May 17, 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 Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed Wednesday, May 18, 2005 as “National Employee Health & Fitness Day”; and Friday, May 27, 2005 as “Rachel Carson Day.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 3, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Recycling & Resources Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of March 8, 2005; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of April 7, 2005; the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of April 7, 2005; the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of April 12, 2005; and, the Library Board meeting minutes of April 18, 2005; and the Public Health Board meeting minutes of March 28, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 410 vendors in the amount of $2,595,697.38 and payroll from May 1, 2005 to May 14, 2005 in the amount of $1,440,151.57. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Scarlet Orchid Restaurant and Bar, 2223 Louisiana, Ste: C; and the Retail Liquor License for Neighborhood Liquor, 1906 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Bob Suderman to the Douglas County Community Corrections Board for an additional term. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of May 31, 2005 for the 2005 Overlay and Concrete Repair Program, Phase 3. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2005 Overlay Program, Phase 1 for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineers Estimate $865,156.50
LRM Industries, Inc. $739,903.58
Asphalt Improvement Co. $805,845.38
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to LRM Industries, Inc., in the amount of $739,903.58. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of property interest from Alfred and Fleda Yost, 601 Indiana, needed for the 6th Street and Indiana Street sanitary sewer system improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the sale of surplus vehicles through e-bay. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7828, rezoning (Z-07-32-04) 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), with a maximum density cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre, (the property is located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive and Inverness Drive), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7881, allowing the possession and consumption of alcoholic liquor at the west shelter area of Dad Perry Park on May 22, 2005 from the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and to allow possession and consumption of alcoholic liquor at Centennial Park from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6593, approving a special warranty deed for Lawrence Paper Co., Inc. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6594, authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount of $700,000 for the Summer Overlay and Curb Repair Programs. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-18-05) of approximately .19 acre from C-5 (Commercial District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District), (the property is generally described as being located at 3400 & 3434 South Iowa Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-03-02-05) for a private club at Brandon Wood Retirement Center, (the property is located at 1501 Inverness Drive and contains 3.325 acres), based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize distribution of request for proposals from qualified transportation consultants for services to assist Planning staff with a study to identify a Vision for Future Transportation. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize distribution of request for proposals from qualified transportation consultants to assist Planning staff with conversion and update of the regional travel demand mode. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to request that the Historic Resources Commission review the possibility of designating Old Fire Station 2 (current Station No. 5), 1839 Massachusetts, for local/state/national landmark designation. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve write-offs as recommended by the Finance Department. Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Shane and Leslie Sharp, 3701 West 24th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive recommendation from Sign Code Board of Appeals for a Sign Code Text Amendment and authorize that an ordinance be drafted for placement on a future agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve as signs of community interest a request from the K-State Research & Extension Office to place directional signs in various rights-of-way throughout the City for the Master Gardeners Bi-annual Garden Tour on June 4 -5, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Vice Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, the Final Plat for Wal-Mart Addition No. 3. He said the League of Women Voters had questions regarding when the vacation of the right of way took place and the process to determine that vacation.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the vacation of the right of way occurred during an earlier replat of that property. The property was now being replatted again primarily to change some of the lot lines. The vacation of the frontage road right-of-way occurred with an earlier plat.
State law allowed for the vacation of right-of-way through a number of different options. He said there was a charter ordinance that predated some of those options, but that ordinance was not used as the authority for vacating by plat. The statutes used at the present time were K.S.A. 12-504, 505, and 506. Those statutes set out the authority of the Planning Commission and City Commission to vacate right-of-way by plat and that had been done in this instance on an earlier plat.
Vice Mayor Amyx said because this vacation was on a major highway, he asked what would happen in the future if the City Commission determined that highway improvements were needed for that location and as a result, right-of-way needed to be bought back. He said he was not talking about this particular case, but the future, he asked if the city’s Charter Ordinance would not hold water or would the City consider renting the right-of-way back for the use. He said the properties along major highways were expensive and it would be costly to buy that property back some day.
Corliss agreed with Vice Mayor Amyx’s comment. He said through the plat review process if the City determined there was a future need for additional right-of-way, the City should reserve that additional right-of-way with the replat. He said the City should not vacate right-of-way that they might need within the foreseeable future. It was important to review that plat because he understood the City had additional right-of-way that would allow additional lanes to be placed on Iowa Street, if the Commission so desired.
Vice Mayor Amyx said when looking at vacations, he asked if the City used Charter Ordinance No. 4 in making a determination of renting that right-of-way because he was concerned about the City needing that right-of-way in the future.
Corliss said the City did not use that Charter Ordinance. He said at the present time, staff made that determination today, whether or not the additional right-of-way was needed. Staff’s preferred practice was to show on the plat that the City would retain the additional right-of-way that was needed for the future. He said the City would not try to reclaim right-of-way based on that particular Charter Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the instrument of the recorded plat was final until the City Commission changed that plat.
Corliss said correct. The plat was the instrument that governed the property and indicated the right-of-way, lot lines, and whether there were any additional easements. He said that instrument was used by the property owner, City, Utilities Department, and other utilities to locate their utility lines. He said the plat was the best place to put the property ownership and right-of-way information that was accessible to the public through the Register of Deeds Office and it was the governing document that was used to control that property.
Commissioner Schauner said a prior City Commission vacated substantial right-of-way at 31st and Iowa as part of the Home Depot project.
Corliss said along 31st and Iowa the City had vacated right-of-way for the Pine Ridge Plaza. He said when Target was constructed there was substantial vacation of public right-of-way in the Nieder Acres area which was done through a plat process.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the process used to determine future needs as a condition of approving abandonment or replatting of the right-of-way.
Corliss said the process started earlier on in the development review process where the Planning Department coordinated review of the Public Works Department and Traffic Engineer’s view as to what the likely impact would be on the development and in many cases requiring traffic impact studies to determine the appropriate configuration of the public improvements that would be necessary at that location. The investor owned utilities participated in the City’s plan review process as to whether or not they would need that right-of-way for their franchised utility facilities. All of that process would go through the City’s land use review process to make sure that the City was retaining right-of-way that would be used for current and future needs on public streets.
Commissioner Schauner asked how far in the future that process tried to look. He said for example, concerning US 59 Highway, he did not know that anyone had a very good eye to the future about needing lanes in both directions.
Corliss said the City used their current planning document to forecast, such as Transportation 2025 and other instruments that might be more localized for a location. He said the City did not have any documents that went out a hundred years from now.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in this particular case the City had done a good job at retaining right-of-way for additional lanes. He asked if Charter Ordinance No. 4 was not valid anymore.
Corliss said he would draft a memorandum concerning that particular Charter Ordinance for the Commission. He said the City did not use that ordinance because the preference was to have all the documents on the plat itself and to use that plat review process.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the plat was the strongest legal instrument versus another instrument or process.
Corliss said the platting process was preferred because then there would be a separate instrument for years or decades. He said the property owner might not know what their rights might be. He said the City Commission could reject the renewal of the lease of that property. He said when looking at the City’s major thoroughfares it was a continuing challenge. He said that was an issue on 23rd Street where there was extraordinary dedication of right-of-way. He said at sometime in the past the City Commission had indicated they wanted that additional right-of-way dedication for public planning purposes for widening or improving those streets. He said he would draft a memorandum to the City Commission.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-03-10-05) for Wal-Mart Addition No. 3, a replat of Lot 1 and Lot 3 in Wal-Mart Addition No. 2, a replat of Wal-Mart Addition No. 1; Lot 2, M & L Subdivision; Lot 7a, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 1; and Lot 1, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 3, a proposed commercial subdivision containing approximately 12.92 acres, located at 3400 & 3434 South Iowa Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to update the Mayor’s signature block;
2. Execution of the following agreements:
a) Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and street intersection improvements for street and sidewalk improvements for 33rd Street and geometric improvements for the intersections of 33rd and S. Iowa Street and the east and west entrance drives from Lot 1 and 33rd Street;
b) Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and sidewalk improvements for the extension of Ousdahl Road including the intersection of Ousdahl and 33rd Street;
3. Submission and approval of public improvement plans for all public improvements; 33rd Street, 34th Street, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer per approval of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a) Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b) Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c) Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None (19)
Consider approving SP-04-30-05, a Site Plan Extension for Salvation Army Community Center; West of Haskell between Lynn and Homewood Street. Motion carried unanimously.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the staff report. She said the request was for an extension of a site plan approval for one year. The property was located within the study area of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan which was within the temporary building permit moratorium.
