s question, he said the policy he was referring to was on page 59 of Horizon 2020 that provided area immediately adjacent to cities were encouraged to annex where services were available.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said it was goal 3 in Chapter 4, page 4-8. On page 4-6 it was also policy 1.5 with goal 3 that specifically spoke to annexation 4-7 through 4-9.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that was also contained in the staff report under the summary of land use.
Finger said staff had summarized portions.
Phil Struble, representing the Hazlett Family, said to the south of this project was ground owned by the Corp of Engineers, to the east of this project was ground owned by Kansas Department of Transportation, and to the north and west was ground owned by the Hazlett family. He said he neither supported nor opposed the project but wanted to go on record that his client wanted to be an active participant in the planning process
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Hazlett property on north was bordered by 1500 north.
Struble said their property went all the way up to 1500 Road.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many acres did the Hazlett’s own.
Struble said over 400.
Alan Bowes, Tenants to Homeowners, said he had been personally responsible for 31 affordable houses in Lawrence and involved in about 200 other affordable housing projects. He said the statement that nobody ever did anything about affordable housing in Lawrence was not completely accurate. He said he did not know if this was a good project or not.
He said the logic that if you do not support this project, then you do not support affordable housing, was offensive.
Mike Bogart said he had been involved in a lot of starter type homes. He said this might be one of the few opportunities to promote something like this.
Struble said they were not there to oppose or propose their project while they understood the affordable housing issue. During the Planning Commission session there was a discussion about an area plan which they thought was totally appropriate. Planning Staff said that it was going to be some time before they could come back with an area plan. He said they thought an area plan was appropriate and they wanted to participate in that endeavor.
He said as he understood it, the applicant came back and asked if they could do their own area plan. He said they were not opposed to that, but they wanted make sure they went on record that they get the same level of participation in that process as well as City staff and the public.
Commissioner Schauner asked how large of an area did Struble believe was appropriate to study for an area plan without regard to who performed the work.
Struble suggested going to 6th Street. He said there was conversation with KDOT as how the connection went from north and south and east and west through that entire area.
Commissioner Schauner asked how far west that area plan would go.
Struble said they needed to have an area plan at least to where the school district ground was located.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was west of that school district ground.
Struble said as he recalled that corner where the school district ground was the first node of Horizon 2020 that showed something other than single family. He said it showed a small commercial dot. He said one mile further was the limitation of Shawnee Heights School District. He said that corner was pivotal because it pits the Lawrence growth over to another school district which they had historically found as being a long term impediment to getting over.
White said he wanted to apologize to Bowes. He said he applauded Bowes for what he did for this City. He said they were speaking in the context of all the folks that were interested in affordable housing.
Mayor Rundle said area plans were a community process addressing community impacts, cost concerns, values and other issues. He said this was a matter of timing and it had its attractions in terms of housing and the market needs that it might address. He said they were just getting ready to embark on a community affordable housing needs assessment process. The infrastructure and services were not accessible and it was important that the Commission stick to their policy of developing contiguously to the City’s boundaries that they follow where possible in an orderly process through the service areas as outlined. He said this was a good project, but the time had not yet come for this project.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to be supportive of this project, but he could not because this was leapfrog development. He said it was getting closer, but he had concerns about how they provided services to that area without burdening other people.
He said he was somewhat offended by the comment made about if a person supported affordable housing, that person would need to support this project. He said affordable housing was a very serious problem and he did not like the way this project was being used in this process.
He said the distance from the existing waterline, sewer, capacity issues, timing and other areas that would be developed prior to the completion of the new sewer treatment plant, fire station, police service, and sanitation, at some point this would be a great project, but he could not support this project at this point.
Commissioner Hack agreed with Vice Mayor Highberger. She said this was a great project, but they were just trying to get their hands around the issue of affordable housing, and definitions, as a community issue. She said the design of the homes was great and she hoped sometime the project could go forward, but to annex property that could not be served at this point with utilities was difficult to support at this time.
The design concept with the new urbanism design was wonderful but she could not support the project.
Commissioner Dunfield said he shared many of the same feelings, but he was not ready to slam the door at this time. He said in terms of the 54 acres it was not traditional neighborhood design, not on the scale of the neighborhood. He said as he looked at the plan that had been developed there was a single point of access for 54 acres and it did not consider in any active way what was happening to the west or to the north or with Judy’s Junctions and what the possibilities might be there for some kind of connection.
