March 29, 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:

The Rotary Club presented a gift for the Rotary Arboretum.

The Lawrence Sesquicentennial Committee presented an update on their fundraising efforts for the Sesquicentennial Point.

With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of March 28 – April 3 as “National Community Development Week”; and the month of April as “Mathematics Awareness Month.”

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of March 8, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Historic Resources Commission Action Summary of February 17, 2005; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 17, 2005 and February 23, 2005; the Library Board meeting minutes of February 21, 2005; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of February 9, 2005; the Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting minutes of February 16, 2005; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of January 24, 2005; the Mechanical Board of Appeals meeting minutes of December 20, 2004; and the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of February 7, 2005 and February 14, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 477 vendors in the amount of $1,720,390.29 and payroll from March 6, 2005 to March 19, 2005 in the amount of $1,433,614.92.  Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for J.B. Stout’s, 721 Wakarusa Ste: 100; Club 508, 508 Locust; Maceli’s Inc., 1031 New Hampshire; the Caterer Licenses for Maceli’s Inc., 1 Riverfront Plaza; the Lawrence Art’s Center, 940 New Hampshire; and the Cereal Malt Beverage License for Border Bandido’s, 1528 West 23^rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.

As a walk on item and as part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the sole bid for miscellaneous 2005 storm sewer improvement to Linaweaver Construction in the amount of $203,218.00. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for road salt for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER PRICE PER TON BID AMOUNT

Hutchinson Salt $32.41 $64,820

Cargill, Inc. $35.36 $70,720

Independent Salt $41.02 $82,040

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Hutchinson Salt for $64,820. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of three MSA Thermal Cameras for the Lawrence-Douglas County Fire/Medical Department by the sole source to MSA for $26,402.01. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of a pool drop slide for the Outdoor Aquatic Center from the sole bidder of Miracle Recreation Equipment for $43,858. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for street, storm sewer, and roundabout improvements, Lake Pointe Drive, 22^nd Terrace to Clinton Parkway, for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Engineer’s Estimate $859,071.05

LRM Industries $817,740.00

D.F. Freeman $957,130.12

Linaweaver Construction Inc. $1,082,285.31

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to LRM Industries for $817,740. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for street, storm sewer, and waterline improvements, Folks Road, 6^th to Harvard Road, for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Engineer’s Estimate $925,366.00

M.L. Kelley Excavating $536,368.80

R.D. Johnson $599,218.40

LRM Industries $643,460.50

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to R.D. Johnson for $599,218.40 because M.L. Kelley Excavating did not meet qualifications. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to request bid approval for 2004 Miscellaneous Storm Sewer Improvements. A project bid date was previously set for March 15, 2005, however no bids were received. A second bid date has been set and bids will be opened at 2 p.m. on March 29^th, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

(7)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for downtown waterline improvement project for the Utilities Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Nowak Construction $780,783.95

Garney Construction $1,338,298.50

Engineer’s Estimate $861,524.30

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Nowak Construction for $780,783.95. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7860, rezoning (Z-12-53-04) a tract of land approximately 8.24 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), property is described as 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7864, rezoning (Z-09-44-04) a tract of land approximately 0.858 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District), property is generally described as being located at 1017 East 23^rd Street. Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7865, rezoning (Z-09-45-04) a tract of land approximately 2.34 acres from C-4 (General Commercial District and RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to C-4 (General Commercial District), 1045 East 23^rd. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7869, rezoning (Z-01-13-05) 1.0 acre from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District), 810 Minnesota. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7870, providing the contractor licensing and regulations for the City of Lawrence general contractor licensing program. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7871, establishing the board for the contractor licensing program. Motion carried unanimously. (15)

Ordinance No. 7866, authorizing the condemnation of certain property interests for the improvement of Monterey Way (Brunfeldt tract), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.

(16)

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, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

Ordinance No. 7867, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain City property pursuant to a Jefferson’s Restaurant Sidewalk Dining License, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-01-05-05) for Radamacher Office Building, for the conversion of an existing residence into an office building located at 515 Rockledge Road, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

Motion carried unanimously. (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-01-07-05) for Rockledge Office Building, for the conversion of an existing residence into a mixed residential and office building located at 501 Rockledge Road, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval and recording of a final plat prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;

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

a. Show and note 6’ sidewalk along Rockledge to be constructed.

b. Show location of sanitary sewer main to this.

3. Show and note minimum 15’ driveway radii.
4. Provide detail of retaining wall along west side to show height.

e. Show dimension from property line to center of street.

f. Show driveways across street for context and spacing.

3. Provision of revised grading in the northeast corner and connection to the existing curb inlet, per approval of City Stormwater Engineer;

4. Correct the Project Site area listed in the summary table, per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer;

5. Provision of an amended traffic impact analysis to update the following items noted during the staff review:

1. Item 5a, Speed Limit: Per state law, if not posted, speed limit will be 30 mph.
2. Item 6, Sight Distance: should also address sight distances north and south from the proposed access points on Rockledge.  This should include measured sight distance from the access point to the nearest intersection or driveway in each direction, if unobstructed, or to the point at which sight distance is obstructed, whichever is nearer the access point.
3. Item 7, Trip Generation: Peak hour trip generation using Average Rate Method (rounded up to whole trips) is 12 trips AM peak, 11 trips PM peak.  Assumption is that other trips are made outside the AM and PM peak hours.

6. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

Motion carried unanimously. (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to receive a proposal from Burroughs Creek Area Plan Study Committee and the Old East Lawrence Neighborhood Association concerning City acquisition of Lot 1, Sale Barn Addition, 911 East 11^th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Jean Knight, 2726 Ponderosa. Motion carried unanimously. (22)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Mary Gray, 1236 New York. Motion carried unanimously. (23)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Marcia Miller, 725 Ohio Street. Motion carried unanimously. (24)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Lenny and Kimberly DeFazio, 1602 Irving Court. Motion carried unanimously. (25)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Jill Jevens, 1301 Prospect Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (26)

The item authorizing the Mayor to execute the University of Kansas and City of Lawrence Cooperation Agreement was pulled from the consent agenda by a member of the public for separate discussion.

Candice Davis, Vice President Oread Neighborhood Association, said the Oread Neighborhood Association supported the Cooperation Agreement. She said the agreement was an improvement over the existing situation which was no regulations or code enforcement of University development. She said the agreement provided protection to the surrounding neighborhoods and helped establish a more cooperative working relationship between K.U., City, and the neighborhoods.

She said they did have, however, some concerns that they would like to state publicly. While the revised agreement addressed parking regulations it exempted on-site parking requirements for the two new scholarship halls on the 1300 block of Ohio Street. Rieger Hall was presently in the process of being built and it would house 30 students and the site plan presently showed two parking spaces. The new scholarship hall would be coming soon next door to Rieger Hall and it would also house 50 students. A total of approximately 100 students would be living in a half of city block on the 1300 block of Ohio. The neighbors were concerned with the number of students. She said K.U. had stated that they would insist that students register their vehicles and purchase permits for their cars in the Union Parking Garage which was some distance away. At best, they supposed some students might use the parking garage however, there would be many that would not.

She said they wanted to point out that in the future the neighborhood and the City might be faced with a parking problem in the neighborhood that could add up to some expense in order to remedy that. She said in the event at some point the Interlocal Agreement was terminated by K.U. or the City, the Oread Neighborhood Association supported the Planning Commission recommendation that the new City Code provide an automatic initiation of rezoning to the U District as noted in the new code for all land rezoned by the cooperative agreement.

Greg Seibolt, Lawrence, said he had seen the pressure on parking in the 1300 Block of Ohio and shared the same concerns expressed by Davis. He presented a map showing the new scholarship halls and how far away they would be from the Kansas Union Parking Garage. He said he did not think students would be walking all the way from the parking garage. Anytime they could find a spot within two blocks either direction that spot would be taken.

He said he knew the agreement could not be revised at this point, but suggested attaching a statement expressing the opinion that the parking being provided was inadequate and request that K.U. address this issue.

Jason Boots, KU Student Senate, also expressed concern about parking. He said obviously the students and the University were just as concerned about parking as the members of Oread Neighborhood. He said the students that were going to live at either location would not want to park at the garage. He said the students had not heard from the Parking Commission whether they thought it was in the spirit of the Interlocal Agreement that they would force the women in Rieger Hall to purchase a parking pass whether it be the Union Garage Parking Pass or an AP parking pass. The AP parking pass would allow the women to park in an alley, street, and the parking lot behind the Wheel or even in the lots by the other scholarship halls. He said that would also force to shuffle the 32 parking passes in the Union Garage and offer those passes to the other residents of the scholarship halls. He said they believed this idea would be in the spirit of the Interlocal Agreement, but they had not heard from their Parking Commission. He said if this idea was something the Oread Neighborhood Association was willing to support, it would help the students if there was a letter from the Oread Neighborhood Association when the student tried to take that idea to the Parking Commission.

Gwen Klingenberg, representing the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said they were pleased with the dialogue that had come about with this agreement. The City and K.U. had taken a look at several of the items that the Lawrence Association of Neighborhood had brought up to be discussed. She said she was excited to see that the students and K.U. personnel wanted to keep up a dialogue and hoped the dialogue could also be kept alive with the neighbors and K.U.

Mayor Rundle thanked Boots for giving the City Commission the sign that there was interest in the students part to try and be part of a solution to a problem that would be with us for awhile. He said this was a big step forward from where they had been. He said he just came back from the American Planning Association Conference where he attended a workshop on good town relationships and it was clear that there was more room to grow in this relationship and he hoped this was just a beginning of continued dialogue and on-going work to address those common issues because the health of the City’s neighborhoods and the health of the University were intertwined.

Vice Mayor Highberger agreed. He said this was not a perfect agreement. He said he was involved in the negotiations and it would be ideal if more parking for those scholarship halls were provided in that area, but taken as a whole, this agreement was better than forcing the issue and going to court. He said the City would continue to monitor the parking situation.

Commissioner Schauner publicly thanked K.U. for its willingness to re-enter the dialogue after this City Commission sent this issue back for some further discussion. He thanked Vice Mayor Highberger for his good work on getting the agreement. He said the parking issue was substantially more troublesome than just the scholarship halls. The parking issue was one that would get worse, not better, as the enrollment of K.U. continued to grow. He said he would like to see the City Commission entertain some dialogue about some parking policies that they might consider with the cooperation of the University and the neighbors. He said the time was right to have some continuing dialogue about parking, generally speaking, not just the scholarship hall issues, although that was certainly the current issue. He said he agreed with Vice Mayor Highberger that this was not a perfect agreement, but it was a step in the right direction. He said he was not sure he agreed with the assessment about what they might get was better or worse than they might get if other avenues were pursued. He said he supported the agreement and that they could ask staff to come up with some ideas about how they might further that dialogue about parking.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to execute the University of Kansas and City of Lawrence Cooperation Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. (27)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, updated the Commission on the stormwater engineering website and updated the Commission on stormwater projects. He said some of the features on their website were an updated watershed map which was useful for engineering, planning, and public education; their Master Plan; updated revenue summary of how much money they had collected year by year; a stormwater pollution section with information in preventing stormwater pollution; and a frequently asked questions section that covered the entire management program.

