July 5, 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: None
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 21, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 24, 2005; the Mechanical Board of Appeals meeting minutes of May 16, 2005 and May 18, 2005; and the Planning Commission meeting minute of May 23, 2005-May 25, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 325 vendors in the amount of $1,818,171.65. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Sandbar, 17 East 8th; La Parrilla, 814 Massachusetts; and Zen Zero, 811 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Dempsey Micco to the Lawrence-Douglas County Advocacy Council on Aging, to a term which will expire December 31, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to execute an engineering contract agreement with Black and Veatch in the amount of $71,600 to complete the Preliminary Design Report for Phase II of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant Expansion. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date of July 26, 2005, for the Waterline Relocation at Kasold Bridge and the Kansas Turnpike. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation for 1526 West 22nd Street for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Penny Construction $26,522
Batten Homes & Cabinets $29,210
Old Home Store, Inc. $20,951
Staff Estimate $23,840
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid Old Home Store, Inc., in the amount of $20,951. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7882, an ordinance exempting from ad valorem taxation fifty-five percent of the appraised valuation of certain building expansion improvements and certain new machinery and equipment used by Prosoco, Inc., for the manufacturing of articles of commerce. The exemption is for a ten year period beginning in 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7884, an ordinance exempting for ad valorem taxation eighty percent of the appraised valuation of new construction and machinery and equipment used by Serologicals Corporation d/b/a Celliance Lawrence, Inc., for the manufacture of articles of commerce. The exemption is for a ten year period beginning 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7894, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Zinn-Burroughs House, located at 1927 Learnard Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7895, amending the City’s animal control laws concerning cruelty to animals. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7903, relating to the hunting and trapping of animals in parks, recreation, or open space areas owned by the City. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7874, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Free State Brewing Company Sidewalk Dining area, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7875, annexing approximately 13.366 acres, generally located north of Clinton Parkway, east of K-10, and an execution of an agreement not-to-protest a benefit district for road improvements to County Road North 920, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7897, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Eldridge Street between Seele Way and Trail Road, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Ordinance No. 7898, establishing a “stop sign” on Field Stone Drive at Grand Vista Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6601, declaring 1220 Pennsylvania Street environmentally blighted, ordering the property owner to remove the violation within 20 days of said resolution. Failure of the property owner to comply will result in the City abating said violations, with costs incurred being assessed to the property owner of record. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-05-37-05) for improvements to the parking lot at Southern Hills Shopping Center, located at 1601 West 23rd Street, subject to the following conditions:
1 Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Revision to the Parking Summary Table, based upon the Net Square Feet; and
3. Provision for the recordation of the proposed 25’ drainage easement on the east side of the property and the proposed 10’ wide drainage easement shown on the Site Plan. Include the recorded Book and Page Number of the drainage easements on the Site Plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-05-21-05) for Bella Sera at the Preserve, a one-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 8.239 acres, property generally described as being located at 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
2. Provision of the following revisions to the Final Plat:
a. Show the dimension (provide the length) for the 15’ wide Public Cross Access Easement;
b. Show the dimension (provide the length) for the 15’ wide SWBell Easement.
3 Submission of Public Improvement Plans to Public Works prior to filing of the Final Plat;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
5. Pinning of Lot in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
6. Reflect the new Planning Commission Chairperson’s name on the plat (Chairperson to be selected at June Planning Commission meeting; and
7 Execution of An Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for Traffic Signal and Geometric Improvements to Bob Billings Parkway and Inverness Drive.