She said staff’s recommendation was for a one year extension. If the site plan expired, the site plan needed to go back through the full process with the rules and regulations that were in place at that time. She said the neighborhood and the Burroughs Creek Committee would like to present a different perspective on that issue.
Mayor Highberger said he understood under the City’s proposed new development code that the initial site plan would be granted for 18 months with a 6 month one time extension.
Finger said that was correct. She said based upon public hearing testimony, for any large projects or projects that took outside funding sources, staff was told that 12 months was not feasible. She said the City had a two year site planning process up until the mid 1980’s in which the site planning process was a one year process with the assumption that there would be automatic renewals for one year.
Kurt von Achen, representing the Salvation Army, said a year ago the site plan that was presented was approved unanimously and met not only the spirit, but the letter of the ordinances. Since that time, the Salvation Army had executed a site plan performance agreement, an agreement not-to-protest benefit districts, and dedicated the right-of-way that was requested on all four streets. He said the approval for the sidewalks on Haskell Avenue and Lynn Street along with the sanitary sewer extension and the storm sewer work proposed were in process. He said the Salvation Army accepted staff’s recommendations and conditions and requested a one year extension.
Mayor Highberger said it had been suggested that site might be appropriate for rezoning at some point in the future. He asked if the Salvation Army had any opposition to a change in zoning of that site.
Von Achen said they were proceeding with the existing zoning.
Loralee Stevens, President, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said the association understood the needs of the homeless in this community. She said this particular intersection was a friend to people who had been disenfranchised in this community. She said on the four corners of 15th and Haskell Avenue there was the Pelathe Indian Center, low income pre-school, and the Boys and Girls Club. She said they felt their neighborhood was supportive and was doing their part in assisting with furthering of the needs of folks in this community.
In light of their perspective and because of their past conversations with Salvation Army, the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association was not opposed to the extension of the site plan, but they preferred a 6 month extension to be in line with future regulations. She asked for clarification that it would be a one year site plan with an option for one 6 month extension and no further.
Finger said under the new code the site plan would be granted for 18 months with a 6 month one time extension.
Stevens said the association would be supportive of the Salvation Army if they would agree to the following:
1. The Salvation Army rezone the entire parcel to either RS-1, RO-1 or PRD-1; and
2. Commit in writing to all policies and operational procedures promised by the Salvation Army leaders to neighborhoods as reassurance in 2004.
The neighborhood’s main concerns were:
1. They did not want an ‘open shelter’ or ‘soup kitchen’ at this location, now or at anytime in the future;
2. They did not want this site, if Salvation Army turned out to be unable to proceed with their plans, to become available, as soon as possible, for non-‘industrial’ uses, specifically, a planned residential development or something similar; and
3. They did not want any industrial-type land use to go into this location, now or in the future.
Commissioner Amyx said when considering this rezoning would the applicant need to do anything different if they had a building permit.
Finger said if the applicant already had a building permit and had started construction, the rezoning would not change what they could do with their building permit, but it would change the status of their property. Under the current regulations it would take a Use Permitted Upon Review in a residential district to have a temporary shelter or soup kitchen type of use. She said an area requirement and an additional setback was required for a church type of use and if a soup kitchen was added, it would require a Use Permitted Upon Review and under the new code it would be called a Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Amyx asked about the Brook Creek Neighborhood not wanting the ‘open shelter’ or “soup kitchen” types of uses. He asked if those uses were part of the original site plan.
Finger said yes. It was part of the site plan that the Commission would be granting an extension on.
Commissioner Rundle asked if those types of uses were noted on the site plan.
Finger said it was part of the Salvation Army’s original request as a second phase. She said she understood that the Commission would approve the temporary shelter, but not the soup kitchen. She said the actual site plan review from April 2004 discussed a half-way house type of use and she thought that was what the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association was referring to as a ‘soup kitchen’ or ‘temporary shelter.’
Richard Zinn, representative of the Salvation Army, said he had been on the advisory board since the late 90’s working to find a location that would be acceptable to the community. He said recently, it was the first time that he had heard this use being referred to as a ‘soup kitchen.’ He said the Salvation Army was talking about a Booth Community Center, not a ‘soup kitchen.’ He said their application dealt with a community center that would provide temporary shelter in the form of rehabilitation facilities for persons who were homeless or in need. He said this was not a replication of what was now at 10th and New Hampshire. He said this was a much different facility with different objectives. He said the objectives were different in part because the facility could be different. The problem the Salvation Army had now in its current location was that it was confined to placing people on mats on the floor of a gym. He said what they were trying to do was to create a facility that allowed rehabilitation to help people find jobs and homes.
Commissioner Rundle said what he understood was the neighborhood association wanted that activity to be excluded. He said he did not think the neighborhood association was considering the site as a ‘soup kitchen.’
Zinn said certainly there would be meals served at that location as part of the entire program. He said this was an essential ingredient of what the Salvation Army did; it helped people. He said part of the dilemma the Salvation Army had in terms of time was inherent in the Salvation Army. He said the Salvation Army did not have the local autonomy to make decisions about rezoning for example. Those decisions would need to come from territorial headquarters in Chicago.
He said part of their frustration, locally, was the fact that they were dealing with a National/International organization that had some built in redundancies that slow the process down, but those redundancies through the 150 plus year history of the Salvation Army, were intended to prevent local mistakes. They were intended to be certain that when a local advisory board made a decision to build a facility, like the Booth Community Center, that it would be successful.
Mayor Highberger asked Zinn if he had seen a letter from the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, dated May 15th that was sent to the City Commission.
Zinn said he had seen the letter. He said that was the first time he had seen those words used in that form. He said after meeting with the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association a letter was drafted that generally described what the Salvation Army would endeavor to do. He said no promises were made. He said the letter stated that they would attempt to deal with the neighborhoods concerns.
He read a letter dated January 28, 2004, from Captain Rich Forney, pastor of the Salvation Army Church, which stated: “We would continue to review your concerns as our plans are finalized with four areas which those concerns are generally addressed.” He asked that the letter be part of the record.
Commission Rundle said the location of existing services such as the Link Kitchen or Drop-In Center was a sensitive area. There were people who would like to see those services relocated and consolidated. He said he thought that issue would be something that the Salvation Army might want to be aware of as the center was being built. He said as programs were initiated what the Salvation added to that program mix would be advised to communicate with the neighbors. He said he did not want it to seem like it was a simple decision to move the Link Kitchen to that location.
Commissioner Schauner said in a letter from Planning Staff, dated May 17th, the matter of the extension request was submitted to the Burroughs Creek Study Committee for their comment. He said the committee’s comment was for one 6 month extension with no further extensions and that 6 months would coincide with the expiration of the building moratorium for the area. He asked why the letter went to that committee and how it was that the Planning Department recommended something different than the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan Committee recommendation.
Finger said the request was within the moratorium area. She said when staff received the request for an action they sent their letter in response to the request to the Burroughs Creek Study Committee. She said what the committee came up with was a recommendation that was not fully in tune with what had been done by past practice which was typically if a request was for a large community facility whether private or public, staff tried to honor the one year extension because staff understood it was difficult to do fund raising and if staff had not seen activity, it would be treated differently.