He also presented to the City Commission pictures of current stormwater projects. (28)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Conduct public hearing on request for waiver from Section 4-113 of the City Code from Pepperjax Grill, 947 New Hampshire, Suite 120 for a drinking establishment license.

Frank Reeb, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk, presented the staff report. He said this issue was a distance restriction waiver request. Within the City Code, there was a provision that prohibited drinking establishments from being within 400 feet from a school or church. In this case, there was both a church and a school which were the Salvation Army Church directly across the street and the Lawrence Arts Center Preschool across street and down about a half a block. As the City Code required, staff contacted both of those entities about this public hearing and staff had heard from both of those entities.

As noted in the letter from the Salvation Army, they did not oppose this particular request. Also, staff had heard from Linda Reimond with the Lawrence Arts Center Preschool and they also did not oppose this particular waiver request.

He said this was a drinking establishment application and the last time Pepperjax applied for a distance restriction waiver it was related to a Cereal Malt Beverage application. He said the president of Lawrence 1, LLC, doing business as Pepperjax Grill, said the reason for the drinking establishment application was because they would like the opportunity to serve imported beers and microbrews which they would not be able to do with a cereal malt beverage license.

Also, Reeb pointed out that in the event Pepperjax did receive a drinking establishment license that they were in the C-3 zoning district and as such would be required to meet the 55% food sales requirement.

Lastly, in the event the City Commission did approve the waiver request, the Code required there must be a finding that the proximity of the establishment was not adverse to the public welfare of safety.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to find that the proximity of the Pepperjax Grill to the church and preschoool was not adverse to the public welfare or safety and to approve the drinking establishment license for Pepperjax, 947 New Hampshire. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (29)

Conduct public hearing concerning the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way of Oregon Street (Huxtable Expansion), adjacent to the northeast corner of Blk 5, Earl’s Addition.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said typically, when a right-of-way is vacated, half of the vacated property reverts to the owners on each side. The City was the property owner on the east side of Oregon. Huxtable was requesting that the entire vacation be provided for their project. Huxtable proposed to construct a 6 foot sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot allowing public access to the parking lot. He said 12^th and Oregon Streets would need to be modified and Huxtable was requesting that the City complete and fund that improvement.

The Burroughs Creek Area Plan Committee had expressed that they would like this recreational path to be 10 foot wide in conformance with the plans for the Rail Trail project. He said the slope on the southern edge for that drainage channel came within 6 foot of the edge of the pavement on Oregon Street. Therefore, the 10 foot recreational path could not be completed to the east.

Staff contacted all utilities and Southwestern Bell did have a facility within this right-of-way. Typically, an easement would be reserved on the entire right-of-way for utilities, but Huxtable proposed to expand one of their buildings at least 10 feet into the right-of-way and that would not be a problem. He said in staff’s recommendation they would recommend to retain an easement over the east 50 feet of right-of-way for utilities, pedestrian access, and public parking.

Mayor Rundle said he assumed planning staff had been working with the applicant and that the need for the vacation was due to meeting code requirements.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the applicant did need variances. He said this issue was a vacation of a right-of-way and not approval of the site plan or for the 3 variances that the applicant needed to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for. He said there were some related planning issues, but the applicant had been working with the Planning Department.

Mayor Rundle asked if Wildgen could briefly describe those variances.

Wildgen said those variances were probably for setback, but he could find out from staff.

Commissioner Schauner said that it was mentioned that there was not sufficient room at the south end of the project for a 10 foot recreational path. He asked if there was room for a 10 foot recreational path further north.

Soules said once going further north around the bend he believed that there was room for a 10 foot path.

Darron Ammann, Registered Landscape Architect Bartlett & West Engineers, said the current right-of-way vacation request was the first step in their process of expanding the business of Huxtable and Associates in its current location. He said they would next attend the BZA hearing on April 7^th to address three current variances under review by the Planning Department related to improvements to the site plan. The process would be completed at a future City Commission meeting on April 12^th or 19^th, with a final request to approve the site plan document.

The vacation of approximately 300 lineal feet of 60 foot wide right-of-way along Oregon Street was necessary to provide adequate facilities required to accommodate the future increased workload of this business. The vacated right-of-way would provide an area in which Huxtable and Associates could expand their current pipe fabrication shop as well as provide 32 additional parking spaces in a newly created parking lot. Also within the vacated right-of-way, as a benefit to the City, and surrounding neighborhood, they proposed creating a recreational path adjacent to the property for public use.

Dan Sabatini, Sabatini Architects, said this was an exciting project for East Lawrence and the ability to expand a viable business. He pointed out the proposed expansion to the City Commission. He said there was a pipe fabrication shop which would be expanded to accommodate some additional fabrication. He said expansion would allow for additional storage to be relocated. He said there would also be a second story that would allow for office space. He said the need was to expand for business growth.

He said they had met with the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and other individuals regarding the rail to trail project. He said in those meetings they had good discussions and there was an issue of how to accommodate the trail especially right now when the trail was yet to be fully defined. He said one proposal would be to hold off on putting in the trail at this time until a full Master Plan was completed. The other proposal was to allow public to park in that parking area during off hours so parking would be available in the evenings and weekends.

Wildgen asked Sabatini about the three variances.

Ammann said the three variances would be: 1) a parking setback reduction of the current ordinance which stated 15 feet from right of way down to 4 feet which the parking lot was located 4 feet from the right-of-way currently; 2) not have any curb and gutter in some specific locations because the existing parking lot did not have any; and, 3) a waiver from the 60% impervious surface within the floodplain limits. Currently, they were over that by 68%.

Mayor Rundle asked if those variances were for prior to construction or after construction.

Ammann said that would be an after construction condition.

Smitty Belcher, owner, Huxtable and Associates, said he appreciated the City Commission’s consideration of the proposed expansion at their 12^th Street operation to accommodate their future increase workload. The expected increase in workload and revenues would generate eight to ten new office positions which would include detailers, project managers, and estimators at the facility. In addition there would be an additional 20 to 25 construction field positions including electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers, and pipe fitters. The salaries would range from $40,000 to 60,000 per year.

He said they currently employed about 120 people and expected that number to grow to approximately 150 or 160.

In summary, he said they had no objections with reserving a public easement for the east 50 feet of right-of-way as stated in the memorandum by Soules. He said they were requesting the following: 1) approval of the right-of-way vacation; 2) that the City considered paying for the intersection improvements at 12^th and Oregon Streets; 3) that the Burroughs area rail corridor building permit moratorium be lifted for this project; and 4) that the City Commission waive the traffic study that was being required with the upcoming site plan approval.

Lawrence Bodle, property owner at the intersection of 12^th and Oregon Streets, said he had no quarrels with Huxtable’s and they were good neighbors, however he had been waiting anxiously for nearly a year to be able to use the intersection of 13^th and Oregon Streets again. He said with this proposed closure of the street that intersection would not be available to them. He said he approached some the neighbors and none of them were enthusiastic about losing Oregon Street. He presented a statement with signatures from his neighbors protesting the closing of Oregon Street and urged the City Commission to deny it.

Bodle said if Huxtable was proposing to buy the right-of-way for 12^th Street why was the City paying for the intersection improvements that were caused by this project.

Mayor Rundle said that question would be noted and would be answered.

Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said Huxtable was a long standing valued employer and good neighbor in East Lawrence and East Lawrence Neighborhood Association supported their plan to expand at their current site.

She said the map on the agenda link and also the map that was shown earlier did not show that 12^th Street, with the new drainage improvements illustrated, was no longer a through street. She said it stopped at 12^th and Oregon Streets. She said this was a lot of change for a quiet neighborhood in a short period of time and she understood the immediate neighbors’ concerns about that.

She said improvements to the remaining streets in the neighborhood which were fairly substandard and very clear signage directing Huxtable truck traffic would lessen the impact on those immediate neighbors. She said it was something that the City Commission needed to look at. She said this was now a cut-off area and there were traffic issues to look at and to consider.

She said she did not want to see Huxtable and those good jobs leave their neighborhood and they had been a good neighbor and good supporter of East Lawrence for many years. She said there should be a way to balance those concerns.

Dennis Miller, resident who lived 150 feet from the proposed expansion, said he had not minded Huxtable as a neighbor at all. He was surprised to hear that Huxtable had 150 employees. It would make more sense that if Huxtable had that many employees that maybe they should consider moving out of a residential neighborhood to an industrial park or by Packer Plastics. He said if Huxtable chose to stay, his only problem was the closing of Oregon Street. He said he would have signed the petition in opposition of this project if he had been asked to do so.

He said there were other viable solutions to the parking problem. Perhaps with the revising of this site plan they could leave Oregon Street open and have parking on one side or both sides, or they could rearrange some of the parking in the middle where there was a temporary trailer that they were planning on removing that would certainly allow for more parking. The City already had two parking lots within 75 feet of existing rail head and certainly was within walking distance of Huxtable’s if they needed extra parking or as opposed to closing the parking lot on both ends, perhaps that could leave it open on the north end and allow some type of through transportation or double ended parking lot. He said he was not opposed to the new construction, but they had already lost 12^th Street and he was not crazy about losing another street. He said Huxtable was asking the City to pay for the improvements at the intersection of 12^th and Oregon and quite frankly it could be just left alone. He said all that needed to be done was to open it back up and allow them back to 13^th Street. He suggested having another plan or two for other options on their parking situation.

Dana Carlton, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said they were very keen on Huxtable and they were part of the kind of industry they wanted to see. She said their neighborhood was a mixed neighborhood and they wanted commercial/industrial/residential mixed development.

She said as a board member she would take responsibility for the board not receiving enough input from the neighbors that lived near the Huxtable development when the board met with Sabatini and Belcher in January so that the neighbors could have asked questions and it would have been fairer for Sabatini, Huxtable, and Bartlett & West. She said the neighbors had some genuine concerns about the traffic issues that needed to be addressed. She said the Board wanted to make this project happen so that the neighborhood homes were preserved and at the same time was good for the industry too.

Michael Almon, Burroughs Creek Area Plan Committee (BCAP), said their committee had been in contact with Huxtable, Dan Sabatini, and Bo Harris, in various discussions in general support of this project.

He said the BCAP committee believed the east 50 feet of the 60 foot right-of-way easement would meet their design needs for the 10 foot wide Eastern Lawrence rail trail that would pass along the western edge of the new Burroughs Creek drainage project.

The Burroughs Creek trail connected from 23^rd Street north to approximately 12^th Street and at this point it might or might not fork in two directions. He said the committee was looking at the northern most point either going along Oregon Street to Hobbs Park or forking over to actually get on the rail corridor. He presented a map to the City Commission of the proposed project.

He said with their informal meetings with Dan Sabatini and their own committee meetings they talked about an option that they were hoping would fit in with the easement assuming that the site plan configuration could be adjusted for the driveway entrance. That option was for it to be a 10 foot trail until it gets to a certain point and then cut across the driveway entrance and head south on the west side, continuing on Oregon Street to 13^th Street. A second reason that was important to allow it to be 10 foot wide at that choke point, but also when reaching 13^th Street on the east side of Oregon Street, was that the bridge on 13^th Street prevented the 10 foot wide trail from actually entering 13^th Street. On the west side there was plenty of room for the trail to reach 13^th Street and to safely access it and get connected to the remainder of the trail. South of 13^th Street it would be on railroad right-of-way.