He said as a piecemeal project, he shared all of the City Commissioners’ reservations, but when looking at the map, what they were basically looking at was a square mile piece of area with K-10 taking out a chunk on the east and Corps land taking a little chunk on the south. He said when looking at that square mile with the school property at the northwest corner, you would have what was roughly thought of in their planning documents as a traditional neighborhood and it had a lot of the characteristics potentially that a traditional neighborhood would have. It had a school site, small neighborhood commercial site, protected greenspace with the Corps land and it had relatively few landowners which from a planning perspective was a real advantage.
He said the Commission had been talking about new urbanism and trying to do some type of demonstration and that piece of land had that potential. He said he did not think the land could be developed in a hurry, but it might be worth some discussion among the property owners and staff about whether there was that potential to look at that whole piece and think about how it would all work together. He said he did not want to just go forward with just this development proposal, but he was open to looking at a larger picture.
Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with most of what was said, but he would adopt as his position the staff report which addressed issues like arterial and collector network, timing issues, and the fact that it was not contiguous to the current City limits. He said frankly, he was concerned about even giving fleeting thought to permitting landowners to do their own area planning. He said that was a very bad precedent to set. Area plans needed to be done by the stakeholders of the City, not just those who own that particular piece of ground.
He said he was also concerned about the impact, not of just this project, but others in terms of how they get to the Langston Hughes School. He said that struck him as a fairly difficult process. He said crossing the South Lawrence Traffic Way at many times of the day was a very interesting journey and he did not think that this property addressed those issues in a way that would satisfy him.
He said he asked earlier if the school district had shared any thoughts of when they planned to develop the new school ground. He said he was at a school board meeting not too long ago and he did not think it was on the school board’s radar screen at all for development. He said the timing with the school along with this development ought to go, at least reasonably, close together. He said it seemed that the school district was not even thinking about that school. He said the school district bought that ground as a future investment rather than thoughts of building a school at that location.
Mayor Rundle said it was his impression that it was a long-term decision regarding the school issue.
Commissioner Schauner said putting the issue of affordability aside, this particular project, although well intentioned, had violated the three basic principles of real estate which was location, location, location. He said the project was at the wrong place at this moment in time to be a project that he could endorse.
Commissioner Hack asked Finger what the Commission could do to address Commissioner Dunfield’s and Struble’s comments concerning the area plan and working toward that larger picture.
Mayor Rundle added what the normal timing would be for having an area plan in that area based on how that area was progressing.
Finger said if the City Commission had the opportunity to go back and look at Goal 3 in Chapter 4 of Horizon 2020, that section discussed annexation and new areas that were not contiguous. She said if going to a watershed or a sub-basin relationship the geography of the land was being looked at as it related to how to provide basic services which was not only sewer and water, but how streets were laid out. She said so it was a natural feature rather than an interloping feature into a natural landscape. She said what Struble was describing as an area encompassed a good portion of what the sub-basin was. The map itself would encompass that area that took in the new school site and K-10. She said what staff needed to do was to look at that comprehensively with the landowners, looking at how long that process take. She said typically that type of process took a good year to two years because it was being done at a collaborative level with the property owners and not as a professional planner. She said the process would be done together not as a private or public sector. She said there were people that would find that type of housing desirable. She said there was a need, but it was a need that needed the right services provided.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were plans to have a fire station built on Wakarusa in January.
Wildgen said the architects were currently working on that station and the plan was to bid that station out this year.
Commissioner Schauner asked when the construction would take place.
Wildgen said this year.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that development would be in the fire protection zone of that station.
Wildgen said that station would be much closer than Station No. 4.
Finger said that station would be in the west 40 which was basically the northwest corner of Clinton Parkway and Wakarusa in that general area.
Vice Mayor Highberger said Horizon 2020 encouraged annexation adjacent to the City, but he was not sure that constituted an aggressive annexation policy although he was not so sure that the City should not have an aggressive annexation policy. He said on that level he was not necessarily opposed to the annexation part of the request, but he was not sure it made sense to annex this piece of property by itself. He said if they were serious about planning that area then maybe the Commission should look at annexing the entire area, but it would be a dramatic change in policy.