She said when the committee came back with the 6 month extension based upon the new development code, the committee was not fully aware of the conversation that had taken place during public hearing on the new development code about an 18 month extension not being long enough and a 6 month extension would be added so there would be a full 2 years for those projects. A building permit would also have some type of constraint on the process and the permit would need to be renewed which was added costs. She said staff felt there were other checks and balances in the system in that if there was a 2 year timeframe that time would allow a project time to get started. She said that was staff’s recommendation whether it was within the area of the moratorium or outside the moratorium because staff was trying to be consistent with their recommendation.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the practice of the Planning Commission was to grant a one year extension if requested
Finger said yes, unless there had been a significant change to rules and regulations and/or if there had been no activity on file for those projects.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the developer would be able to move dirt tomorrow on that site.
Finger said the City did not have a grading permit so unless the property is in the floodplain the developer would be able to move dirt.
Commissioner Schauner asked if moving dirt would be an indicator of anything to the Planning Department.
Finger said staff had builders and developers tell staff that moving dirt was an indicator that they were preparing for development, but until staff saw a building permit, staff did not look at moving dirt as an activity within the confines of a permit.
Commissioner Amyx said he guessed that a previous City Commission went through a lot of discussion in making sure there were protections built in to the neighborhood for this site plan. He said he thought the Salvation Army was making an attempt to make sure their project proceeded in a timely manner and suggested there should be a granting of an extension of the site plan.
He said he had concern about the two different opinions concerning whether promises were made or not. He hoped there would be attempts to help ease the concerns of the neighborhood. He said he did not have a problem extending the site plan for one year.
Commissioner Hack said this issue could be looked at from two different channels. The first channel went back to the original discussion of the site plan which was the location of the Salvation Army Rehabilitation Center and the second channel was staff’s practice of approving the extension of site plans. She said approving the extension was what the Commission needed to look at which approving extensions was a typical process. She said this was a large project that was dependent on fundraising and it made sense to approve this one time, one year extension.
Commissioner Schauner said he recalled, the neighborhood was told by the Commission and staff that because the existing zoning for that area was M-1A and M-2, the residential rehabilitation center was consistent with use from that zoning category and there wasn’t much that the Commission could do, other than say “yes” if the site plan was consistent with the zoning. He said based on that advice the City Commission voted unanimously to approve the site plan. One of the issues discussed was the neighborhood concerns about the use, the potential and unknowable use of that building in the future. He said he would very much like to encourage the Salvation Army as well as the neighbors to visit about how to bring those parties closer together with respect to that use. He said if in fact this project was built, the two parties would be neighbors for a long time and he hoped in the interest of being good neighbors there could be some better understandings about what that area would ultimately look like and what uses that facility would be put to.
He said he reluctantly agreed to the 12 month extension more out of his belief that every project deserved to have some consistent application of what the City’s practices had been. He said he had not heard any evidence that the City’s practices had been anything other than 12 months. Perhaps the new zoning code would be better, which was the 18 months with a possible 6 month extension, but he was not sure the practical effect would be any different. He suspected that the practical effect would still be a 24 month site plan life, but under the current practices and with the hope that the parties could work together to develop a better understanding of what this project might ultimately be, he thought the Commission should move forward and approve the site plan extension.
Mayor Rundle said he wanted to see this project progress forward and he wanted to encourage the consideration of the down-zoning and perhaps would invite the City Commission to consider initiating that process if it could be satisfied that that would not impede this use from going forward.
Mayor Highberger agreed with Commissioner Rundle. He said he would support considering rezoning the site provided that it was consistent with this site plan and would not create a non-conforming use for this project. He said the City’s practice had clearly been to routinely grant a 12 month extension. He said he understood the neighborhood’s concerns and appreciated the efforts of the Salvation Army in dealing with the neighbors and he strongly encouraged the Salvation Army to continue working with the neighborhood to make sure their facility fit in as well as possible to the neighborhood. He also supported a 12 month, one time extension to the site plan.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-04-30-05) for the Salvation Army Community Center, located west of Haskell Avenue between Lynn and Homewood Streets, subject to extension of the site plan approval for 12 months, until May 25, 2006, with the stipulation that no further extensions will be processed. If this one extension expires, a new site plan, consistent with the Development Code regulations in place at that time, would need to be filed and approved before a building permit could be issued. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Receive staff implementation report concerning Pesticide Free Parks. Receive recommendation from Parks & Recreation Advisory board.
Fred DeVictor, Director, Parks and Recreation, said when this issue was brought to the City Commission in late March, he posed a question of how to take care of the beauty and preserve the City’s parks in an environmentally friendly, safe, and responsible manner. As a result, the City Commission directed staff to develop an implementation plan to manage the City’s park properties without the use of pesticides. He said the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had reviewed the plan.
Mark Hecker, Park & Maintenance Superintendent, presented the staff report. He said professional staff in the horticultural field and park managers helped in drafting this plan. Staff had interviewed cities that had pesticide reduction programs and found that climatic conditions needed to be looked at as well as looking at cities that were comparable. He presented a USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap to the City Commission. He said staff came to the conclusion that they could get other ideas from other communities, but staff would custom design a program that would work in Lawrence.
He presented a planned timeline to the City Commission which was:
2005 - Purchase small quantities of a number of organic products to develop an understanding of how and when those produces could be applied to achieve maximum control;
2006 - Purchase only EPA Category III and IV pesticides and reduce chemical applications down to the lease toxic option for each control issue; and submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement for Park District 2 which included South Park, Watson Park, Centennial Park, and Broken Arrow Park, to pesticide free;
2007 - Submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement to covert the parks in Park District 3 which included Edgewood Park, Hobbs Park, Lyons Park and cemeteries, to pesticide free; and
2008 - Submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement to convert the parks in Park District 1 which included Holcom Park, Dad Perry Park, and leased property below Clinton Lake, to pesticide free;
He said staff felt that if the steps in the timeline were funded staff would have a good chance of maintaining the current level of service in this City’s parks. However, staff had a great deal of concern with the steps listed below due to the high cost of the conversion and the possibility that there would be a noticeable decline in appearance of facilities.
Also, in 2008, staff would submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement to convert all park landscapes area in Park District No. 1 & 3 to pesticide free which would require additional monies for staffing and equipment.
2009 - Submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement to covert all park landscapes in Park District No. 2 (most expensive) which included South Park, Watson Park, Downtown parking lots and planters, Constant Park, Japanese Friendship Garden, City Hall and Centennial Park etc…) to pesticide free; and submit for City Commission consideration a budget enhancement to convert all athletic fields to pesticide free.
He said the anticipated cost of the program would increase dramatically. The total amount needed by the end of 2009 would be approximately $213,000 for equipment; $116,000, annually for Staff; and $95,000, annually for materials.
He said other issues that were addressed in the plan were notification and record keeping.
He said in conclusion, staff was as concerned as everyone else with the safety of the products they would apply. The city required that all applicators be licensed as commercial pesticide applicators by the State of Kansas and attend the required continuing education classes needed to hold those licenses. He said they left little to chance when it came to the health and safety of staff or the general public.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the products referenced was Manage. He said he had used Manage and did not think anyone should use that product.
Secondly, he had a concern about over-seeding several times a year. He said once getting past the first of the hot weather grass seed would not likely germinate.
Hecker said staff could seed before March 15th and then after September 15th, those were two normal cool season grass seeding.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to recognize and dedicate a park as absolute zero pesticide use which would perhaps produce a very different look than what was now in the City’s parks.
Hecker said there were approximately 50 properties where that type of use could be used. He said that would give the community a chance to see what the outcome would be on that type of park.
Commissioner Rundle asked about spraying costs and whether it was limited to only insects.
Hecker said that cost included total chemical purchase, but did not include the golf course.
Commissioner Rundle said he understood the Wapunia Company would only lease their machines because their Patent Attorneys told them that way their company could control the image, quality, and guarantee how that type of machine was used.
Hecker said staff talked to the Wapunia Company over a year ago and staff was told that they would only be able to lease that machine, but just recently the Wapunia Company had stated that those machines could be purchased.
Commissioner Rundle said he had just talked to the Wapunia Company two days ago.