He said for those two reasons they were hoping that Bartlett and West, Huxtable and Sabatini could see a way to revise the grade to plan to get the trail right across the driveway entrance and continue south on the west side. He said what the Burroughs Creek Area Plan Committee was hoping for was that the 50 feet of easement was adequate to handle any kind of a 10 foot trail assuming it could be worked out at the site plan stage.

He said they did not anticipate opposing Huxtable’s request for an exception to the building-permit moratorium when the final site plan came on for Commission approval. He said they assumed the 10 foot trail would be able to somehow be situated and aligned within that 50 foot easement so that it would be harmoniously arranged with their driveway entrance and not cause physical conflict between auto traffic and bicycle traffic.

He said they were supportive of the Huxtable expansion project, irrespective of any neighborhood resident issues that were brought forward at this evening’s meeting. He said some neighborhoods would welcome such a traffic calming device to keep the truck traffic that would be going south from Huxtable, from going north through the residential neighborhood.

If there was a 10 foot wide, pedestrian, wheelchair, bicycle trail at that location that certainly was adequate public access for people to go north and south through that neighborhood.

In general, they were supportive of the expansion and they were looking forward to working with Huxtable and the engineers to see what they could work out.

Mayor Rundle asked staff to comment on the questions about the project posed by members of the public.

Soules said in order for Huxtable to acquire the 30 foot area right of the potentially vacated right-of-way, the City would have to Quit Claim Deed it back to Huxtable.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said that issue was a technicality. The point was the Vacation Order did not transfer the property to Huxtable. The City would handle that by a separate instrument along with the site plan.

Mayor Rundle asked if this issue could be conditioned on further approval of a site plan.

Corliss said the City Commission’s action was to conduct the hearing. He said now the Commission could approve the order of vacation with appropriate conditions as the City Commission deemed reasonable.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Rundle said until he met with Huxtable he did not recognize the magnitude of this corporate headquarters and employment base and it was certainly spread out over the region. He said his support came in part from the fact that this was consistent with the stated goal of the City Commission’s Economic Development Policy as opposed to having a request for and offering a tax abatement. He said this was a fairly finite contribution to the City and the gain was significant when comparing other Economic Development issues.

He said when he met with Belcher, he told Belcher that his initial reaction was to always protect public rights-of-way. He said he was sympathetic if there was some way to make that project succeed and maintain access.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a cost estimate to rebuild that intersection.

Soules said staff did not have a cost estimate. He said the existing road was minimal with an asphalt surface with open ditches. He did not suspect the cost to be significant depending on the improvements. He said placing curb and gutter on the corner was not going to provide improvement because nothing else there was built to that kind of a standard. He said if the City Commission adopted the site plan and not have any access through there was going to need to be some type of curbing, otherwise people would drive across the grass through the parking lot.

Mayor Rundle said someone said there was curbing along 12^th Street.

Wildgen said Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, had a project that had a curb that blocked any access to 12^th Street.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this was a new radius for this corner as a way to assist Belcher’s vehicles to make that turn.

Belcher said they would not be coming in that direction and they would not have any traffic on 12^th and Oregon Street. He said they would be coming in from 13^th Street.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the need for improving the intersection was.

Belcher said it was a requirement by the City.

Wildgen said to make the corner more pronounced because it was presently a T-intersection. He said this improvement would put a slight curve to direct that traffic to the north.

Belcher said that improvement would not have any affect on his business.

Commissioner Hack asked if Huxtable’s traffic would have no affect to the north because their truck traffic came in from the south.

Belcher said most of their traffic same in from 13^th Street.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Huxtable staying in Lawrence and those jobs coming into East Lawrence. He said he understood concerns of the neighbors about the connections, but since there was already such a high degree of connectivity in that neighborhood and there were quite a number of ways in an out of the neighborhood even without 12^th or 13^th Streets, he was in favor of the vacation.

He said he wanted to see what they could do to make sure it was a 10 foot trail. He said if that was going to be a link in the rail to trail system that would be important.

Again, he supported the vacation provided that it was conditioned on receipt of the variances and approval of the site plan.

Commissioner Dunfield said he also supported the vacation and in terms of the issues of the immediate neighbors, he said their was some potential inconvenience, but that was balanced against the fact that Huxtable traffic would not be on either 12^th or Oregon Streets to the north and he thought that was a fairly reasonable trade to make. He said he thought they wanted Huxtable to stay and expand in that location and as everyone had said, Huxtable had been good neighbors and they expected Huxtable to be good neighbors in the future.

Commissioner Hack said Belcher had asked for the lifting the moratorium and that would certainly come with the site plan, but they were not at that point. She said she appreciated Sabatini’s comments about holding off on the design of the trail until there was a better idea of the site plan.

She said Belcher also asked for a waiver of the traffic impact study which was a site plan issue. She said it was indicated that the City Commission could place conditions on that. The conditions that were placed on it with the acceptance of the variances and site plan was something the City Commission could approve at this point and then deal with the other issues when the site plan came to the City Commission.

Corliss said the City Commission could indicate approval of the Vacation Order and then staff would not record that Order until the site plan was approved and the City Commission would not see the site plan until after the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decisions give clarity as to what the requirements were for providing the site plan.

He said he thought Belcher was talking about the fact that through the site plan review process, the Planning Office was requiring Belcher to perform a traffic impact study. He said what Belcher was asking was that while they submit their site plan for review that they did not need to perform a traffic impact study. He said the City Commission should wait for the site plan to come to waive that issue, but that issue was not on the agenda and the Commission might want more discussion about that issue at a staff level before the Commission made a decision about waiving that site plan requirement.

Amman said in clarification of the traffic study, their anticipation would be to receive some direction on the traffic study because if it was needed, it would delay the project another 30 days before it came back to the City Commission again and Belcher would like to get the project moving potentially on an April 12^th deadline if possible.

Commissioner Schauner said the traffic impact study itself would be conducted to the south of this property since they were not going to have any change in access from 12^th Street.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the traffic impact study was required if there were over 100 trips generated. The first seven steps were required for any site plan, but if generating over 100 trips then the full blown study was required. She said she did not know if a study of the first seven steps had been done, but those seven steps would need to be done in order to know if you would be generating over 100 trips. She said the concern that staff had was that staff asked for that as part of the complete submittal for a site plan and staff would say that it was not a complete submittal until the first seven steps were completed.

Commissioner Schauner asked what it would take to complete those seven steps.

Finger said those steps would take a knowledge of what the proposed use was, what was going to be generated, and what the traffic counts were. A lot of the information either Amman or Belcher would have available or they could get through the City for Amman or Belcher to complete.

Commissioner Dunfield said he would not be comfortable acting on any change to a site plan requirement at this time without more information and more background.

Mayor Rundle suggesting bringing this issue back in two weeks. He said he was supportive of a conditional approval since that entailed approval of the site plan. He said he would hope that Belcher, Sabatini and others would meet with Dennis and others because Dennis was new to this project because he did not get wind of it. He said he would be happy to sit in on those discussions.

Belcher said the main reason he asked for that waiver was because they had been conducting their business for a number of years and they had a good feel for where the traffic was coming from. For the last seven or eight months, he had not been able to use the 13^th Street exit and probably would not be able to use that exit for another month because the bridge was still not being worked on. He said for someone to request a traffic study, there had not been any traffic on Oregon Street for seven months. He said they had been able to get all their traffic coming in from the north and it worked fine and they were not aware of any problems. He said he wanted to look at this from a common sense approach that the traffic pattern was not going to change. He said they were going to have an additional 10 to 15 employees at that location. The number that he was giving out were field employees which would be field and not in the office. He said when someone talked about a traffic impact study, he had been impacted for over seven months.

Commissioner Hack asked if the seven steps that normally come along with a site plan required an additional consultant or expense on the part of the applicant.

Finger said they would be required some additional work by Ammann, but it would not require anyone above and beyond Ammann.

Commissioner Hack asked if Finger was talking about a full blown traffic impact study.

Finger said no. .

Commissioner Hack echoed the thanks to Belcher for not only being in Lawrence, but choosing to expand. She said she liked the conversation about Lawrence already being ahead of the game in terms of mixed use and wanting to keep the area that way.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Order of Vacation for a portion of right-of-way of Oregon Street (Huxtable Expansion) adjacent to the northeast corner of Block 5, Earl’s Addition conditioned on approval of the site plan. Motion carried unanimously. (30)

Receive letter from the Hughes Carnegie Center Transition Team regarding various options on the renovation of the Carnegie Library. 

Commissioner Dunfield informed the City Commission that he would not participate in the discussion and would not vote on this issue because his employer is working on this renovation project.

Wildgen said staff had one meeting with this group since the City Commission had their study session. The letter that was being proposed was a result of those discussions.

Hans Fischer, Lawrence, reviewed the letter from the Transition Team. He briefly summarized what the Hughes Carnegie Center was requesting and what actions the Hughes Carnegie Center intended to undertake.

He said a number of issues that were brought up at the workshop were discussed in detail. At that time, Mike Wildgen, City Manager and David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, offered to assist them in a couple of ways.

He said the Hughes Carnegie Center group had met several times since that meeting and rigorously reviewed the Literacy Grant Environment and found that there was a significant decrease in the availability of grants, grants that were available 15 to 24 months ago when they had done their initial research which had significantly decreased and were not available.

He said the Hughes Carnegie Center group had refined their business plan and their budget and were submitting four items for the City Commission’s consideration which were:

1. Authorize the Board of Directors of the proposed Hughes Carnegie Center to work with Assistant City Manager David Corliss to prepare and file paperwork for a) incorporation papers for a not-for-profit corporation and b) IRS 501c3 tax-exempt status;

2. Table the Center's request for its first-half-year funding because of reduced opportunities for grant funding and the need to explore additional grant options;

3. Request to be included in the planning process, with the Library Board and its designated consultant, for the expansion of the Lawrence Public Library; and,

4. Authorize proceeding with the general renovation of the former Carnegie Library

He said in the future they intended to proceed immediately to develop a strategic plan that took into consideration the realities of the current literacy grant situation and other aspects of getting their program underway; develop job descriptions for a Director of the center and also for a Program Coordinator for the Center; and initiate exploration of the grant’s potential to see what grants were realistically available and then make the appropriate revisions to their budget in consideration of the results of that study.

He thanked, personally, and on behalf of the entire group, the City Commission for having previously selected the Hughes Carnegie Center to occupy the Carnegie Building on a competitive community wide competition and they appreciated the opportunity and selection of their group for that purpose.

Commissioner Hack said one of the requests, was for the City Commission to endorse their involvement with the new library discussion. She said one of the issues discussed was inclusion of the Literacy Center within the new destination library. She asked if they would be open for that type of discussion or was the group firmly planning on a separate entity.

Fischer said they were opened to that discussion. That was the reason for the request so that they could be involved in the planning that would include the expansion of that library.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said it was easy to support assisting with a 501(c)(3) activity. Obviously there was also not much difficulty in supporting the tabling the requested year funding because that issue was straight forward. He said he was pleased to hear that the group was involved with the library and he thought that was the right direction for that activity.