He said it seemed that this was an area that they identified during the Community Neighborhood Development Workshop where they sat down with landowners and work out details and a comprehensive plan for that neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner said there were some significant infrastructure concerns that the cost of providing the kind of housing described required an entirely new road. He said that County Road was not designed to handle that kind of traffic and signalizing the SLT at that intersection he suspected would be a necessity. There were a significant number of infrastructure issues which would be expensive and he did not want to lose sight of the fact that planning that area would require very substantial infrastructure costs. He said they needed to be careful how the area plan was done and understand all the costs that the City would be undertaking if in fact this became a site for a new urbanism kind of plan.
Commissioner Hack asked Finger if she would recommend annexation of that entire area prior to an area plan.
Finger said if the Commission wanted to consider annexation, it should be considered for the entire urban growth area. She said she assumed that property owners who were ready to move now might not see annexation to their advantage if it meant annexation, but there needed to be a service delivery plan and that would be two years before development could take place. It might make it so it was not financially within their realm to do what they were proposing.
Commissioner Schauner said because annexation might cause their appraised value to go up.
Finger said because the time lag might cause their appraised value to go up and along with annexation.
Commissioner Schauner said as he remembered there was a fairly lengthy discussion at a joint study session with the County about this aggressive annexation issue and what he thought was expressed by the County Commission was there were many people in UGA out some distance from the current City limits which might find aggressive annexation a pretty unhappy circumstance because it would significantly raise their taxes and not provide them services in their lifetime.
Mayor Rundle said it might be good to frame a discussion about annexation policies in general sometime in the near future.
Finger said the Planning Commission thought an area plan should be developed with encouragement with this kind of development.
Commissioner Schauner said it would be good to give a copy of these minutes to the Planning Commission because the minutes would contain a variety of concerns about this project, contain comments about annexation issues and whether it was going to be an aggressive annexation policy, what it looked like, and what it was going to require. He said it seemed that there were broader questions than this parcel. He said he would hate to see a single parcel drive an exception to a broader public policy question. He said that was the discussion that would be worthwhile for the Planning Commission to have.
Commissioner Hack asked if it was possible to send this item back to the Planning Commission with the City Commission’s thoughts about a larger area plan. She said she agreed with Commissioner Dunfield in that she would like to see what the City Commission could do not to shut the door on this idea.
Finger said the annexation itself was brought before the City Commission because the annexation was larger than 10 acres. She said there were zonings that came along with the annexation request and those were tabled by the Planning Commission until they received direction from the City Commission. The actual questions that were involved were how to provide services and how to in a timely and accelerated process plan comprehensively for this area to keep this project on target. That was what came forward from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Rundle concurred that there again it was impossible to address infrastructure. He said he did not think that they even understood the questions of what infrastructures would be needed to serve that area adequately. Again, it was a matter of timing and he thought as soon as this fit into a long range planning sequence that any of this could be referred to any of the standing committees of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Dunfield said in terms of the specific question of annexation the consensus of the City Commission was clear, which was not at this time and not for 54 acres for this specific development. He said he did not think there was a clear consensus from the City Commission whether an aggressive annexation policy was something that the City Commission wanted to pursue right now. He said they had been made aware of both benefits and problems with that kind of policy, but he did not think the Commission had gotten any further than that in the discussion. He said there was a fair amount of sentiment on the City Commission to explore the possibility of a larger look at this area with reservations about timing and providing infrastructure.
Commissioner Schauner asked Wildgen if this area would be served for wastewater by the proposed plan on the Wakarusa.
Wildgen said no because it was not sited at this time. He said there was an extension of the sewer line at approximately 15th Street.
Commissioner Schauner said if this were to be built next year where would the City service the wastewater.
Wildgen said it would need to be pumped to the north and connect to the line that he had mentioned. He said it would go back down east, down the Yankee Tank/Lake Alvamar line and go the pump station at 27th and Kasold.
Commissioner Schauner said with all things being equal, when they build a wastewater treatment plant on the Wakarusa, unless there were topographical issues, it would make a lot more sense to move the wastewater to the south and east than taking it on a trip that would require passports.
Wildgen said staff had not conducted a sighting study yet so they did not know where the split would be.
Finger said there was one other question that was outstanding and that was if the City Commission was interested in an accelerated planning process to look at this area planning process.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he would not be opposed to that idea, but it needed some tie to the Planning Department either a completely independent consultant or somebody that answered to Finger.
Mayor Rundle said he would want to see areas in between this area and the City limits that were not planned. They needed to be either included at the same time or planned simultaneously.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not interested in an accelerated look because if it was accelerated it tended to take a place closer to the front of the line and that might not really have been their intention and there were a lot of other things on their plate that ought not be bumped further back just because this project came forward.