Mayor Highberger said the list of parks indicated that Ludlam and Parnel Parks were already pesticide free. He asked if those parks would be the models that Commission Schauner was referring to.
Hecker said yes. He said they had a lot of problem with Bermuda Grass in Ludlam Park and staff would need to mechanically remove that grass. He aid Parnel Park was working well, but some of the ditch lines had grass and weeds that needed to be controlled.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Hecker understood that staff was reluctant to this type of major change.
Hecker said yes. He said the problem that would be encountered was landscape management which included the hand weeding of plant beds.
Commissioner Rundle said there was no reference made to over mulching or using weed cloth. He said it seemed there were practices that would enable those flower beds to be weed free.
Hecker said that was true. He said staff was mulching almost every bed each year. One of the last steps in the plan was to buy a mulch spraying machine which would allow staff to apply mulch much faster. He said staff was concerned about landscaping.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Marie Stockett, Pesticide Free Coordinator, discussed three points that she liked in the plan which were:
1. Willingness to become pesticide free by the end of 2009;
2. Stopping the use of EPA category 1 and category 2 pesticides by next year; and,
3. Parks and Recreation Management showed some willingness to maintain the sports fields without pesticides.
She also raised concerns about the report which were:
1. Flower beds would continue to be maintained with pesticides until late into the transition period;
Stockett’s concern:
Recommendation of the original proposal to dedicate and declare some parks pesticide free and overtime adding more parks until the program expanded to the entire park system;
2. Parks & Recreation would like to be in charge of giving out exemptions when they felt pesticides were necessary;
Stockett’s concern:
Parks & Recreation had a history of being very comfortable using pesticides; therefore, she recommended that an independent group be in charge of giving out exemptions which might include the City Commission or a Citizens Advisory Board.
3. Parks & Recreation was not planning on using the recommended signage for notification in the Pesticide Free Parks Proposal because the word “hazard” would be used;
Stockett’s concern:
The recommended sign stated “Hazard - Pesticide Application” and that language was clear in that it warned the public that a pesticide had been applied.
4. The lengths of time signs were posted for notification of pesticide use for the public to see;
Stockett’s concern:
The original proposal called for signs to be displayed for two weeks after the pesticide application had been applied in a pesticide free park.
5. Ignored the recommendation of the proposal to implement a volunteer program;
Stockett’s concern:
The purpose of a volunteer program would be to reduce costs; workload for staff, serve as a form of public education, and to involve the community.
6. No mention in the report of encouraging citizens to use native, disease resistant, drought resident plants and no mention of an emphasis on prevention as a whole;
Stockett’s concern:
She said using plants that were native, drought and disease resistant was one form of prevention because those types of plants were less likely to develop problems down the road. Other preventive tools would be to heavily mulch landscaped areas; build concrete aprons along the bottom of fences which would eliminate the need to have a product applied by staff to kill weeds along the fence line which would save money; and mow high on turf areas.
7. Public education section - no mention of working with the Resource Conservation Recycling Board, Waste Reduction and Recycling, Prairie Park Nature Center or other City Government organizations with a background in ecology and conservation;
Stockett’s concern:
It seemed the Parks and Recreation Department did not have expertise in those areas of ecology and conservation and it would be beneficial if the Parks and Recreation Department would be open to working with other city organizations to accomplish pesticide free maintenance.
8 Stockett said the costs listed in the report were completely inaccurate;
Stockett’s concern:
It was listed in the report that the Wapunia Machine had a purchase price of $40,000 and she was assured by a Wapunia dealer that machine could not be purchased and was only available to be leased and furthermore the Wapunia Machine would cost approximately 30,000 for a four year lease and only one machine would be needed for the size of Lawrence. She had other concerns about the costs in the report.
9. Not enough emphasis on prevention;
Stockett’s concern:
Prevention would decrease the need for a product line. The report indicated an annual estimated cost of $95,000 for an organic chemical line, but a chemical line would not be necessary if appropriate prevention measures were exercised.
10. Ignored the recommendations of the Pesticide Free Parks Proposal about the Pesticide Free Parks Pilot Project;
Stockett’s concern:
The pilot project would act as a public awareness campaign which would begin the Pesticide Free Parks Project and include Watson Park, South Park, and downtown in which those areas would be maintained without pesticides.
11. Pesticides continuing to be used in rights-of-ways and medians;
Stockett’s concern:
Rights-of-ways and medians would only require mowing or heavily mulching if there were landscaped areas in the median
12. Ignoring Eagle Bend as pesticide free;
Stockett’s concern:
The course was positioned in the watershed of the Wakarusa and Kaw Rivers and pesticides that were applied could run into those waterways and soak through the soil into the groundwater which also fed the Kaw River. A pesticide free golf course could actually attract more business.
13. Exemptions needing to be granted;
Stockett’s concern:
Noxious weeds were mentioned, but noxious weeds were not required to be removed by pesticides. The Wapunia Machine was effective in killing any plant and that machine would solve that issue. She had other concerns about exemptions.
She said concerning complaints from citizens regarding plants, instead of immediately going out and spraying chemical on the plant that time would be an opportunity for public education to let people know that there were disadvantages of using pesticides. She said when she attended the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting last week there was discussion about Roundup and there seemed to be a lack of information on the consequences to using products such as Roundup. She referenced a study that was conducted at the University of Pittsburg that indicated that Roundup was toxic to aquatic animals. She said using Roundup would be of a particular concern in areas close to the wetlands.
She said there was information provided by the City of Lawrence’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Division that informed the public about negative side effects of using pesticides which that information could be obtained from their website.
She said prevention was the key to pesticide free maintenance. The current techniques with Parks and Recreation seemed to be to wait for problems to arise and then apply a product.
She had concerns about an article in the Lawrence Journal World concerning Parks and Recreation Pesticide Free Park Report. She said she objected to the newspaper calling the report a “study” because it was the “opinion” of the Parks and Recreation Department, a department that was comfortable with using chemicals and the department was not familiar with pesticide free park maintenance.
She addressed Parks and Recreations resistance to change. She said although she liked some portions of the report, the overall report seemed to convey a negative attitude toward pesticide free maintenance. The City Commission directed Parks and Recreation Department to come up with an implementation plan and not a report of excuses. She said Parks and Recreation lacked an ecological perspective which was why it would be necessary for Parks and Recreation to work with other city government organizations that were more knowledgeable about ecology and conservation.
BethAnn Mansur said she and her husband had a non-toxic landscape maintenance company for approximately 15 years. She said it took a shift in thinking and management, but if things were placed on a weekly schedule it was not as hard as it appeared. She said it would be worth trying pesticide free maintenance on a few parks that were in the pubic eye.
Susan Iverson Jayhawk Audubon Society, supported the Pesticide Free Parks Project. She said they particularly supported more use of drought and disease resistant native plants, full implementation of the IPM principles, citizen involvement on the education components of this plan, and the pubic notification hazard sign proposals.
Glen Westervell, owner of a local landscaping company who had been in business for 19 years, said the Parks and Recreation staff was taking some undeserved beating. He said Parks and Recreation staff were hard working, responsible, educated, and informed. He thought that Parks and Recreation staff had done quite a bit in the last few years trying to reduce pesticides. He said city staff was not using a lot of pesticide for the scope of what they were taking care of. Ideally, it would be nice to not use any pesticides, but it was not practical.
He said he disagreed with some of the costs that were presented because he thought that city staff would be getting into a lot more labor costs, mainly weeding landscape beds by hand.
He said some things that needed to be addressed if the City was going to totally eliminate pesticides would be huge increased labor costs, the purchase of specialized expensive equipment, and more weeds and bugs in public areas.
He said concerning downtown and the trees that were growing in a 4x4 planter, city staff needed the ability to control insects. He said any tree that was placed in 4x4 planter would need extra help and most of the help was going to come through the use of pesticides to keep the bugs away.