He said his stumbling block was the renovation of the building. He said it sent a misleading message to the Hughes Carnegie Center Transition Team. He said if they were to begin that renovation, he believed there would be drawn a connection between that decision and some promise that the Carnegie Literacy Group would in fact become the permanent resident of that structure.

He said there had been a lot of support for the involvement with the Library as a destination project. He said if they took that piece of the literacy activity and segregated it into a separate building, it made it more difficult to develop a comprehensive library plan and he would much rather leave the Carnegie Library as it was until such time as they had a real plan for what that destination library would look like and how the literacy center fit into it. It might very well be that the literacy group ended up in that facility, but he did not want to prejudge that at this point. He said if he remembered correctly it was approximately a half a million dollars to renovate the structure and he thought they would be better off not spending that half million dollars independent of the library project and rather try to role into one proposal with respect to the expense. He supported the first three requested items, but could not support the fourth item.

Commissioner Hack said she supported the 501(c)(3) assistance and the involvement with the new discussion and appreciated their willingness to table the financial request. She asked if they had some money for refurbishing or upgrading at this point.

Wildgen said in an earlier project, the Hobbs project, a “Save America’s Treasure” grant was received, but that site was not eligible thus staff applied for, and received permission to, transfer those funds to the Carnegie Library which were approximately $98,000. He said there would be a project agreement in May before the City Commission for accepting and encumbering those funds. He said it was a 100% match, but they could spend the $98,000 first and match that amount later. He said no matter what went in at that location the ADA and access issues had to be done. He said the City Commission could tell the Carnegie Group right now that the Commission was not making that decision at this time, but the design work could start and then the City Commission could make a separate decision later this year once the design work was completed such as a Phase 2 or Phase 3 to extend the project out.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think it would make sense to leave the $98,000 on the table if that money was available and to the extent that preliminary work could be done that would be usable for any future occupant that made sense.

Mayor Rundle said the idea was to continue the life of that building and to do that the building had to come up to modern standards. He said it was the building they wanted to return as a community center.

He said at their study session, when the Arts Center first was born it was out of an idea that it had been presented to then Mayor Nancy Hambleton, who appointed their first Arts Commission. Downtown was not the downtown of today and this community was not the community of the arts that the community is today. He said they could see on the horizon that downtown was going to be redeveloped and grow. Art in the Park had been established and that gave a clear idea that an Art Center could succeed.

He said he thought it was unfortunate that the emphasis shifted completely onto the literacy aspect because there was a much broader concept whenever the committee met for several months to draft a proposal. It had a thread of multiple literacy’s running through it to be sure and that in itself they should see the potential that was reflected in a recent academic conference and the University of Kansas and it was difficult to convey in a couple of paragraphs and the limited material that was presented to the City Commission about that multiple literacy concept.

He said the proposal was also infused with the spirit of Langston Hughes. Again, there was an International Langston Hughes Symposium a couple of years ago that was important to what they could build in Lawrence on the powerful legacy left by Langston Hughes. The Hughes proposal also recognized the potential of local history and culture, to draw visitors to the community and enrich the lives of the citizens at the same time and that included the history and culture of the community, common people, family stories, and prominent figures that were local, state, and national that crossed business and education and which included the culture of the Native American people who were here long before Lawrence was even an idea in the minds of immigrant settlers. He said when the Sesquicentennial Committee brought in the Chautauqua, it abundantly demonstrated the power of all of this to those who attended.

Again, the Arts Center’s first year of activities was seven or eight workshops over the course of a year and was a very modest start. We needed to remember those modest beginnings and what the Arts Center is now when we consider an organization such as this that wanted to create a Center for the Humanities. He said he continued to be supportive.

Fischer thanked Mayor Rundle for his comments. He said the Mayor articulated clearly the concept and enthusiasm behind this entire venture. He said he did not want to spend a lot of the City Commission’s time making that kind of presentation because the Commission heard that presentation before when they made their initial presentation, but he thanked Mayor Rundle for reiterating and indicating how important this concept could be to the community.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he appreciated the group being straightforward with the City Commission. He said the City had made a commitment to the Langston Hughes group. He said the City Commission needed to either stand behind it or be clear that they were taking it away. He said if the City Commission was going to take it away, they needed to set clear criteria for future progress. He said he supported the recommendations and on using the $98,000 to start renovations.

Commissioner Hack said those were great comments by the Mayor. She said if the Commission did what it had committed to do, it would only be appropriate for the Carnegie Center Transition Team to move on to what their commitment was which was the development of a strategic plan, better business plan and the development of job descriptions for the Director and Program Coordinator.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to work with the Hughes Carnegie Center Transition Team to prepare and file paperwork for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status; to table the Center’s funding request; to request the Team participate in the planning process with the Library Board and its designated consultant for the expansion of the Lawrence Public Library; authorized the City to go forward with the expenditure of the earmarked $98,000 for the design work ; and to require the Hughes Carnegie Center Transition Team to develop a business plan, develop a strategic plan, and develop a job description for the director and the program coordinator and work on existing literacy grants. Motion carried unanimously. (31)

Mayor Rundle requested Commission discussion on the proposed Pesticide Free Park plan.

Maria Stockett, speaking on behalf of the Pesticide Free Parks Project, which was a citizens group concerned about the use of pesticides in the parks and was interested in alternatives to pesticides. She presented a background of some pesticide work she had done before the pesticide project started. She said they wanted to find out what pesticides were being used in City Parks but it was difficult to get the information because there was no system in place to just readily give the information to the public, but in 2001 they received a list of approximately 70 pesticides used in Lawrence. At that point, they decided to request that the City provide better notification for the residents when pesticides were used and asked that it be done in the form of signs posted around the treated areas.

In February 2002, the City invited a pesticide reduction consultant and as a result, the Consultant stated that Parks and Recreation Department already followed some pesticide reduction practices, but there was room for improvements. The Consultant also suggested that a few parks be declared pesticide free. As a result, Parks and Recreation announced the creation of the Pesticide Free Park Program in which there were three parks designated.

She said a year and a half later only two parks remained on that program. Out of 3,000 acres of parkland only 4 acres were dedicated to Pesticide Free Parks.

She said she went to her neighborhood association to see if they wanted to add Watson’s Park to Pesticide Free Park Program and they unanimously agreed to support that effort. She said Parks and Recreation declined to add Watson Park to the Pesticide Free Park Program because Park’s and Recreation staff said the pesticides used were safe and that it was not possible to maintain the park without pesticides and even if it were it would be too expensive.

She addressed the safety of pesticides. She said there were 10 different pesticides specific to Watson Park and she pointed out their negative affects.

She read an excerpt of the follow up letter from the Consultant sent to Parks and Recreational Management about pesticides and product label information.

She also read an article that pointed out that there were problems specifically for children because pound for pound they eat more, drink more, and breathe more than adults and were lower to the ground and had a greater risk to exposure.

Other articles she shared with the City Commission dealt with negative health effects and studies about them, including an article from the Journal of Pesticide Reform concerning 10 reasons not to use pesticides; an article entitled “Interaction of Pesticides with Natural Controls” which addressed pesticide effects on soil quality and plant health; and an article entitled “Compost Tea for Everyone” stated that inorganic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides as well as mechanical compaction damaged beneficial soil microbes and reduced or depleted the benefits of healthy soil.

She said pesticides did not stay where they were originally placed, but moved in their environment.

In the information she had put together for the City Commission she listed many alternatives to pesticides and listed cities that had Integrated Pest Management Programs.

She said pesticide free maintenance was less expensive over time. The City could eliminate its liability for park workers and children in the community. She also said promotional programs in pesticide free parks could attract people and generate revenue and involving the community through a volunteer program would be an excellent way to reduce cost such as Adopt a Flower Bed Program. Also, Seattle, Washington had an incredible volunteer program for their Pesticide Free Parks Program where 60% of the labor was done by volunteers.

She said Old West Lawrence, East Lawrence, Brook creek, Pinckney, Breeze dale, and Oread Neighborhood Associations all agreed to endorse the Pesticide Free Parks effort along with Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods.

Finally, she read a letter from a pediatric physician who worked for the Kansas University School of Medicine as a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics and also worked as a pediatrics investigator for Mid America Pediatric Environmental Health. The letter supported the proposed Pesticides Free Parks Plan and the physician believed that the Lawrence community efforts in this matter could serve as model for other communities in this state and region.

She asked that the City Commission consider the proposed Pesticide Free Parks Plan.

Gwen Klingenberg, President, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said they supported pesticide free parks.

Jeff Wilson, resident in Old West Lawrence, spoke in support of the pesticide free plan. He said in the beginning this would be an issue of human resources, organizational change, and other issues. He encouraged the City Commission to provide that leadership to City staff concerning this matter.

Beth Ann Mansard, representing Brook creek Neighborhood Association, said for the last 12 years they tried off and on to get their park pesticide free. She said their association unanimously supported this proposal.

Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said they had the opportunity to work with Parks and Recreation and they had been great to work with. This proposal would require a real shift on their part and the proposed timeline was ambitious because of that. She said their association had always tried to get feedback from as many residents as they could on issues, but this was one of the only issues in recent memory that they received unqualified support for, very enthusiastic support for, and people were real quick to say they could start on Hobbs Park.

Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation, said the question was how to protect the health and the beauty of the community’s parks in a safe and environmentally friendly, but yet fiscally responsible way. He said they had done a lot to reduce pesticides in the past couple of years. He said staff evaluated and monitored sites, and had an Integrated Pest Management Program and a Plant Care Program. He said there were a lot of good ideas in the proposal that could be implemented.

In a report to the City Commission last summer, staff mentioned there might be some other sites that could be declared pesticide free.

He said another question was what would the public tolerate? An example would be the tick problem in Dad Perry Park. He said it was unbearable to use those trails during some of the summer months if staff did not spray that area and that might be other health related issues.

He said one concern he had was the Eagle Bend Golf Course that was discussed in the proposal. He said he would hate to lose greens at Eagle Bend because if staff found fungus on a green and it was not taken care of, that green could be lost in a day or two.

He asked that the City Commission allow staff and perhaps the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to review the proposal more extensively to see if there would be any ramifications and come back to the City Commission with recommendations. He said perhaps there were some recommendations suggested in that proposal that could be done over time.

Mayor Rundle said they definitely wanted staff to try and accomplish some of those suggestions in the proposal in a manner that did not overstretch staff’s resources. He supported the pilot project nature of that proposal.

He had heard the concerns that were raised and were the same concerns that were raised in the past. In terms of specific major pest outbreaks such as fleas, the proposal accounted for the need to deviate from any kind of pesticide free management in special circumstances.

He said in terms of safety and cost it was clear that it was not just the cost to the parks system, but the cost to public health and that was the compelling reason to move aggressively in that direction.

He said he heard the challenge DeVictor expressed, but he thought they were up to the challenge and he would certainly want staff to review the report in depth. He expected that staff would look around broadly because there were many resources in other communities that were practicing this idea and those communities could give a realistic picture of what City staff might run into and how to meet those challenges. He said he was interested in proceeding and if two parks were too much, staff could back up and start on one park and if staff could not adopt a plan for the entire town, staff could start on one block. He said it was time for this community to join this effort which was being pursued in other jurisdictions

Commissioner Dunfield said the research that went into the proposal was very impressive. He spent a good time reviewing the packet and he learned a lot and he knew there was a lot more out there to learn.