Vice Mayor Highberger said this was not that far off from being a timely project and the process they were talking about would take some time too.
Mayor Rundle said he would like advice from the Planning Commission on that question rather than try to predict something.
Commissioner Dunfield said he would like to know how the Planning Commission felt about that idea and he would also like advice from the property owners as well.
Commissioner Hack asked when looking at this area were they talking about going as far north as 6th Street. She said if they were going to do it, that they do it in a way that would serve that entire area.
Finger said it would need to be driven by the drainage basin and other parameters.
Mayor Rundle said there was general agreement that this would not leap over any unplanned areas.. (25)
Receive Planning Commission reconsideration of:
(a) Z-10-50-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.6348 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
(b) Z-10-51A-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.0277 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District based on the Lesser Change Table. [Original request was for RMD (Multi-Family Residential) District.] The property is generally described as being southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:
(a) Z-10-51B-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District based on the lesser change table. [Original request was for RMD (Multi-Family Residential) District.] The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented a map of the Lake Estates Subdivision. She said an annexation and two zoning requests were originally presented to staff. One of the zoning requests was for RS-2 and the other for RMD. Based on staff’s recommendation, the Planning Commission considered taking the RS-2 request and lesser change that zoning back to the RS-1 district and make some more transition to this development and what was outside the city limits to the north. That was one of the items that went back to the Planning Commission. She said that acreage was 3.6 acres. The case file number had stayed the same throughout that process.
The next item was where the confusion occurred which was the RMD district. This was originally in that project and then the Planning Commission divided that zoning district and forwarded a recommendation for only a part of that district. That area was originally requested for RMD. Through the lesser change table and through various discussions, those two wings of that area were forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation for RS-1 and the remaining piece was RMD. The Planning Commission actually initiated a zoning in response to that RMD to RS-5. The applicants most recently withdrew their action and closed out that particular activity.
What were left were two areas, but three zoning districts. The RS-1 that was converted from the RMD, the remaining piece in the middle was recommendation as RS-1, and the overall piece on the southern end as RMD. The plat was not before the Commission, but there were different exhibits to show the different discussions between the applicant, staff and Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reaffirmed their recommendations to City Commission for land uses. Those land uses would be subject to annexation which was not on the agenda tonight. That was an item the City Commission dispatched previously and would take a new request or new initiation for annexation if any of this were to be approved.
The applicant also indicated throughout the public discussion at the Planning Commission that they would also be willing to lesser change this RMD piece down to RS-2. There had been lots of discussion about land use, about the actual zoning districts that crossed cases because they were really talking about how that land form looked once it was platted.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if what they were looking at was the current proposal.
Day said yes, that was the revised plat that was submitted for review. It did alternate the street connections. She said the zoning, legal descriptions, and boundaries were adjusted somewhat between the two plans. That was something staff had not tried to address immediately because staff was working with the legal descriptions they had started with.
Commissioner Schauner said his memory was that much of the discussion was whether this area and the area to the north and west of it should be area planned or not. He thought there was a new service plan that Planning had sent to the City Commission. He asked what happened with that discussion.
She said the direction that staff took back to the Planning Commission, based on City Commission discussion from the Feb 1st City Commission meeting, was that an area plan needed to happen. Staff talked originally with the Planning Commission about the need for service delivery which dealt with the sewer, water, and street network because the land use elements had already been addressed through the comprehensive plan and the platting that had taken place. There were property owners that had five, ten, or more acres that thing could be done with and have a great impact on perspective. It would still be classified as low density. She said from the land use side of it, it was there. She said there was language in the comprehensive plan that talked about very low density and low density. The very low density, that being one dwelling unit per acre or less, was intended for those areas that were outside the immediate city limits or in some of those growth areas where redevelopment would be anticipated or further subdivision warranted urban services and were provided to those areas.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the changes that was made was to cause the road that traversed from the southeast to northwest to not go any further.
Day said currently that street was under construction and one half of that right-of-way existed to a certain point and it would cul-de-sac in that area. She said Lake Pointe Drive connected to 920 Road and then came in and they talked about using some kind of barricade to limit that through traffic as it continued back up to the north. Those were some of the disconnections that were talked about.