He said the number one concern of the use of pesticides were the health of human beings. City staff, who apply those chemicals, were all State certified and educated in what those chemicals could do to themselves and others. The other side of the health issue was if pesticides were not used there would be mosquito issues, ticks, poison ivy, and ragweed which caused health problems like West Nile Virus, malaria, lime disease, skin rashes, and allergies.
He said reducing pesticides was a great idea and he felt that the Parks and Recreation Department had reduced pesticides and would continue to do that. He said the proposed plan was probably cost prohibitive to the City and it was unreasonable to expect to go totally pesticide free.
The people who were concerned about this issue had options to use the two pesticide free parks if those people felt they were at risk of having some type of contact with chemicals. He said there should be pesticide free parks for people to have an option, but he did not think that we should spread the will of a small special interest group over the whole city. He said they needed to find a balance between cost and pesticide use. It was a balance between special interests and the public at large interest. He believed Lawrence currently had that balance with the level of pesticides that were being used and to further reduce the use of pesticides would come at a cost to the city and also place undo pressure on Park and Recreation staff to try and keep the present standards without the use of pesticides.
Jeff Wilson said in listening to both sides of this issue, on one hand he heard that the City had the best Parks and Recreation Department because they were committed and hardworking, and on the other hand it came through loud and clear that city staff was scared because they were afraid of what this represented and it was unfamiliar territory. He said there was a parks system that was managed with pesticides, but the Commission was asking City staff for something that was not practiced.
He said there had been discussions about pesticide free parks working and good direction given on implementation. He said as a strategy, the City did not want to poison small children that ran around parks and landscaped beds and as a strategy the city wanted to provide a safe and healthy park system. He said it was natural that the Parks and Recreation Department would create a number of beds and used a lot of pesticides in their approach up to this point. He said the Parks Department was smart enough to figure out what resources to explore to figure out how not to use pesticides. He said the approach should be to attack a few signature parks immediately and make them completely pesticide free.
He said concerning the report, after the first year, it was just guessing with costs and what people were going to learn.
Carrie Riordan, Golf Course Superintendents Association, said she did some environmental programmatic work for the environmental institute for golf which was a collaborative effort of the environmental and golf communities that was dedicated to strengthening the compatibility of golf with the natural environment. The institute concentrated on delivering programs and services involving information collection, research, education, and outreach that communicate the best management practices of environmental stewardship on golf courses.
She complimented the professional staff of the Parks and Recreation Department. She said over the past 10 years through working at GCSAA, she had the opportunity to work with staff at municipalities in most of the 50 states across the nation and without a doubt, the Parks and Recreations staff in Lawrence, Kansas, were top notch in terms of their professional credentials, educational background, and their professional integrity. It was also clear that from reading the proposal that they did some extensive work to present a well researched and well documented implementation report.
She said the GCSAA supported the implementation report with respect to the portion of the report on Eagle Bend, which would call for the elimination of category 1 and category 2 products from being used at the golf course. She said they agreed that it was not feasible to manage Eagle Bend Golf Course without the use of any pesticides. With the disease pressures in the Midwest, managing a golf course without any chemical, pesticide, fungicides, or insecticides would really be impossible if you wish to have quality playing conditions for the citizens who lived and played golf in Lawrence and also for the tourist who came to visit Lawrence bringing their tourism dollars with them. Without the use of any pesticides the playing conditions were going to decline and golfers were not going to play the course resulting n significant loss of revenue for the City of Lawrence. Research that supported what she said had been conducted in the State of New York at the Beth Page Stage Park Green Golf Course. She said in Lawrence, Kansas, with today’s technology, it was not possible to maintain a golf course without the use of any pesticides.
She said there was another social aspect that really should not be overlooked. She said that we all knew and believed that it was important to provide quality recreational opportunities to all members of our community regardless of their social economic status. Quality golf at an affordable price was the selling point of Eagle Bend. If the costs to maintain quality playing conditions went up due to the increase in labor costs and cost for purchasing higher quantities of less effective products, green fees were going to rise which would likely exclude a large portion of the population of the City of Lawrence that the City was striving to serve through their recreational facilities. When golf course conditions decline, those people who can afford to play golf at a facility with better conditions would do so.
Eagle Bend was already being managed in a very environmentally sound and responsible manner. Eagle Bend was currently a member of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for golf courses, a program that helped golf course enhance wildlife habitat and protect natural resources for the benefit of people, the environment, and the game of golf. The Audubon Program was recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through their Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program which forms partnership with pesticide uses to minimize potential health and environmental risk associated with pesticide use. In fact, the United States EPA had named the Audubon Program as a Pesticide Environment Stewardship Partnership Champion which was the highest level of recognition that was awarded through that program. Eagle Bend was actually certified in four of the six certification areas available through the program. Those areas were chemical use reduction and safety, environmental planning, water conservation, and wildlife habitat and management. To obtain the chemical use reduction and safety certification, the course had to prove through very extensive documentation that it was ensuring the safe storage, application and handling of chemicals and reducing actual and potential environmental contamination that was associated with chemical use.
The Professional Golf Course Superintendent and the trained staff at Eagle Bend Golf Course were responsible users of the tools necessary to provide quality playing conditions. They were appropriate in their use of water and other tools which combined created quality recreational opportunities for the members of this community. She said the course actually had two state certified pesticide applicators which was great for a City of this size with a golf course of this size.
She explained how pesticides were applied at a golf course. She said the products that were applied had been vigorously tested over a period of many years before they were granted a registration by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Before a product was given a registration label, literally hundreds of research tests were performed to determine the effects to human health and ecological risk. If it was determined that the risk from a product was too high, then the product was simply not approved. Once the EPA scientists approved a product label, that label was the law for how the product must be applied.
The condition of the golf course was driven by the demands of the customer and by the golfer. They demanded certain playing conditions to enjoy their golf. Pesticide applications on golf courses were very specific and only applied where necessary. Applications were not made wall to wall on a golf course and in fact, the only portion of a golf course that was intensively managed was the greens. On a typical golf course, that might only be three or four acres out of a 120 to 140 acre golf course. Furthermore, most materials used on a golf course were immediately absorbed into the plant material and did not result in picking up chemicals on their shoes or clothing.
Tonight, this meeting started with the declaration of May 27th as Rachel Carson Day and we have all benefited greatly, personally from the fact that science and environmental practices had advanced greatly since the days when Silent Spring was written.
Pesticides today were generally very specific, target a narrow spectrum of pest, were used at low rates, were used for very specific purposes, and were less toxic to non-target organisms. The Superintendent of Eagle Bend, along with the rest of Parks and Recreation staff demonstrated everyday their commitment to providing safe, high quality, enjoyable and affordable recreation spaces for all members of our community. It was clear that Eagle Bend was being managed in an environmentally sound and responsible manner and provided high quality playing conditions for the citizens of this community while at the same time minimizing the amount of pesticides needed to produce quality playing conditions.
Commissioner Rundle asked Riordan to restate her comments about EPA testing.
Riordan said what she mentioned was when a pesticide product was submitted to the agency for registration there was a whole battery of research that had to accompany that registration.
Commissioner Rundle said the research had to accompany that registration, but that research was not performed by the EPA. He said EPA took research from the industry and made their ruling based on that research.
Riordan said certainly the research came from a lot of different places. The manufacturer of the chemical must go through lots of testing and submit research. Universities in academic institutions submit quite a bit of that research as well. The EPA scientists then review that information and that research.
Commissioner Rundle said the staff report made a slight mistake in talking about EPA testing. The EPA acquired test results from other sources and then made decisions.
Riordan said the EPA website had a good explanation of how products were researched before they go to the market.
Commissioner Rundle said he already knew that information.
Jeff Nus, United States Golf Association, said his job entailed publishing the results of their scientific studies. Since 1983 they had funded over 300 studies to the tune of approximately $26,000,000. The study that he wanted to bring attention to could be found on their website where he was editor of their Technical Turf Grass Journal. He said turf grass and environmental research on-line was a project that they conducted at parks in which they spent approximately $90,000 on that project. He said they had that same question as the City Commission on whether or not Eagle Bend could be maintained as a pesticide free golf course. He said the agronomists in those eight sections of the United States know those golf courses fairly well. He said even though some golf courses maintained they were pesticide free, the knowledge by our agronomist was that those golf courses would be chemically treated when they had to treat to save that investment.