He said staff should critique the proposals and look at the obstacles and opportunities and report back to the City Commission. Staff would also need to look at cost implications and contact some of those cities to find out what their experiences were at that manager on the ground kind of level because the Commission needed all that type of information in order to make a good decision as well.

He said Integrated Pest Management was one of those catch phrases and in fact one of the things that he did was to go to the Golf Course Superintendent ‘s website and type in Integrated Pest Management and he found all types of references. Everyone was offering seminars and learning and converting their Golf Courses to an Integrated Pest Management model. The question was again, what that meant in specific cases when confronted with a fungus on the green. That was one level of response, but then the integrated part of it looked at how they would make the whole system healthier so they were less likely to face those types of problems.

He said there were opportunities and he suggested continuing to move on this path. The proposal was a great step in that direction and it was time to get the feedback from the other experienced side on staff’s part.

Schauner said the use of pesticides was not good for any mammal. He said what he would like to come out of this conversation was a commitment from Parks and Recreation that staff would come back to the City Commission with a plan on how they could implement the proposal, not a critique of what was wrong with the plan.

He said staff could pick the park and make those types of necessary decisions, but it also took some education of the public who had an expectation of broad leaf, weed free public park system. He did not believe the public would take to the changes immediately. They were likely to be looking for a green lush park system. That would take awhile to achieve with a pesticide free approach.

He would very much like to see staff move forward with a plan to present to the Commission. He heard the City Manager state many times that Parks and Recreation had a “can do staff” and he believed that was true. This was a challenge he believed the staff was up to.

Vice Mayor Highberger echoed Commissioner Schauner’s comments. He said he would like to see staff aggressively move forward and this issue certainly was no criticism of the current Parks and Recreation staff because they were a great staff. He wanted staff to rise to this challenge and do a great job as other cities had. He said he was all for reducing the amount of pesticides in our environment and he said he thought this community could have an exemplary pesticide-free park program.

Commissioner Hack said she was particularly struck by DeVictor’s comments on how to protect and save our parks, which this community was so proud of and at the same time do in a safe and economically feasible way which was the balance and hard part.

She had concerns about staffing needs because they expected a lot from Parks and Recreation staff which were overworked as many City staff members were. She had questions about the initial setup costs, long term costs, and benefits to the city. Also, she said there were questions raised about the City’s noxious weed policy and how that came into play in terms of the parks versus our regulations and other properties. She suggested that those questions were something that staff should look at. She thought a pilot program was a good direction.

Wildgen said he suggested giving staff 30 days to come back with a plan to present to the City Commission.

Commissioner Dunfield said he liked the idea of the proposal brought forward of putting together some kind of a schedule that would phase in different aspects of the proposal. A pilot program or a particular project was a good thing, but it should not be the end of the process. The Commission should know there were a series of steps and of course schedules changed depending on how the results turn out. It would be useful to see that kind of a timetable.

Mayor Rundle said he did not think the Commission should presume there would be a major shift in the way that our parks looked when there was a successful Integrated Pest Management Program in place. He said for example, Carrboro, North Carolina was recognized for their pesticide free playing fields being as luxurious and nice or better than those playing fields that used pesticides. He suggested that the City Commission encourage Haskell to get involved, because they had been pesticide free for sometime.

The City Commission directed Parks & Recreation staff to review the proposed plan, and to provide a staff report to the Commission in approximately 30 days. (32)

Receive letter from attorney representing Meadows Place Homeowners Association concerning required stormwater compliance issues.  Receive staff memorandum on compliance issues.

John Martello, Vice President Meadows Place Homeowners Association, read a letter to the Commission in which they requested delaying any proposed action on tract A and allowing the association to meet with City staff to work on a solution that would satisfy the needs of the City, their neighborhood, and the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The Meadows Place subdivision consisted of 67 households in the southwest corner of the city. The subdivision was broken into two sections with about a third of it developed into housing. The remaining two thirds were designated as tract A, consisting of a wetland environment that transitions into a grassy field.

A large number of the homeowners in this neighborhood lived in homes on small lots, commonly referred to as starter homes. A large number were either retirees on fixed income, young working families trying to make ends meet, or rental homes. The renters were usually retirees or young working families.

He presented a letter to the City Commission from their association which read:

We request that the City Commission delay the action of the area known as Meadow Place Subdivision, tract A for the following reasons. The area obviously impacts city residents other than those in the Meadow Place Subdivision. We have not yet had an opportunity to communicate and work with our neighbors in the surrounding neighborhoods, especially those at the Atchison Ave., which is to the east of us. We sympathize with them, understand their concerns and want to find a workable solution for all parties involved.

While we appreciate the initial communication of the Public Works Department, we do need additional time with the department in an effort to find the best solution for any improvements or the development of this area. On October 6, 2004 a notice of deficiency was drafted and sent to our association. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Voigt and Mr. Mackenzie discussed the notice. In November and December we held two association meetings to address this Notice of Deficiency and for the homeowners as a group to come to an understanding of what it really meant. Until these meetings, very few of us had no idea the boundaries of tract A extended so far east on the other side of the creek. In my case, I was given a copy of the Homeowners Association covenants and restrictions, but never did see a map to see the boundaries. I did understand that the annual dues collected as an association would be used to maintain common areas—fence repairs, mowing, upkeep of playground equipment, basketball court, etc. I don’t think any of us envisioned that we would have a reoccurring need every decade or two to enlist the services of heavy earth moving equipment and the expense associated with that.

During our association meetings, we did vote to enlist the services of Mr. Banks to formally petition the city for a hearing. Also, we voted to pursue meeting with city staff to get a better understanding of the full scope of the project ahead of us. We know nothing about what it takes to do this watershed issue.

He said they had a sharp learning curve trying to find out about tract A, and what their responsibilities were and what led to their responsibilities. What they had been able to put together was that tract A was created back in the early 1990’s several years before the city adopted a current Stormwater Management Master Plan. At the time of its development, the city had fewer options for managing this portion of the watershed issue. Today, there were additional options which could permit tract A to contribute positively to the community. Instead of using concrete and steel engineering solution to watershed, open spaces could be envisioned as a positive contribution to stormwater management. Instead of regularly land filling this area, because the area would wash out every time there was a large flood, and then reseeding the area, tract A could be maintained as a wetland area as it could be a lake, park or some other use. Since the adoption of the Stormwater Management Master Plan, Lawrence has specifically purchased other areas of open space, similar to tract A, to assist with the watershed issue.

The City of Lenexa adopted an approach of stormwater management called “Turning Rain In to Recreation.” They had a good website with a fully comprehensive approach. It embraced the use of open space for wetlands lakes and parks within existing neighborhoods and they suggested that the City of Lawrence might wish to review that approach.

Tract A, while referred to as standing water by the current stormwater master plan was, in their opinion, a wetland. The area had attracted a considerable variety of wildlife enjoyed by many. The evolution of this special area was something the community should embrace and not discourage.

In conclusion, they requested that the City Commission approve the delay of any proposed action on tract A, allowing the neighborhood an opportunity to work with city staff and other interested parties, including the neighborhoods surrounding Meadows Place, to find a solution that would satisfy the needs of the city, their neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. Ideally, they would ask the Commission to allow a study a session to occur on tract A to review both how such an area might be cooperatively addressed by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments and to see if Tract A could be used as model for future stormwater management in the city.

Commissioner Schauner asked if their association collected homeowner’s dues.

Martello said yes. They collected homeowner’s dues and also paid into that stormwater fee.

Commissioner Schauner asked how far back the dues were collected.

Martello said the dues had been collected since the inception of this subdivision. He said they had a reserve that was used to fix fences in all the common areas. Nothing was able to absorb the cost for heavy earth moving equipment on an every decade basis. He said the dues were $10.00 a month.

Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, said this was a situation where this was a development plan issue. He said staff spent a lot of time whenever development plans were submitted discussing detailed points and there was a lot of technical background that always went into those discussions. This issue was another one of those arguments, but it was 15 years old. A lot of the discussion that the Commission was hearing had already taken place 15 years ago.

He said there were residents along the east side of the development that were concerned before it started. He said the area was a large piece of ground and to the west of that ground were the 67 residential lots in which the Meadows Place Homeowners Association owned tract A. To the east of that were long lots which were owned by the residents along Atchison Avenue.

He said when this development came through originally those residents were concerned that the channel was going to be obstructed by the fill required to build some of those houses. The building plan was a balance of taking earth out of the channel itself and moving it to the new residential area in effect, trading space on the floodplain. He said that idea was a good concept at the time and those houses were still flood protected and worked well. He said what that left was a large low area that was set aside for stormwater.

The residents on Atchison Avenue came to the Planning Commission meetings and City Commission meetings and there was much discussion and background information in which the residents expressed their concerns. Those concerns were addressed with agreements that this area was going to be maintained so that it would convey stormwater. He said at tonight’s meeting we could talking about the use of that ground and the expectations for what it should be but it was not really the time for that discussion. The development plan spelled that out to convey stormwater and it showed it as open. He said they could discuss this issue as a wetland and that was fine, but they did not have the technical background to say that could be the case. He said they could not say that it could be a wetland for stormwater conveyance because there was not engineering in place to show that.

Essentially an open channel was designed with different roughness that needed to be used. He said it needed to be assumed that it was going to be grass, trees, or a swamp. He said what they assumed, he thought, was that it was going to be grass. He said the area was shown on the development plan a turf and grated to be a flood channel. He said staff was essentially enforcing the development plan 15 years later. The use of the land could be a discussion, but they could not go back and work on middle ground or find a solution relative to land use because that did not solve the question of what it would do to the flooding concern.

In the memo from staff, the watersheds were shown. One of the problems in this area of town with trying to get water to move was the proximity of this channel to other watersheds and streams in town and that south end of town had a lot coming together when looking at flooding. The Wakarusa River could affect this area. There were four large watersheds all coming together. There was the stream channel running through tract A which was a huge watershed. He presented a visual aid to the City Commission to show what happened in that area.

He said they could talk all day about making changes in the channels a half mile up stream, but that would not accomplish anything. He said it was a great idea to talk about the Rain Into Recreation program as an example, but that was in a community where only 30 percent of all Lenexa had development so far. The watershed planning aspect of that program had all that open ground to work with. He said what was in Meadows Place was an existing condition where they needed to keep houses dry.

Mayor Rundle said someone mentioned some sewage facilities that might be obstructing the stream flow.

Voigt said that area was a major sanitary sewer interceptor line from the Four Seasons Plant and that was headed all the way around Lawrence to the Treatment Plant on East 8^th Street. That pipe passed through the channel above grade and it was an elevated crossing and also would collect debris over time and staff went in their periodically to clear that debris out and there was no alternative because it was a gravity line.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the area would not serve or function as a wetland.

Voigt said there was no engineering background in this development to know that it could be a wetland.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked what it would take to know if it could be a wetland.

Voigt said a stream hydraulic study would need to be done on that property. He said that study was done on the same channel upstream in the Heatherwood area when Parks and Recreation put a recreational path bridge across the channel. He said staff was concerned in that area of an elevated flood potential and that cost was $40,000 to perform an engineering study approximately four or five years ago. He said that would be a study of that kind of magnitude for the area of discussion to be able to define an alternative plan or use for tract A.