Staff’s understanding was that the applicant had gone back and tried to meet with property owners, and came up with this particular plat arrangement and have the zoning modified to reflect this kind of platting arrangement that had been resubmitted for consideration, plat-wise. Again, they would need to meet that annexation, zoning, and platting before ever moving further along in that process.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether the proposed change in Lake Pointe Drive did not, in and of itself, require even a service plan.
Day said the proposed change led them to this point. The piece that was still missing was the connection which was the collector street framework. The next designated collector street element in this overall area was East 902 Road which was a frontage to K-10. That had been projected for some time between Bob Billings Parkway at the north end and Clinton Parkway at the south end. Because of the topography and the lake, there were no more collector streets going north and south. The segment that was missing basically runs along the Breithaupt property which connected that piece back to the frontage road in some configuration.
Commissioner Dunfield said what was lacking was not the plan, but the method in which to do it.
Commissioner Schauner asked if 902 Road would theoretically move from the end of Lake Pointe Drive all the way to the end of Bob Billings Parkway.
Day said not all the way to Bob Billing Parkway. That road would stop just south of North 1500 Road. There are a few houses at that location and it was a minimum maintenance road and County right of way, but it had a right-of-way connection between George Williams Way on its eastern side and a frontage road on its western end. The collector network would be 902 Road to North 1500 Road east to George Williams Way and up to Bob Billings Parkway. This provided the one access point for all of those residents out of that area.
Todd Thompson, Attorney, said he was a late comer to this project. He said he understood that there were moments when it was a bit contentious and there was opposition from the neighbors. This Planning Commission initially recommended a 10-0 vote for approval. This project went back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and there was a 9-1 vote in favor of this project. The last time this matter was addressed by the Planning Commission, the vote was unanimous.
He said they had been working with the neighbors of this project over the past two months. He believed they had come up with a solution that the neighbors were very comfortable with and was workable from their point of view.
He said Day’s illustrations showed that the exact zoning arrangement had changed somewhat. He said this project had resulted in two zoning districts. He said the applicant was asking for zoning approval conditioned upon approval of that plat which had been filed with the Register of Deeds. He said the proposed zoning was traditional transitional zoning from the more intense uses to the south.
The road network changed and would be a cul-de-sac at this time subject to the determination of the City with regard to connection. He said the applicant was not taking a position on that idea, but they had offered to pay for a gate if that was the route someone wanted to take.
When this was discussed and reviewed with the Planning Commission and the issue of the area plan was discussed, the Planning Commission made it clear that they did not believe it was prudent or necessary to hold this project up while an area plan was in progress. He said a road network was not going to be affected by this project going forward. He said he was at that meeting and the Planning Commission made it clear that an area plan was a good idea, but holding this project up while that area plan was in progress was not a good idea.
The recommendation they were asking the City Commission to adopt was to rezone this property in this arrangement, in accordance with the lesser use table, subject to the property being annexed and the recording of a final plat. Price Banks, Attorney wanted a change in the language in the agreement that said subject to the recording of this final plat that had been submitted and they concurred. He said they were asking the City Commission to approve the rezoning subject to the conditions of annexation and recording of the final plat that had been submitted.
Price Banks, Attorney, speaking on behalf of Francois Henriquez, property owner and resident in the Lake Estates Subdivision, said they were working with a number of the other neighbors in the area. The neighbors generally supported the new proposal subject to the condition that it was platted as currently proposed and zoning could be conditioned on platting a property.
He wanted to emphasize the point that his client’s key concern was that a defacto collector street was being created. He said they believed that was not happening now. He said if they thought anything would occur that might create that situation, his client and neighbors would not be supportive of this new proposal, but they believed that problem had been resolved.
He said they concurred with Thompson’s recommendation, but his client still believed that an area plan was important. They also believed this project could still go ahead prior to an area plan being developed. The importance of an area plan was exemplified with the earlier proposal and certainly there would be pressure in this area in the future. He said there was still some planning that needed to be done.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked what had changed that led them to believe that 920 Road would eventually be a collector under this plan as opposed to what was on the table before.
Banks said from the early proposals 920 Road was never intended to be a collector. The intent was to have the street that cul-de-sacs be the collector and eventually go over to 902 Road.
Commissioner Dunfield said he thought Banks was saying by providing the cul-de-sac at this location, in essence, he was saying that further development along that street would await the connection to 902 Road.
Banks said yes. There was no connection currently or proposed with 920 Road at this time. If a connection were made, his clients would not be in support of this proposal.
Vice Mayor Highberger said it seemed obvious that road would need to connect at some point.