He said concerning a project conducted at Bethpage State Park, Long Island, New York, the green course at that site took those putting greens and either treated those greens conventionally with free choice of fungicides or an IPM Program or no pesticides whatsoever and in a matter of weeks, the greens that received no pesticides were killed from a very common disease in which the same disease was common around this area. He said that disease pressure was at least as great in this area. He said greens would be lost and there would be an agronomic and financial disaster if protective fungicides were not applied.
He said in terms of protection of investment, their research showed very clearly that those protective fungicides were needed to maintain golf course conditions in particular, putting green conditions on a golf course.
Doug Clark, who works for a local landscape company and had a degree in horticulture, said education was a key part in learning about this subject. He said it was important to go to credible sources for the research and information such as K-State or Colorado State because there was very credible and detailed research that yields good information on a lot of those products.
He said at his company there were several individuals that had gone through the Pesticide Certification to apply those products. He said anyone that had handled Roundup knew that it was not labeled for situations and there were chemicals suited for those areas.
He said when he read in the newspaper that the City was only using $10,000 to buy their chemicals, he said he was amazed. He said it was phenomenal that a City of this size used that small amount. He said as mentioned the City had an Integrated Pest Management Program and it was obvious that City staff was serious about following that program and using pesticides only when they were needed.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to see this issue moved forward a little more aggressively and stick with the plan of a highly visible park. He said it seemed they would be biting off a bit too much to try and apply something system wide from the outset and starting smaller was the way to go. He said there were some minor errors in the report such as the EPA pesticide testing and it was probably because it was an enormous research job. He said the costs were inflated in the report. Since the Wapunia had to be leased, it brought the cost down to $91,000 over four years. Also, he was not so sure he was convinced that a mulch blowing machine was necessary and would bring that cost down even lower.
He said there was not enough emphasis on the preventative practices and as shifting from one type of management system to another, costs would be shifted. He said chemical cost and labor cost would not be spent the same way as on the pesticide free park. Also, he did not think that they would be striking off into uncharted territory because there were communities that practiced pesticide free parks and had already proven that it could be done successfully and economically as a conventional pesticide approach.
He said nothing was intended to reflect, in anyway, on the high regard that staff held for the parks and it was not a question that staff had not been performing a good job. He said he did not think this was intended to be a pointing in the direction of settling for any reduction in quality, but a shift in management style and would probably have initial costs upfront. Again, in the long-run in other communities, pesticide free parks had been proven to be cost effective.
He said he did not know why volunteers were not an integral part of this idea, particularly with concerns about costs. He said he did not think there would be an enormous amount of hand weeding, but what a perfect use for volunteers. He said this equation needed to be expanded and it was not just park costs, but water treatment and public health and if putting those costs in the equation, use of pesticides was more expensive.
He said he strongly endorsed the use of signage as recommended in the proposal. He said with adequate warning ahead of time, leaving the signs up for three days or as long as the manufacturer recommended. He said staff was quite comfortable that they were safe and he knew they were using those pesticides according to direction, but people wanted to have informed consent to be exposed to those chemicals. He said it was not a special interest group and the thought there was a substantial number of people in the community that wanted to see this City heading in this direction. He said he thought the City was catching up to a bandwagon that was already well on its way.
Mayor Highberger said he shared some of Commissioner Rundle’s concerns, but he commended staff for taking this issue on and the fact that they were only using $10,000 a year in pesticides showed that staff had been taking steps. He addressed the point about this issue coming up from a special interest group. He said they had endorsements of this concept from a dozen neighborhood associations. He said many people in Lawrence wanted to see the City proceed in that direction.
He said he would like to see one signature park taken all the way as pesticide free sometime soon because that would give information about how much effort it took to keep up with the flowerbeds, what type of practices might be used to make it work and would give the Commission and staff more information about further implementation. He said he wanted to see some changes in the signage, but he did not want to see a big sign that stated “Hazard” in the park, but some language with a little more information so that people could make informed consent. Also, he suggested staff work out something with the neighborhood association concerning volunteer help. Generally with those changes, he would support the proposal.
Commissioner Hack echoed the comments about the quality of city staff. She said when people thought about Lawrence, they thought about the City’s parks, flowerbeds, and entry ways which did not happen by accident, but by a committed staff. She said staff was protective of the City property and any criticism of staff was unwarranted. She agreed that signage was an important issue so that people knew what was going on. Also, the volunteer program for weeding the beds and performing some type of preventive maintenance was great, but there was already an Adopt a Park program. She said she had grave concerns about Eagle Bend and supported the staff report recommendation to exempt the golf course because the City could not afford to lose a green in 24 hours and that could happen in this area. Everything that was heard from the Futures Tour was that it was one of the nicest courses that they had played on and the City could not let that public investment go.
She said the City had a very educated and well trained Parks and Recreation Department that should be qualified to make emergency decisions if something should come up that staff believed needed to be taken care of immediately to protect their investment. She believed very strongly that staff should have the ability to make those emergency decisions.
She said she was concerned about the cost that went from $10,000 to approximately $200,000 a year because that was an enormous burden for taxpayers. She said she was willing to talk about this issue, but could not support anything that would place Eagle Bend in jeopardy or she could not support anything that took staff away from making decisions when staff felt those decisions were necessary.
Commissioner Schauner said the problem that they were dealing with was one problem that took 50-60 years to create. He said what they had created was an expectation of lush green grass in an area of the world that really wasn’t intended to have lush green grass.
He said he concurred with the comments about Parks and Recreation staff. He said staff had done what the community had asked them to do. He said staff had gone out and created a very handsome, well manicured, set of public investments that were called parks. He said now the City was considering whether they wanted to back away from that in some fashion. It was inevitable that the City was going to move in that direction, but not overnight. He said what he was comfortable supporting was taking a signature park and making it literally pesticide free which was a good first place to start. He said he did not think it was reasonable to take the entire parks system and turn it into a pesticide free area in even 3 to 5 years because it was too much to bite off. He said he would be happy with allowing Parks and Recreation Staff manage the golf course as best as they saw fit at this time. He said they needed information about how a pesticide free parks operation would work in this community and the signature park was the best way to do that.
He said one of the issues that was of concern was comments made was that they had qualified applicators and he absolutely thought that was true. He said there were two issues about pesticides. One issue was how it was applied properly and the other issue was even if applied property, was it safe. He said there were some people who did not think any of those products, even used consistent with the label, were ultimately safe for human consumption through underground water streams or run-off in the rivers. He said it seemed that if the physician’s adage of first do no wrong made any sense at all, it made sense in a park environment. If they could take a signature park and even if they were not in agreement about whether pesticides were good or not, he suggested trying it without using pesticides and make an honest good faith effort to take one park and make it a place to see what the park would look like. He said he thought it was a reasonable approach, reasonable to taxpayers, and a reasonable response to the request.
Commissioner Amyx said he enjoyed the conversation on both sides of this question. He said he grew up in Lawrence, Kansas and under the direction of Fred DeVictor and staff the City had a beautiful park system. He said the Commission was being asked to decide whether or not the parks system should be pesticide free and he agreed with the rest of the Commission in that he would need to visually see what would happen and he was willing to take the step. He said a signature park was the way to go and did not care what park that would be and suggested staff pick a park so that the Commission could visually see the results of a pesticide free park.
He said he did share concern about golf course greens and how fast they could be ruined. He said with the public investment in the golf course, he thought since greens seemed to be the most expensive part of building a golf course, the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in rebuilding those greens would be a grave mistake.
Commissioner Rundle said the golf course was a long-term proposition. He said also, the City did not have lush green parks everywhere such as South Park because sometimes the turf was healthy because it had fewer trees.