Mayor Rundle asked what affect the trees in the tract had on that sewer pipeline.

Voigt said the trees in the main channel were not the issue. It was bordered by large trees and if they could keep the falling trees out of there on a regular basis, the main channel would not change over time. It was the side area that was built as an overflow channel that was the issue at hand. He said what they had was that the original development plan showed it as a downhill channel it showed a downhill grade, a dry area of grass. He said what was there today was the sediment had been pushed around creating dams in different locations and that was why there was standing water and with standing water comes the inability to mow.

Commission Schauner asked what the cost of the re-grading in this area would be in order to be in compliant with what Voigt’s expectation was for that area.

Voigt said he was not certain, but it was in the order of tens of thousands of dollars for the first time that it was re-graded and that if it was approached on a regular basis it would never need to be done at that magnitude again. Essentially, after large storms when there was a pile of sediment that might start to create this problem that pile of sediment would need to be spread out or removed and that had not been done for 15 years.

Moved by Schauner seconded by Highberger, to extend the meeting to 10:30. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Rundle asked if there would be any preventative measures, if re-grading was done, to keep sediment from piling up in the future.

Voigt said mowing that area on a regular basis was a preventative. He said he had been out to that property in the last nine years a handful of times and at first, he was under the impression that as a group, Meadows Place was not certain how they wanted to manage the property. He said some property owners wanted the area to grow and become wild and others wanted it mowed and that opinion had changed over time.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was any usefulness in the idea of stepping back and looking at this area.

Voigt said he did not have anywhere to go with that idea. It was not based on any engineering. He said they could talk about ideas for land use, but it did not have any basis from a flood control standpoint.

Commissioner Schauner said in allowing that area to grow wild was simply the antithesis of what you would want to happen to maintain the overflow channel.

Voigt said for the overflow channel to function letting it grow wild would be a concern and that was the concern the Commission would hear from the residents on Atchison. Although letting it grow wild from a stormwater management standpoint was the best solution as far as habitat, erosion control, and pollutant removal. He said those were all great things, but they did not know that would not elevate flood levels.

Mayor Rundle said allowing the area to grow wild was something that might need to happen. Since this was owned by Meadow Place, but the Atchison side had not had a chance to join in and discuss this issue.

Voigt said what initiated this concern was that they called Voigt and told him to step up and enforce what was written.

Commissioner Hack asked if those houses had remained dry.

Voigt said yes. He said those houses had remained dry on both sides of the channel, but water had gotten up into the yards on the Atchison side.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Martello said he could speak to what the Meadows Place Homeowners Association had thought in regards to upkeep of that area. He said they had attempted to mow that area from the beginning and for the first year or two, he thought mowing was possible and after that the association hired out for mowing.

Frank Salb, developer of that area, said mowing was never possible in that area.

Martello said the association had put it out for bids to mowing companies and the area was impossible to mow. He said mowing that area even when it was fully graded the proper way was difficult. He said by lack of ability to mow that area turned into what was seen. He said it was not that they chose not to mow that area, but that area was physically impossible to mow.

Randall Williams said he was on the architect committee. He said the storm sewers dumped into that area and it was not from the overflow of the creek. He said he noticed that he was being charged a stormwater fee on his water bill and he thought it was odd that if he was responsible for this, why for fourteen years was he charged a stormwater fee.

He said in 1992, he tried to hire a person from Eudora whose job was to mow bogged areas and there was no way that person could mow that area.

He said another problem was beavers. He said the City had cleared out a lot of those beaver dams, but those beavers were still out there and were active.

Salb said when they first developed the area and they had all the grading to the proper grade that was shown by the development plan, even in the heat of the summer, when it was the driest, he had a four wheel drive tractor and a brush hog on the back and tried to mow that area several times and there was just not a bottom to that area.

He said one of the maps presented showed all the area that this channel had water draining into. One of the biggest problems was this sanitary sewer line that came across that sewer and would catch debris and tree limbs. He said when that happened it backed those tree limbs back up into the overflow channel spreading brush, trees and debris back into that area and that was also what has helped dam up the outlet of that overflow channel. The sewer pipe going across that area along with all the drainage of upstream showed how much drainage had come through when looking at that map. He said it was a lot of responsibility for that first time homebuyer and retired home buyers to try and keep up.

He said the homeowner’s dues were $120 a year and the homeowner paid to keep everything else mowed in that area, but it was the maintenance of those water channels that they had problems with.

Wylie Burnett, homeowner on Atchison Avenue, said there were four homeowners that mowed all the way to the creek. He said they kept part of that area mowed, but the south end of that area had standing water and there was no way for the water to outlet. The homeowners on his side had tried to maintain what they could, but it was getting silted in and it did not have the capacity that it did have at one time. He said the homeowners would like something done about that concern.

Kenneth McKenzie, homeowner on Meadows Place, said his house was the only house with a basement and he had three sump pumps and one of the pumps ran constantly. He said the water table was way up there. On the average he had to replace one sump pump every year. He had water come up to the basement floor and an alarm system sitting four inches down inside the well and when the alarm went off, he immediately started bailing water and he buys another pump to install.

Andrew Weygint, homeowner on Atchison Avenue on the east side, said he had lived there for 18 years and he was there when those pond areas were created. He said he was assured by the City at that point that when that land was moved over to the other side it would be maintained and he would not need to worry about the area going to a swamp.

He said there were mosquitoes, a swamp and it smelled in that area. He said he was concerned about the future of that area.

Ron Buskirk said he was a relatively new resident to Meadow Drive and was much closer to that area than any of the residents on the Atchison side and it did not smell and it was not a swap and they did not have mosquitoes because of the wildlife in the area which was a natural pest control.

He said there was a playground in the area that had standing water and there was no way it could be maintained because it would be muddy. However, that area was not graded properly for all the water to go through. The south end, next to the playground, between the playground and the creek channel, was obviously higher than the water level and if you want more water to go through there it would be relatively inexpensive to do some grading down there to increase the water flow if that was the concern.

He said all the way from Clinton Parkway there was an area along the creek that was two to three blocks long where the west bank was not their property, but that property backed onto Atchison Avenue property as well. He said their concern was not just with the channel in the area, but all of that upstream.

He said he had lived on Vail Way in Parkway Gardens which was immediately across Clinton Parkway and Yankee Tank Sewer Creek flowed past it as well where their house backed on the floodplain on the east side of Yankee Tank Creek some years ago. He said the City worked with their Homeowner’s Association in Parkway Gardens to develop that area as a nice park and a lot of that was wooded and not ingress. He said there was a nice bike/walk trail maintained by the City, but the water flowed through that area and no one was flooded on the other side even though there were woods in the area that tended to slow down the water.

He said he would maintain that there were other ways to do this than to try to drain their wetlands and make it grassland which was not going to work. He said they could increase the water flow through that area and still maintain the wetlands. The water standing in the pond was about four or five times what it usually was, in a dry year it dried up to almost nothing, but it was still muddy and it would remain muddy. He said why not take some time, look at this systemically and talk to all the folks that were involved because he was sure that there were ways to fix this problem rather than enforcing a provision that was put in 15 years ago.

He said even if this area was all ingress, a big flood would wash people out on the other side was well. It was not going to solve the whole problem of the 100 year flood. He urged the City Commission to delay action on this item and enable the people involved to get together to discuss this matter.

Paul Buskirk, resident on Meadows Drive, said the City had a tremendous staff and he had had a very nice dialogue with Wildgen and Voigt. He said he had learned far more about stormwater management in the past 10 days then he ever planned to.

He said Lawrence experienced tremendous flooding difficulties in 1993 and 1994 which led to the City’s huge plan of stormwater management in 1996.

He said the reason why they purchased their home in 1994 on the Meadows Place side that backed out on this area was because of open space in the middle of a City which was something that was preciously few and far between in Lawrence.

He said he was asking for the City Commission’s consideration to be able to delay this issue. He believed they made a tactical mistake and one that was unintended when the homeowners did get together in late fall in December really still struggling as to how to respond to this tremendous task.

He said they did ask Banks to send a letter to staff in asking for some help. He believed the unfortunate consequence of that was that it made it feel as though it was an “us” and “them” type of argument and as many of them had been debating and anticipating this opportunity to visit with the City Commission, that was not what any of them wanted. He said this was something where there were partners together that needed to have some time to be able to respond.

He said they needed more time and the City’s guidance to be able to say who should sit at the table and be able to study those issues. He suggested perhaps representatives from Atchison Avenue, Meadow Place, City Staff and they would be thrilled if one of the City Commissioners were brave enough to sit in and listen and offer their expertise.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked Voigt if grading the south edge of the channel would make it mowable.

Voigt said grading the south edge was possible, but it had gotten worse over the years. He remembered what it looked like 12 years ago and it needed to be mowed in order to meet the development plan. He said that area could be in a state where it would convey water much better than what it did today and that would be considered to comply with the development plan.

Vice Mayor Highberger said the Commission had heard statement that it was never capable of being mowed because it was too muddy. He asked Voigt if the grading was not done right in the first place.

Voigt said the only engineering drawings for the grading were the development plan and they were not very detailed. He said he thought the area could be graded more aggressively to drain.

Mayor Rundle asked if there were other areas in the City with the major drainage area that was private responsibility as opposed to something that would have a drainage easement.

Voigt said not in a Homeowners Association. He said staff did try to cross reference it and did not find any other similarly located situations. He said there were a lot of private developers who keep the ground as single owner. He said when thinking about the Deerfield area, the entire creek system was owned by the original developer.

Mayor Rundle asked if there was any recollection of the genesis of this agreement.

Wildgen said it was part of the development plan that was approved in 1991.

Mayor Rundle asked if that was the only time that happened.

Wildgen said yes.

Voigt said they had recent discussions of development plans where the developer proposed homeowners associations ownership of areas of ground that essentially had no value to the developer. He said there was not a lot of code to cover that situation and the City was generally in the position of arguing that it was not advisable and this situation was the outcome of why the City took that position.

Mayor Rundle said there was not any harm in trying to meet and discuss this issue. He said he was sorry to put staff through work that seemed to have very little point, but certainly the neighbors wanted to exhaust the conversation.

Voigt said he would not view this item that way. He said the City Commission had received a taste of what he had been receiving so far and it would be great to have this item be more productive.

Commissioner Schauner said it might be helpful to have an estimate about the cost to re-grade.

Voigt said that estimate could be achieved over time which was one reason he was reluctant to tie a figure to that re-grading. He said there was discussion about breaking the dam at the south end and that would actually be the first step in letting the water out and that could be accomplished with a few hundred dollars. He suggested that this item could be a phased project to get that area back to the condition of flowing better. He said approaching this item as a project would be very difficult to quantify. The recommendations that were made, one of the options would be that the City would take on this item which meant sending an engineering firm out with survey crew to tell what was there today, performing an analysis and telling staff where in needed to be and then grading the area and only then could he have the kind of numbers where he could put money behind the construction.

Commissioner Hack said it seemed that when talking about the phasing, that was exactly why stakeholders should be brought together to discuss that issue and get some clear numbers on the length of time, what it would take, and what it would accomplish. She said it seemed that there was no reason to not to at least have that discussion at this point.