Banks said his clients would certainly prefer that the collector be connected to 902 Road before 920 Road connected to it. The City Commission certainly had the ability to do that and there had been a lot of debate on that issue. He said this was a perfect situation to exercise eminent domain. That might be a bad word, but there was very short segment that was needed. The property owner was not doing any development and was not ready to dedicate it. He said he told the Planning Commission that the City created this situation and the City ought to help them solve it.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked how the City created this situation.
Banks said he was sorry, but it was the County that created this situation.
Commissioner Schauner said he had a conversation with Linda Finger, Planning Director, about the transportation network in the area. The lack of good connectivity to this site was sort of the elephant in the room. There was not good connectivity between this site and much of anything else. North 1500 Road was currently a cow path and even if it was improved, it would take a goat to get up and down it. He said if the neighbors were satisfied that they did not believe 902 Road would become a direct route to end 1500 Road, who was he to say otherwise. He believed this issue was shortsighted. He thought it would become the shortcut to North 1500 Road which was the road that led to east George Williams Way and then north to Bob Billings Parkway and ultimately to 40 Highway.
Doug Garber, homeowner in Lake Estates, said he was north of Hoffman’s property. He said he was not opposing this development. He thought it was logical that this happened, but what seemed strange was the road configuration. Those two roads which logically should connect for flow of traffic made perfect planning sense.
He said 20 years ago there was a similar situation with Western Hills, 13th and 12th Streets, where the neighbors complained about roads connecting going east and west and those roads were dead ended. He said traffic did not flow east and west through Western Hills.
He said he believed Lawrence was going to grow to the north and west. It only made sense that if the roads were not connected, the easements should be there for easy connection for the need that was going to happen.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked Garber if he would be willing to participate in a benefit district for upgrading 920 Road at some point in the future.
Garber said yes. He said he had been paying Yankee Tank sewer specials for at least 10 years. He said this area had been primed and planned to be in the City. He said he was sure his neighbors would say no. He said he bought his land 20 years ago as both a home and an investment. He said he knew his property was not going to be in the country forever. As someone who lived in the area, it was hard to go from that area either direction because of 10 Highway, specifically to the south. He said when the ground on those 29 acres was developed and there was a bank to the south, he would need to drive 2 miles out of his way to get to the bank even thought it was approximately 1000 feet away from his property.
He said he did not believe that road would be a collector. The natural flow of the traffic would want to go south.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the subdivision would be served by the proposed roundabout on Clinton Parkway. He asked if that was the entry point.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said with Lake Pointe going over to 920 Road, the only access to those subdivisions would be through 23rd Street.
Finger said yes, at this point.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he was satisfied with the plat the first time. He said his concern was primarily the street connections and approving this before they knew how the rest of this would work was a concern. He said 920 Road had to connect at some point. He said it was inappropriate to make that connection until they had a connection from Lake Pointe to 902 Road so it did not become a defacto collector or pour a lot of traffic onto an unimproved road. He said his concern was approving this and in the meantime they had an extremely long cul-de-sac and no collector connection for an indefinite period. He would want to be reassured that there was some sort of plan to make the connection from Lake Pointe all the way over to 902 Road at some reasonable time in the future. He said he was reassured that the area to the north was going to remain fairly low density residential and 902 Road should not be a collector.
Finger said the Planning Commission thought a service delivery plan was necessary and they had talked about a timeframe of 6 months. She said as this project was developing, there would be a service delivery plan available that the City Commission could take action on.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if it would include the timing and financing connection across the Breithaupt property to 902 Road.
Finger said there would be recommendations.
Commissioner Schauner asked what it would take to actually cause that to be acquired and built.
Wildgen said if the City ended up buying they would let you make some kind of condition.
Commissioner Dunfield said he thought the previous subdivision arrangement was better and made more sense. He said he did not see that they had made a very good case for not going ahead and allowing this development. The fact that the Planning Commission had reviewed this project three times and voted 10-0, 9-1, and 9-0 in favor was a strong statement. He said he was frustrated that they have had to review it three times.
He said this process had actually brought him back to another of his favorite complaints which had to do with the development code and the fact that they were still six months off from seeing the new development code accepted. There were zoning categories in that code that would have made this project better than what was going to be developed at that location because they were stuck with RS-2.