He said concerning staff making decisions, any decision for waivers needed to have some clear guidelines and reporting back to the City Commission when those waivers were given. He said he would like to see a competition like South Park and Watson Park and assign to each park staff authority to do the research and whichever one that came in with the cheapest, most pesticide free park would receive a bonus. He said pesticide free parks was doable and people needed to get that “can do” spirit. There was an enormous wealth of resources and a lot of support in the community. He said he would come back with something more concrete about the idea of competitions in future weeks.
Wildgen said staff could take the comments made and come back to the City Commission with a summary. He said the common agreement concerned the signage and making a signature park pesticide free. (21)
Commissioner Rundle requested discussion of the forming of an adhoc group to consider the Southeast Area Plan
Mayor Highberger presented a brief background. He said the Commission did discuss the Southeast Area Plan at the last joint City/County Study Session. He said he was not sure it was appropriate to have the plan that was presented, presented. He said the study session was not to endorse the plan, but he thought it would be useful for the rest of the Commission to see what was being supported.
He said his purpose of meeting with County Commissioner Johnson was to try and work out something that could be presented to both City and County Commissions for adoption hopefully if not with a consensus then a very high majority, but that did not happen. He said that was why he asked that this issue be brought back to both Commissions. When there was a motion to select another group of people to further that discussion, his hope was that group could meet and work something out and bring it back to both Commissions and again, hopefully find some way to address the concerns that were raised and find the route that could be adopted by strong majorities of both City and County Commissions.
Commissioner Rundle said what happened was that they were going off into un-chartered territory. He said there were no guidelines in the types of adhoc situations and they also had not set down as a governing body and reflect outside that study session. He said he wanted to get back to that protocol that was well established.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Carrie Lindsay, President League of Women’s Voters, said the League’s concern was that there was no formal process. This adhoc committee appeared to be somewhat similar and they were concerned overall that there be some guidelines in place for how those committees were formed, what rules they needed to follow, and if there was consistency on how the minutes were kept and other issues. She said part of not having a process in place had brought this discussion forth.
Jim Carpenter, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said when he read about this issue in the paper, it seemed to violate all of the processes that had been followed in the past of plans that had come up from the Planning Commission. Those plans usually come up for discussion at the City Commission level and when they were joint plans between the City and County at both Commission levels and the opportunity for additional public comment was in place and the opportunity for the public to hear the positions of each Commissioner. The Commissions, at that time, had the opportunity to either adopt the proposals of the Planning Commission, reject those proposals and adopt some other proposal on a supermajority vote, or send it back to the Planning Commission for additional work along with comments on what the City and County Commission wanted to see discussed or included, but that did not happen. Instead, a new plan was proposed and an adhoc committee was created to address that plan.
During a recent City Commission campaign there was a lot of talk about streamlining and making the planning process more predictable. There was also a lot of talk about increased citizen participation at all levels of governmental decision making and both of those had been violated by creating an adhoc committee that did not permit the community to have that final comment. None of them were naïve that had worked on neighborhood issues or planning issues to not see the writing on the wall. He said even though they could count votes and know when plans were not going to pass, but they still wanted that opportunity to discuss those issues in an open and public forum to have all the information given that was felt necessary.
Many neighborhoods participated, in depth, and for a great deal of time in creating the plan that had come to the City and County Commissions. He said Prairie Park neighborhood had especially been involved as they were most directly affected by what happened in the southeast area. Other neighborhoods on the east side including East Lawrence, Barker, Brookcreek, and Breezedale had also been involved in this issue because what happened in the southeast area would impact traffic flow patterns through their neighborhoods until there were alternative ways to route that traffic around those neighborhoods. If this plan went forward or changed without a through study of the impacts could happen too soon and if it happened before the new sewage treatment plant was on-line, they were talking about an increased burden of all the taxpayers now for millions of dollars in expenses to lift sewage out of the southeast area up to the existing sewage treatment plant until the new plant was on-line where gravity would take care of it. He said he did not see the rush in implementing this plan. He said there should be a slow and deliberate process and if the Commissions felt that the plan that came up from the Planning Commission was inappropriate then it should be sent back down for adequate discussion and bring in the new issues that had been raised during the public process. He asked that the City Commission reject participation in the adhoc committee, hold a public hearing on the plan as presented by the Planning Commission and take the appropriate action at that time.
Wally Emerson, Chair, Progressive Lawrence Campaign, presented a copy of the Kansas Statute governing amendments to Comprehensive Plans and an Area Plan was an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan. The statute gave the Commission permission to implement three things which where to approve it, override the Planning Commission recommendation by 2/3 votes, or return the plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Southeast Area Plan had not gone through that process. Instead, the process was hijacked last week and now decisions that would shape Lawrence for generations were being made, politically, with little attention to gathering of facts and analysis of information.
He said they thought the City Commission should resist this inappropriate developer pressure and take the time to create the plan that was best for the entire community and not the plan that was best for a select few. If the City Commission did not like the current Southeast Area Plan that the Planning Commission was recommending, then the City Commission should just vote the plan down and fall back on the provisions of Horizon 2020. There was a process and laws in place that govern how those things should be done. He suggested implementing a thorough and legal planning process of the southeast area and accept the outcome of that work.
Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, agreed with comments made by previous speakers. She said she appreciated the public comment on this topic and she said that was important. She said there were questions that needed to be answered tonight. She said at the adhoc meeting she appreciated the attempt of those people to try to clarify what that process was and to try to make sure everyone was on the same page. However, by the time the meeting was finished, she felt that she just witnessed backroom politics at its finest and it seemed like the meeting was a runaway train with the County as engineer and that concerned her greatly. She said those that knew her knew that process mattered to her a lot and also when she attended meetings she tried to take good notes. It seemed that comments were made that discounted input from the public, that it would be a waste of the public’s time to come to a meeting where they already knew what the decisions were going to be and why waste the public’s time if they knew they were going to vote it down.
She said she felt as though she witnessed the vision for future development for industrial parks. The economics of trying to develop the southeast area would take a long time, this area was under development pressure, and what would that do to Farmland.
She said she also saw a new suggested transportation plan to try to accommodate some of the traffic. All of that was done outside of the public purview and she was simply appalled at what she saw and what she heard. The idea of an adhoc committee might be a good idea, but she did not think that committee was working well. She said she came away with the impression that it was the adhoc committee’s job to come up with a plan that both governing bodies could approve to send back to the Planning Commission and that idea went against everything she ever learned or witnessed in the City’s planning process. She said she would like some clarification, at this time, about what was the process for area plans because if the process was not followed by state statute, then she suggested it was doing planning by adhoc committees, but she did not think that was a good idea. She said there was a Planning Commission and that commission should be used. If the Planning Commission sent the governing bodies a plan, then they should take care of that plan first before they moved ahead. There were so many issues critical to this plan that needed to be addressed before looking at bubble maps or any other types of plans. She said if the current plan was not acceptable to the County or the City then vote the plan down, but she said vote it down in the right way.
The questions that needed to be asked and addressed were:
1. The process for forming an adhoc committee;
2. What should happen in a study session where a presentation was made;
3. What were the ways an annexation could occur;
4. If an area plan did not need to follow statutes, then what was the appropriate process for an area plan;
5. What was the County’s interest in this issue and why were they so interested in the future land uses of this particular area.
Commissioner Hack said she did not want Mayor Highberger to apologize for what happened last week. She said unless you had been a Mayor, you don’t know how hard it was to run a meeting and participate in that meeting. She said the intention the Mayor had in meeting originally with County Commissioner Johnson was to try and come up with something that was right. It was important to the Mayor that this plan came forward with a better positive feeling from both the County and the City. The process was important and one of the things that the Planning Commissioners asked for was a thumbs up or thumbs down on what they had sent.
She said the words adhoc, committee, task force, process being hijacked, and pressures from developers were never their intention. To lay blame on anybody for just simply trying to have a discussion was not appropriate. The hours that she and Vice Mayor Highberger, at that time, spent talking about living wage and trying to come up with ideas were out of the public view. She said that did not mean the discussion at that meeting was automatically going to come before the public.