Commissioner Schauner said there was a lesson in this that went beyond this problem and that was the City ought to now be fully aware of the long-term ramifications of creating those types of situations. He said there was now ample evidence to demonstrate that passing on to homeowner association’s substantial liability was a ticking time bomb for people who did not understand what the long term cost would be on themselves and/or the possible impact on the value of their property at resale time. He said there were lots of lessons that could be learned from this problem and the real problem was how would someone figure their way out of this particular dilemma in a way that did not bankrupt those homeowners and/or the homeowner association’s. He said he would like to see some conversations with the stakeholders to see if a phase in project or whatever else seemed to accomplish the task.

Vice Mayor Highberger said no matter how much discussion they had it was going to be unlikely to change the engineering judgment about what needed to be done. He said if they were going to spend the $50,000 or more that was suggested for an engineering study to determine whether the wetland model works and it might or might not work, other than that the solution was to grade it and keep it mowed, the real question was deciding who would pay for that idea.

Voigt said if he could choose a solution, he said engineer that area and rebuild it and make it work, but the City had a lot of priorities for spending money and this item would not make it high up the list. He said that put staff in the position of simply enforcing the development plan because staff was obligated to do that.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting to 11:00. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible that this item could be accomplished with a phase in approach that might lessen the project cost to make it a manageable number for the stakeholders.

Voigt said this would be an experimental maintenance program that needed to be implemented immediately. He said that would be a solution no matter what agreement was made at this point and that was why it was money over time which would be tens of thousand of dollars.

Mayor Rundle suggested that the homeowners association talk to staff and setup some schedule.

Wildgen said staff would coordinate some meetings to come up with some new processes.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he would be willing to sit in on those meetings. (33)

Receive Historic Resources Commission (HRC) letter and staff report concerning sidewalk dining issues and licensed premises issues.  

Lynne Braddock Zollner, presented the staff report. She said the Historic Resources Commission was responsible for reviewing sidewalk dining permits in the downtown area. Since the HRC had been reviewing those permits there had never been an established set of guidelines for the HRC to use when they reviewed those projects.

The most recent time those guidelines were passed by the HRC was in 1995 and those guidelines went to the Planning Commission in January 1996 and to the City Commission April 1996. At that time, there were not a sufficient number of sidewalk dining applications and the Commission did not feel it was necessary to adopt those guidelines at that time.

Since that time, with each staff report for application of sidewalk dining staff had included a paragraph that always came up as an issue when those applications were reviewed that there were no guidelines, sidewalk dining was not a historic aspect of downtown and sidewalk dining created a vibrant downtown for the City of Lawrence.

She said right now the guidelines that the HRC had in Chapter 6, Article 12, was very minimal and stated that a 6 foot pedestrian pathway was required and that the railing must be of wrought iron and that was the extent of those requirements.

She presented a map that currently showed the sidewalk dining areas in downtown Lawrence.

Anne Marvin, Historic Resources Commission Chair, said what the HRC was concerned about was the fact that they had all kinds of guidelines from federal, state, and local level to help them in their reviews of various sorts and the HRC did not have any official guidelines to help review those sidewalk dining applications. She said the HRC felt that the right-of- way which was used by pedestrians and for other uses was a defining characteristic of the historic downtown district and that was a phrase that they used a lot “character defining element defining characteristic.” It was the aspects of a building, neighborhood, or a district that made it what it was.

She said they were receiving a lot more applications to talk about use of the public right-of-way for sidewalk dining downtown and they were concerned about being fair in how they dealt with those applications. She said right now, it was a case by case situation because there was no official way to review those applications.

She said the HRC was requesting a moratorium on reviewing new sidewalk dining applications until the HRC had a set of guidelines in place so they could handle those applications fairly.

Zollner said the proposed moratorium would not be a nine month or two year moratorium. She said the HRC would meet on April 21^st and entertain public comments to discuss sidewalk dining. She said the HRC had a draft set of guidelines that they were working with and the HRC hoped to formalize those guidelines at that meeting and make changes in the next ten days and those guidelines would come back to the City Commission for review and approval. She said the HRC was looking only at a 60 to 90 day moratorium.

Dennis Brown, Vice President Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said their board had been concerned for some time with the proliferation of sidewalk dining areas downtown at the expense of the pedestrian walkway. After discussions at several board meetings they found their concerns were not so much about the number of outdoor dining areas, but the permanence to the barriers denoting their perimeters. While they believed the problem was already out of hand, they were alarmed at the thought of how much worse it would be as all concerned expect a new rush of dining area request.

He said they supported a short term moratorium on granting new requests and strongly urged Commissioners to consider adopting guidelines that allowed for temporary seasonal barriers rather than permanent. He said they would also support a minimum width of eight feet unobstructed sidewalk between the outer edge of the dining area to the closet curb side obstacle rather than the current six feet.

Sidewalk dining areas were in use for a very small portion of each day in the calendar year compared to the pedestrian use of the sidewalk. Sidewalk dining would occur from spring through fall in the afternoon and early evening’s hours unless it was raining, overly windy, or un-seasonal.

Pedestrian traffic occurred virtually every hour of every day of the year, he asked why cut the walkway in half permanently to accommodate the obviously temporary hours that sidewalk dining was desired. Under the current system, winter, ice and snow removal was more difficult. Pedestrians were not protected by awnings when walking in wet weather and sidewalks were unnecessarily obstructed during the City’s many parades and the annual sidewalk sale. When pedestrians were grouped you frequently see one group pausing at one end of a dining area barrier to let another oncoming group pass through the narrow walkway.

Several board members had also expressed a concern that permanent barriers present risk of serious injury if a person were to trip, slip, be pushed, or otherwise fall into them. The current system was an attempt to have it both ways, keep vehicular traffic study, but promote an outdoor bistro atmosphere, but it was the pedestrian that suffered. The LPA would at least like to see a system in place where pedestrians would be compromised only when sidewalk dining was actually taking place. He said they urged that the City Commission support the moratorium proposed by the HRC and work to establish guidelines for temporary seasonal outdoor dining areas.

Gwen Klingenberg, President of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said this was not a sleepy downtown where you could easily find a parking spot in front of favorite new hangout. The downtown area was an area with antique stores, retro-boutiques, funky salons, and diverse restaurants.

Controversy surrounded their most recent makeover, one that had brought more restaurants and bars to the area then ever before. She asked if the downtown was going to emerge as an after hours playground for the college. She said a newspaper article from Fullerton, California, stated that they were working very hard to keep their downtown shopping area by day and clean after the night scene.

She said it was very well to say that with Horizon 2020 that downtown was to be preserved. She said without the zoned use, it was a moot point. She said the City Clerk from Eureka Springs said the control over zoning was the only legal way to retain the historic aspect of downtown.

She said they were looking at the very nature of what they had tried to preserve on the brink of possible destruction. She said we needed to take a step back and look what they had downtown which was a vacationer’s destination.

She asked if Lawrence wanted their downtown be a bar driven mess on our sidewalks with an uproar that so many bar districts, unfortunately aspire to and asked if visitors would feel comfortable walking down Massachusetts Street during the day. She asked that the Commission give the HRC and Lawrence time to decide if they wanted their downtown to be a vacation destination or a college trip.

Nick Carroll, owner of Replay Lounge and Jackpot Saloon, opposed the moratorium requested by the HRC. He said he believed the music scene was one of the top assets of this community. He said Lawrence was known to be a hot bed for music and someone stated that it was the best town under 100,000 to live in because of the music and the culture.

He said the problem was the smoking ban. Establishments had taken some hits because their customers were outside half of the time. He said if customers could have an area where they could still purchase items, establishments could have business. He said that way establishments could recover their sales. He said people thought there were going to be bars at every corner. He said there were only four places that would be affected if the City Commission allowed bars to have patios. He said those four businesses were the Red Lyon, Brothers, Granada, and Jackpot Saloon.

He said his idea was something that could help those businesses recover some of the damages that had happened because of the smoking ban and he believed those businesses were a good asset to the community.

Chuck Magerl, owner of Free State Brewery and Wheatfield’s Bakery, said this topic was obviously drawing a whole range of discussion that he was not sure was specific to the request before the City Commission.

He said he had been involved in business downtown since 1975 and had seen quite a few transitions that had happened. He said he really did not have the sense that there was an urgency, right now, that they were about to spillover in the course of the next month.

He said reconsidering some of the issues concerning sidewalk dining was entirely appropriate. He said he did not see a need for a moratorium in the process. He said he thought this issue could be discussed in the course of regular events. He said he heard comments that there were 30 businesses downtown that were poised for sidewalk dining. He said he did not see that number when walking downtown.

He said the items that were being discussed, which were the questions of the public right-of-way, were very legitimate. However he didn’t see any reason to place a moratorium on the current law.

Jerry Neverve, Red Lyon Tavern, said if looking at the nine square block area of downtown C-3 zoning, there were only going to be eight or nine people that were going to become eligible for sidewalk dining in addition to the establishments that already were eligible. He said there would only be an average of two to three more patios added to those very long blocks.

He said the moratorium was overreacting and he did not believe that it would disrupt pedestrian flow through the area. The reason businesses were asking for sidewalk dining was because the current City Commission in July passed a smoking ban and it drove a lot of customers outdoors. Now they were just asking for the ability to control those customers, make the appearance better by containing those customers in an area. He said this was a nice compromise for the situation at hand.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he had been around Lawrence for a long time and he thought the bars and restaurants downtown were what revitalized downtown. He said the community would not have their downtown if it wasn’t for some of the earlier people who came to the downtown such as the Free State Brewery which was a fine example of how they could have outside seating for drinking establishments and not cause any serious problems.

He said he was supportive of moving forward with looking at expanding outside seating. He understood the concerns from the HRC and he supported the short term moratorium along the 60 day timeframe.

Zollner said that timeframe would be up to the City Commission once they received those proposed guidelines from the HRC. He said HRC was planning on taking care of this issue at their April 21^st meeting and within 10 day staff could have changes made from that meeting and at that point the HRC would bring the draft guidelines back to the City Commission and that time would be up to the City Commission.

Commissioner Hack said if the HRC met on April 21^st, the issue could be back on a City Commission agenda by the first week in May which was not 60 days, but more like 45 days.

Zollner said correct

Vice Mayor Highberger said this was with the understanding that this would not apply to applications that had already been submitted.

Zollner said correct. She said there were applications submitted for Tellers, Free State, and a sidewalk dining license for the southeast corner of 8^th and New Hampshire.

Commissioner Dunfield said he did not have any problems with the idea of a moratorium if the result of the moratorium was that they actually resolve some of those issues. He said they had been talking about the possibility of expanding sidewalk dining and the idea of “grandfathering” which was in the staff memo. He said those two issues in addition to the historic issues had been flying around and under discussion, but not any action being taken for quite some time. He supported the moratorium if that was s vehicle for getting some decisions made and moving on from those issues.

He said the downtown sidewalk dining added immensely to the activity to the sense of liveliness, intimacy, and the whole active feeling of the downtown and as member of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance and someone who walked Massachusetts Street literally everyday, he did not think pedestrians were suffering from outdoor dining and he did not see it as a problem, but an asset. He said he would not want to see every store front with its patio out front, but in reasonable quantity it was a great addition to the downtown.