He said he was wondering if there was some way to approve a zoning category with the understanding that the intention was actually to develop under a zoning category that would be approved at some point in the future, but that was not something they could reasonably do. He said he was willing to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Hack said frustration was an interesting word because it certainly exemplified this situation from a lot of different perspectives. She said it seemed when a project came through with a staff recommendation and went through three times with the Planning Commission it was kind of like the song that never ended. She believed that this was a good project.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not have any particular quarrels with the zoning piece and he did not believe this was a bad project. He said his concern was the concern that Wildgen expressed. He said if in fact 902 East Road needed to be collector there had to be a way to get from Lake Pointe Drive cul-de-sac to 902 East Road. He said it was not fair that the taxpayers of Lawrence had to pay for that connection. That should be a cost borne by those who were going to make the money from developing this ground. He said on that ground alone, he could not vote to support this project unless there was some mechanism for assessing the cost of that acquisition and build out to the people who would benefit.
Mayor Rundle said he was prepared to approve this project. He said if it exemplified anything, it exemplified yet again that they did not have the perfect planning process. He said they had talked about a lot of different changes to be made. He said his frustration was that they were not moving quicker in the direction of making those concepts and ideas a reality in the City’s planning process.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the project was good, but he could not approve this without some determination of a mechanism for who was going to pay for the connection between Lake Pointe and 902 Road. He said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner that that cost would be inconsistent with the City’s current development policy for that cost to be borne by the taxpayers of the City of Lawrence.
Mayor Rundle asked if this project could be conditioned.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, asked if a preliminary plat had been submitted for this project.
Finger said this was a revised preliminary plat that had been proposed.
Corliss asked if that had gone to the Planning Commission.
Finger said it would go before the Planning Commission April 27th.
Corliss said he thought the City Commission could establish a condition through the plat with the acceptance of easements and rights-of-way that the City Commission would not accept the plat that did not provide for that collector street going over to 902 Road. He said that could be forecasted to the Planning Commission. He said he did not know if that condition had to be placed on the zoning ordinance, but he thought the City Commission had that authority.
Finger said the City Commission would have more control through annexation because the annexation had not been approved.
Corliss said that was a good point. He said they had not talked about resurrecting the annexation or its process. Corliss said the Commission could condition the annexation on the acquisition of the right-of-way to put Lake Pointe Drive over to 902 Road.
Vice Mayor Highberger said, just for the record, he did not think the current applicant should bear the entire cost. He said there would be other applicants that would redevelop at some point and would reap the benefit. Ideally there would be a fair mechanism for allocating those costs. He said he would be satisfied moving forward provided that there was that understanding and it would be addressed at the proper point in the future.
Corliss said if the City Commission wanted to approve the rezoning, the City Commission could indicate that one of the conditions was for the property to be annexed and that annexation ordinance would not proceed unless the acquisition of necessary right-of-way and the construction of the road between Lake Pointe Drive and 902 Road was accomplished. He said that would be placed with the annexation ordinance and tying the annexation ordinance with the rezoning.
Commissioner Schauner said he could support that idea.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked when the City Commission would see the annexation.
Corliss said the City Commission needed to separately act on that. There was a denial of the annexation, but the Commission could do two things with the annexation. The City Commission could reconsider the denial or reinitiate the annexation back to the Planning Commission.
Finger said the Planning Commission would be happy if the City Commission would reconsider the motion to deny the annexation rather than send it back.
Commissioner Schauner said the City Commission could reconsider their earlier action on the annexation in two weeks and condition the annexation as described.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if he was misunderstanding this issue. He said it seemed that they were placing the entire onus of acquiring that right-of-way on the owner of that small piece of property when talking about a collector street that was going to serve 10 or 20 times the area that that small piece of property.
Corliss said the City Commission would be making that a condition precedent for the annexation to proceed. If they wanted to come back with a suggestion on how to better finance that acquisition that could be done.
Mayor Rundle asked what form would take the City Commission’s reconsideration of the annexation denial take.
Finger the City Commission’s action would be that a Commissioner on the prevailing side of the motion denying the annexation would move to reconsider that motion. That motion would be brought back up and the City Commission would take an action to open that motion to reconsider and than take a separate action to approve it based upon whatever conditions the City Commission wanted to take on the annexation.
Mayor Rundle asked if the City Commission would be taking that action tonight.
Finger said she thought the City Commission should take action another time when they had notified the public that the City Commission was going to reconsider.