Mayor Highberger said he stood behind his apology for how that meeting was handled last week.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed 100% that the first decision to be made was to decide up or down on the Southeast Area Plan that the Planning Commission acted on. He said the worst thing that the governing bodies could do was to drive a wedge between them and the Planning Commission. Those were the people that were appointed to serve to be visionaries and planners for the community.
He said he probably did things wrong in that meeting and he apologized, but with all that said the first order of business was to bring the Southeast Area Plan with a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City and County Commission. He said he imagined there would be a difference of opinion between the five members of this body, but the City Commission owed the members of Planning Commission due process. If the plan passes that would be the plan and if did not pass, then adhoc committees could be talked about. He said some of the questions that were asked could not be answered at this time, but at a later date.
Commissioner Schauner said the last study session was not the best evidence that democracy worked. He said it was a meeting that got out of control, but he did not lay the blame on anyone. As a group, they acted in a way that wasn’t ultimately in their own best interests. He said he would like to see the adhoc committee dissolved and the plan brought to the City Commission by the Planning Commission voted up or down by this body and the County. If the plan passes that was fine, but if the plan did not, take the matter back to the Planning Commission and ask them to look at the plan again.
He agreed with Vice Mayor Amyx that they needed to take a look at how adhoc groups were appointed. He said he would like to give the Mayor more authority in that area, not less. He said he would like for the Mayor to be in a position to suggest who should be on that committee. He said concerning annexation there would be serious discussions about that matter. He said the southeast area was important as a gateway on the east side of town and had tremendous traffic impact to everyone in town except those who lived on the far west side. Ultimately, he thought the Planning Commission would get this plan back. He said they should follow a process and keep it transparent and move this plan through.
Commissioner Rundle asked Corliss to give a brief explanation to the area plan covered by the statutes and the various alternatives that led to annexation.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Southeast Area Plan was not initiated as a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The other area plans that the Commission had considered such as the HOP Plan, Burroughs Creek had not been initiated as well. The nodal plans had not been initiated as text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
He said Linda Finger, Planning Director, had worked on the subsets of different plans and those plans had not come back from the Planning Commission with their endorsement to talk about those plans.
He said if this issue was placed back on the City Commission agenda then they would be receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If it would be a text amendment under this statute there would be three options which were to approve it, approve it with amendments by a 2/3 vote, or send it back with a majority vote with suggestions for changes. In addition to placing this issue on the City Commission agenda, he thought it would be helpful to clarify under what rules the City Commission would review the Southeast Area Plan. Would the City Commission review it under those rules where there were those three options? That would be clarity so that everyone would know how the City Commission would be dealing with that plan.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the annexation procedure changed as a result of legislation passed this past legislative session.
Corliss said it changed slightly. The major change was to the K.S.A. 12-520 annexation which was smaller tracts where certain criteria that were in the larger scale annexation. It basically took the large scale annexation criteria and put it as a burden on the smaller scale annexation.
Commissioner Schauner said the K.S.A. 12-521 annexations of 21 acres or more required County agreement.
Corliss said the majority of the County Commission had to make certain findings that the annexation was appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there were any circumstances that the annexation could go forward without the County’s approval.
Corliss said correct, unless it was found that the County had not followed the law. He said you could annex contiguous property with the property owner’s permission. That never required County permission as long as there was the property owner’s permission and it was contiguous to the main City boundaries.
Commissioner Schauner said if the property owners in the southeast area came to the City Commission and asked to be annexed, even though there were more than 21 acres under consideration that would not require County approval.
Corliss said correct, that was how the bulk of the annexations had occurred with the property owner’s permission.
Henderson asked if they were not operating as the Southeast Area Plan as a text amendment, then did the County still need to be involved.
Corliss said there was no legal requirement for the Douglas County Commission to be involved in the Southeast Area Plan.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission could plan outside the City without their involvement.
Corliss said yes, whether in the urban growth area, plans could be made. He said under our laws there was a joint City/County Planning Commission that had to adopt one document as its Comprehensive Plan and that meant that the City and County Commission had to adopt a Comprehensive Plan together.
Commissioner Schauner said this particular plan, the Southeast Plan, was not an amendment to the text of that Comprehensive Plan. Since that was not a text amendment as per prior occasions, the annexation of that ground would not require County action.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:10 pm. Motion carried unanimously.
Corliss said the planning documents did not affect the annexation statutes. The annexation statute stood independent of the planning statutes. The issue was the size of the annexation and whether or not the property owners consented or not were the two basic criteria where you break down the annexation statutes.
Commissioner Schauner said if they put this Southeast Area Plan that the Planning Commission had sent on an agenda, it was not a text amendment and they still had the same three options listed.
Corliss said that was his recommendation because that was the maximum involvement of the Planning Commission that way. If the City Commission disagreed, in order to have a final consensus document, there would need to be four Commissioners. Otherwise three Commissioners would send it back for that dialogue with the Planning Commission to respond to those concerns. The Planning Commission then responded to those concerns with the same or different document and then the City Commission could act on it by three votes even though the City Commission would not be following the Comprehensive Plan statutory scheme because the City Commission was not under that, but that would ensure the maximum dialogue with the Planning Commission. He said the historic reason why the County had been involved in the southeast area was because they had been approached to create a sanitary sewer benefit district and sewers were an important part of that development area.
Mayor Highberger said he was not opposed to placing the Planning Commission’s version of the area plan back on a future Commission agenda for discussion for either approval or disapproval.
Wildgen said June 14th appeared to be the soonest.
Corliss asked if the Commission’s direction was to then treat it with a three part action.
The Commission concurred.
Wildgen asked about the adhoc committee.
Mayor Highberger said at this point the committee should be dissolved. (22)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION ITEMS: None
Mayor Highberger said Vice Mayor Amyx and Commissioner Schauner attended a meeting of concerned citizens about Memorial Park Cemetery and its management of the cemetery and would like to address the City Commission for assistance. He strongly suggested planning this issue on an upcoming agenda.
Wildgen suggested late June 28th in placing this issue on the Commission’s agenda.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid Date – 2005 Overlay & Concrete Repair Program, Phase 3, May 31st.
2. Bid – 2005 Overlay Program, Phase 1, to LRM Industries for $739,903.58.
3. Purchase Property Interest – 601 Indiana for 6th & Indiana sanitary sewer.
4. Sale – Surplus vehicles through e-bay.
5. Ordinance No. 7828 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-07-32-04) 12.5508 acres, from PRD-2 to PRD-2, S of 24th Pl between Crossgate & Inverness.
6. Ordinance No. 7881 – 2nd Read, allow consumption of alcohol, Dad Perry Park, May 22, 4 to 11 p.m.
7. Resolution No. 6593 – Special Warranty Deed for Lawrence Paper Co.
8. Resolution No. 6594 – Bonds for $700,000, Summer Overlay & Curb Repair Programs.
9. Rezone – (Z-03-18-05) .19 acre, from C-5 to PCD-2, 3400 & 3434 S Iowa.
10. Final Plat – (PF-03-10-05) Wal-Mart Add No. 3, 12.92 acres, 3400 & 3434 S Iowa.
11. Use Permitted Upon Review – (UPR-03-02-05) Brandon Woods Retirement Ctr., 1501 Inverness.
12. RFP – Vision of the Future Transporation.
13. RFP – Conversion & update of the regional travel demand mode.
14. Fire Station No. 2 – landmark designation, 1839 Massachusetts.
15. Write-Offs – Finance Dept.
16. Mortgage Release – 3701 W 24th, Shane & Leslie Sharp.
17. Sign Code Amendment.
18. Signs of Community Interest – K-State Research & Extension Office.
19. City Manager’s Report.
20. Site Plan (SP-04-30-05) Salvation Army, W of Haskell between Lynn & Homewood.
21. Parks - Pesticide Free Park - Implementation Report to the 2006 Preparation Process.
22. Southeast Area Plan – adhoc group.