Commissioner Schauner said the only problem was when using word like reasonable, reasonable people would disagree about what reasonable meant. He said if there were going to be guidelines, those guidelines needed to be specific and enforceable so the HRC could rely upon them in making their decisions. He said the comments about outdoor dining he agreed with, it was not the outdoor dining that he had a concern with it was the expansion of those establishments that did not meet the current 70% food sales requirement.

He said he thought a moratorium was in order and 60 days seemed like a reasonable time. He said if it could be accomplished in 45 days it would be great, but 60 days at the outside.

Mayor Rundle asked about the items in the staff memo such as sending a text amendment to the Planning Commission and if those could happen in the next 60 days.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said if the City Commission initiated that process, he needed to meet with Planning Staff to work on text amendment language that they would then put in process with the Planning Commission. He said he did not think it would be processed within 45 days, but it could be initiated at this time and staff could have it on a Planning Commission agenda probably in May.

Mayor Rundle said the HRC provided the vehicle for dealing with the historic aspect of this issue. He asked if there was anyone that had the other items that were mentioned on their docket.

Corliss said what he had placed in the memo was the language that he thought the Commission generally was interested in as far as allowing existing establishments that did not meet the food sales requirement to be able to apply for a sidewalk dining license. He said staff would need to amend that ordinance to allow that idea. He said staff had some discussion about criteria that needed to be used in evaluating those situations. If there was any additional direction from the City Commission, he could take that direction and start placing that in an ordinance form.

Move by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting to 11:30. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Hack said when an HRC meeting took place it would give staff recommendations at that time. She asked if Zollner was anticipating an HRC discussion coming up with potential guidelines. She said the reason she asked those questions was because she thought they had some folks that were heading into opportunities to have some outside dining and if this issue was pushed back 60 to 90 days, she did not think the Commission was being fair to local businesses. She asked what could be done to speed up the process, not withstanding the ordinance situation for new opportunities, but for existing businesses.

Zollner said the HRC discussed a draft set of guidelines at the March meeting and felt that they needed more public input to make sure that they had covered issues that needed to be discussed. She said the HRC had a draft set of guidelines that would be placed on the website so the community had those available to review and come to that public meeting in April. She said the April meeting was where the HRC would make their final decisions and final determinations. She said the HRC was the body that voted and could defer the issue, but she did not foresee that at this time.

Mayor Rundle said he appreciated the concerns raised by some people. He also agreed with the statement made that the music scene was valuable along with the sidewalk dining. He said there was a tension there and this was a good discussion to focus on as a valuable asset to downtown. He said everyone was interested in trying to balance that idea and he hoped they did not have that dire consequence facing this community.

Commissioner Hack suggested that the moratorium last for 45 days.

Vice Mayor Highberger suggested 30 days.

Mayor Rundle suggested 60 days and if the issues were resolved earlier then end the moratorium.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) letter and staff report concerning sidewalk dining issues and licensed premises issues and approved a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of sidewalk dining permits pending review of proposed sidewalk dining guidelines. Motion carried unanimously. (34)

Corliss asked Mayor Rundle if the City Commission wanted to initiate the text amendment that Commissioner Dunfield had discussed.

Mayor Rundle suggested placing that text amendment suggestion on as a specific agenda item apart from the motion that was made.

Commissioner Dunfield said if the other Commissioners had specific reactions to what staff had included in the memo, he suggested sending those ideas to Corliss to compile and make it part of that next agenda item.

Reconsider the City Commission action on the Lake Estates annexation request.  At the Commission meeting of March 15, 2005, the Commission placed the reconsideration of the annexation request on the March 29, 2005 agenda.  The annexation would be contingent upon the successful acquisition of necessary right-of-way for the construction of a collector street from the subject property to County Road N902.

Dave Corliss said at the February 1^st City Commission meeting the Commission considered a number of the rezonings in the Lake Estates area and also considered the annexation request on a 3-2 vote for denial of the annexation. He said at the Commission meeting prior to spring break, the Commission indicated that they wanted to have that denial reconsidered. Staff had placed that annexation request back on the agenda. He said the City Commission also indicated that they wanted to make the annexation contingent upon successful acquisition of the necessary right-of-way for the construction of a collector street over to County Road North 902 which was the north/south county road.

He said staff had attached a preliminary plat map that not had been approved in a final plat sense, but it would give the City Commission indication of the area in question.

The Commission also received a communication from the Breithaupt family and it was forwarded via email to the City Commission.

He said the Commission’s action would be to approve the annexation with or without the conditions as the City Commission desired.

Mike Keaney, representing some residents at Lake Estates, said the issue was getting the road built, but that was the least of problems because after that part of the road was built then there was a half mile of collector road going up to 1500 Road. He said it was premature to ask that the right-of-way be dedicated. The process for dedication of right-of-way and construction of that collector road came along with development and that was the rule book that had been followed for some time.

He also addressed the issue of fairness for the10 acres in question which was a single-family subdivision. He pointed out the road construction on a map. He said if the road was not built, they would still have the same situation with a relatively high density development being built there. He said this was a very minor part of the 40 acre parcel as a whole.

He said under the leadership of Mayor Dunfield, at the time, the City hired a consultant and looked at the cost of development and development excise taxes and that was the big picture solution on how they could give the city the lead in development. He said the City had the legal authority and financial capability to take the lead in the construction and financing of the city’s major traffic roads.

Commissioner Hack asked if his clients would participate in a benefit district.

Keaney said his clients had sent a letter to the City Commission stating that they would participate in a benefit district.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Keaney had a rough timeline for the phasing of the construction of the project if it was approved.

Keaney said the street construction would start in August.

Price Banks, attorney representing Francois Henriquez, said there were a number of neighbors to the north that he could speak for. He said as reported at the last meeting, they had come to a compromise with the developer as far as the land use issues with two classifications of single-family homes. The preliminary plat that the City Commission had viewed at that meeting, his client agreed to and there was still a concern that 920 Road not be connected so that it would not become a defacto collector.

Commissioner Schauner asked Banks if 920 Road would be open to through traffic or not.

Banks said it would not be open to through traffic.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this proposal would be acceptable to his client and the others in the area.

Banks said yes.

Mayor Rundle said it was perhaps premature to require that road connection, but the impacts of this development were going to come. He said he did not think there was a rule book. He said the city had an ad hoc manner of doing things, but they were trying to change things to come up with a rule book that would be predictable and fair so the Commission was not always backed into those awkward situations. He suggested proceeding tonight, but there was a bigger picture that the City Commission needed to keep their eye on.

Vice Mayor Highberger said one of his concerns was that given the road into those 10 acres, they were creating a half mile cul-de-sac with no end in sight. He said it seemed like bad planning. He said he was afraid the City Commission was setting up a future City Commission for a potential problem trying to make the last link of that connection. He said he was happy with the plat design last time before it went back to the Planning Commission. He said he was wiling to approve this issue conditioned upon an agreement not to protest a benefit district and he hoped they could resolve the rest of this issue in a timely manner without burdening the citizens of Lawrence in general.

Commissioner Hack said this was an unusual situation, but absent a plan or policy to deal with those collector streets upfront the Commission was forced to make those bit by bit decisions. She said it was not fair or equitable to hold this 10 acre piece of property hostage. She supported the project.

Commissioner Schauner said unfortunately this reminded him of the way the City Commission must have been talking back in 1991 when they considered the homeowners association at Meadows Place and they made a decision which he did not think to highly of.

He said it was not fair to this particular 10 acre project to hold it to a different standard than they held others to in the past. He said having said that, he asked when they would begin to hold people to a different standard. He said if they continued to say let’s talk about it later, then they would never hold anybody to a different standard and this Commission and every future Commission would be faced with those same decisions for which there was no really good answer to.

He said he would support this project, but if he was on this Commission in the future and he had this decision to make again, he would not support a similar decision. He said it was not good policy and they needed to move those issues forward in a different way. He said they needed services maps or area planning at a different level than before.

Commissioner Dunfield said they were still trying to move that issue forward. He said they did have a consultant who was looking at the public improvement financing issues and this was the reason why, but the consultants work was not going to be done for awhile and there was nothing they could do about that other than wish it were not so.

Corliss said any Commissioner could make the motion to approve the annexation conditioned on an agreement not-to-protest if that was the will of the Commission.

Mayor Rundle said the Commission had not made a push, but that was something the Commission needed to hold themselves accountable to, but they had not had enough of a push from staff to get some of that stuff moving at a rapid pass.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the Lake Estates annexation contingent on an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district. Motion carried unanimously. (35)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

COMMISSION ITEMS: None.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 11:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2005

1. Bid – Sole bid to Linaweaver Construction for 2005 storm sewer for $203,218.

2. Bid – Road Salt to Hutchinson Salt for $64,820.

3. Purchase – 3 MSA Thermal Cameras, Fire/Medical to MSA for 26,402.01.

4. Purchase – Pool Drop Slide, Outdoor Aquatic Ctr from Miracle Rec Equip for $43,858.

5. Bid – Benefit District for Lake Pointe Dr, 22^nd Terr to Clinton Pkwy. to LRM for $817,740.

6. Bid – Benefit District for Folks, 6^th to Harvard to R.D. Johnson for $599,281.40.

7. Bid Date – 2004 Misc Storm Sewers, March 29^th.

8. Bid – Downtown waterline Project to Nowak Construction for $780,783.95.

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

10. Rezone – (Z-12-53-04) 8.24 acres, M-1 to PRD-2, 4500 W Bob Billings Pkwy.

11. Rezone – (Z-09-44-04) .858 acre, RS-1 to RM-D, 1017 E 23^rd.

12. Rezone – (Z-09-45-04) 2.34 acres, C-4 & RS-1 to C-4, 1045 E 23^rd.

13. Rezone – (Z-01-13-05) 1 acre, A-1 to RS-1, 810 Minnesota.

14. Ordinance No. 7870 – 1^st Read, contractor licensing.

15. Ordinance No. 7871 – 1^st Read, contractor licensing program.

16. Ordinance No. 7866 – 1^st Read, condemnation Brunfeldt tract.

17. Ordinance No. 7868 – 2^nd Read, smoking in public places amendment.

18. Ordinance No. 7867 – 2^nd Read, sidewalk dining, Jefferson’s.

19. Site Plan – (SP-01-05-05) Radamacher Office Bldg, 515 Rockledge Rd.

20. Site Plan – (SP-01-07-05) Rockledge Office Bldg, 501 Rockledge Rd.

21. Cooperation Agreement – City of Lawrence & K.U.

22. Burroughs Creek Area Plan – 911 E 11^th.

23. Mortgage Release – 2726 Ponderosa, Jean Knight.

24. Mortgage Release – 1236 New York, Mary Gray.

25. Mortgage Release – 725 Ohio, Marcia Miller.

26. Subordination Agreement – 1602 Irving Ct, Kimberly DeFazio

27. Subordination Agreement – 1301 Prospect Ave, Jill Jevens

28. City Manager’s Report.

29. Public Hearing – Pepperjax Grill, DE License.

30. Public Hearing – Vacation of R-O-W for Oregon St.

31. Hughes Carnegie Ctr Transition team.

32. Pesticide Free Park Plan.

33. Meadow Place Homeowners Assoc.

34. Sidewalk Dining Licenses.

35. Lake Estates