Finger said the action would be to place it as an agenda item which was reconsideration of that action to deny the annexation. As the City Commission looked at that annexation again, the Commission should look at that strip in addition to what the Planning Commission reconsidered which was that small extension that would go to 902 Road, annexing that property as well. If separating the issues, the Commission could look at annexing the land and then how it would be financed as a separate part.
Commissioner Dunfield said the City Commission could clear those rezonings off the agenda with the understanding that those rezonings would not take affect unless the annexation went through.
Corliss suggested that the City Commission act on the rezonings making them conditioned upon the plat that had been presented. The City Commission was also conditioning it upon annexation and one of the following motions could be that a member on the prevailing side of the denial of the annexation move that it be reconsidered and placed on the March 29th City Commission meeting.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-10-50-04) a tract of land approximately 3.6348 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District, conditioned on approval and recording of a final plat and annexation; and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-10-51A-04) a tract of land approximately 5.0277 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District based on the Lesser Change Table, conditioned on approval and recording of a final plat and annexation; and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-10-51B-04) a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District based on the lesser change table; conditioned on approval and recording of a final plat and annexation and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to reconsider the February 1, 2005 motion to deny the annexation request (A-10-05-04) for approximately 13.3626 acres, located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between East 920 Road and Lake Alvamar, and agreed to place the matter on the March 29th City Commission meeting agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (29)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to recess into executive session at 9:40 to discuss non-elected personnel matters for 10 minutes with the justification for the executive session to keep personnel matters confidential at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission reconvened in regular session at 9:50 p.m.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve a revised City Manager Employment Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. (30)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to adjourn at 9:55. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid – No bid received for 2004 Misc Storm Sewer Improvements.
2. Bid – Mowing various locations to Master Lawns for $16,230.
3. Contract Amendment – BG consultants for $32,127 for 6th & Indiana sanitary sewer.
4. Contract – 24th/Crossgate & Wakarusa/Harvard to Delich, Roth & Goodwille for $138,827.
5. Bid – water tank at 19th & Kasold to TMI Coatings for $321,000.
6. Supplemental Agreement for $40,130, with Landplan Engineering for additional engineering services for the construction of Monterey Way, Stetson Drive to Peterson Road, Project 3-CP1-102(BD
7. Bid – Harvard, Monterey Way to Wakarusa to Pavers for $396,552.
8. Resolution No. 6582 – GOB for additional $100,000 total issuance $460,000.
9. Ordinance No. 7866 – 1st Read, condemnation Monterey Way (Brunfeldt tract).
10. Ordinance No. 7868 – 1st Read, amend Ord 7782, smoking in public places.
11. Ordinance No. 7863 – 1st Read amend plumbing code, materials for drainage.
12. Resolution No. 6579, April 12 Public Hearing, benefit district for 23rd at O’Connell.
13. Resolution No. 6583, City/County, residency requirements for ECO2.
14. Sidewalk Dining – Jefferson’s, 743 Massachusetts.
15. Ordinance No. 7867 – 1st Read, Alcohol consumption at Jefferson’s.
16. TUPR – (TUPR-02-01-05) Brandon Woods special events, 1501 Inverness Dr.
17. TUPR – (TUPR-03-02-05) boat display, 1st State Bank, 3901 W 6th.
18. Rezone – (Z-01-13-05) 1 acre, A-1 to RS-1, 810 N Minn.
19. Book Sale Signs – between 6th & 9th and Mass & Tenn from April 1st to April 9th.
20. City Manager’s Report – Waterline project at 7th & Folks/stormwater web pages.
21. RFQ – Prime Consultant Svcs for Library.
22. Community Hosing Assessment Team funding.
23. Recycling & Resources Conservation Advisory Board – Energy Conservation Stategies.
24. UBCBOA – Chapter 11 of the IRC.
25. Annexation – (A-01-01-05) 54 acres, NW of Clinton Pkwy & K-10 discussion.
26. Rezone – (Z-10-50-04) 3.6348 acres from A-1 to RS-2, SE of Lake Estates Sub, between E 920 Rod & Lake Alvamar.
27. Rezone – (Z-10-51A-04) 5.0277 acres, from A-1 to RS-2.
28. Rezone – (Z10-51B-04) 5.21 acres, from A-1 to RS-2.
29. Annex – (A-10-05-04) request for approximately 13.3626 acres, located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between East 920 Road and Lake Alvamar, and agreed to place the matter on the March 29th City Commission meeting agenda)
30. Approve revised City Manager Employment Agreement.