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-14-05) for Lake Estates at Alvamar, a proposed 35-lot single-family residential subdivision containing approximately 12.584 acres, the property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of 22nd Terrace and Lake Pointe Drive; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Remove general note #1;
2. Revise signature block for Planning Commission Chairman;
3. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include note with deed book and page reference for off-site drainage and utility easements along the east property line;
4. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following note: “The property shall participate in a City of Lawrence special assessment benefit district for the acquisition and construction of a street to N. 902 Road.”;
5. Submission of public improvement plans per approval of the Public Works Department prior to recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office, for all public utilities, streets, and pedestrian connections;
6. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include a note regarding right-of-entry for planting of street trees;
7. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include a note regarding soil testing;
8. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
9. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
10. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Contractor Licensing Review Board of Johnson County authorizing the City of Lawrence licensed contractor to participate in Johnson County Contractor Licensing Program continuing education courses. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Jay Castor and Malhalley Allen, 730 Maine. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Donna Logan, 1603 Wedgewood. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Sandra Reed, 1410 West 22nd Street. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, the 2005 Cured-in-Place-Pipe Program for separate discussion. He said with respect to the ISO Standards (International Organization for Standards) and the bid protest, he asked when the winning bidder needed to verify ISO Standard satisfaction before the contract was signed to provide that service.
Jim Stuit, Field Operations Superintendent-Collections Systems, said they expected the winning bidder to verify ISO Standards before they received a notice to proceed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any effective difference between those bidders being an ISO Certified Company and providing materials to the City that were of that standard.
Stuit said there was no difference. He said staff insisted on that standard for the materials and the engineering of those materials and staff was confident that both bidders could provide those standards, including the low bidder.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Stuit had a sense about why there was a protest.
Stuit said the firm that protested felt that they had supplied all of that information with the bid and the other firm had not.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the bidding process required submittal at the time of the bid closing.
Stuit said no, only at time of construction.
Commissioner Schauner said in Stuit’s experience, he asked about the best procedure to follow, at bid submittal or at time of performance.
Stuit said probably at the time of performance. He said this issue had never come up before.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this protest suggested that staff might want to revise that bid submittal process.
Stuit said staff would look at that process to avoid confusion in the future.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, the City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2005 Cured-in-Place-Pipe Program for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
Bidder Cost for 2005 Project Cost increase for 2006 Cost increase of 2007
Utility Maintenance
Contractors, LLC $372,503.84 +5% +5% (of 2006 price)
Insituform Technologies $399,583.00 0% 0%
USA, Inc.
It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Utilities Maintenance Contractors, LLC, in the amount of $372,503.84. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Vice Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda, the bid for one BMW motorcycle for the Police Department, for separate discussion. He asked about why staff specifically sent out a bid for a BMW motorcycle.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City already had four BMW motorcycles. He said it was to standardize equipment, maintenance, and training.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, the City Commission reviewed the bid for one BMW motorcycle for the Police Department. The bid was:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engle Motors, Inc. $18,403
It was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to award the sole bid to Engle Motors, Inc., in the amount of $18,403. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
The site plan (SP-05-40-05) for an additional two-story office building, located at 4101 West 6th Street, was pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion by a member of the public.
Paul Patterson, Planner, said the existing property did have a two story office building that resembled a house with an additional apartment studio in that house. He said the applicant was looking to build a two story building behind the building in the parking lot. The property was zoned RO-2 (Residential Office District) and the item had been considered by the various departments. The revisions had been made to the site plan. The most predominate concern was the drainage from the property. The applicant would be producing a parking lot with curb and gutter. The drainage from the parking lot would go south into an existing drainage detention basin. That detention basin would have improvements made to it and appropriate conditions had been placed upon the site plan. One of those conditions being that the stormwater drainage be to the approval of the Stormwater Engineer as part of the submittal of the public improvement plans. He said staff was recommending approval of the site plan subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked what were the conditions the applicant would need to meet for approval from the Stormwater Engineer to be able to control that water and the run-off to the east.
Patterson said Condition No. 3 stated: “Submission and approval of Public Improvement Plans for the storm drainage system (including an SWP3 for the site) to Public Works Department, prior to the release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources.”
He said the parking lot would have curb and gutter so the stormwater that actually accumulated on that parking lot area would be retained within that parking lot and would be drained to the south, to an existing drainage detention basin that was on a prior plat. That was an existing stormwater detention basin and improvements would be made to that stormwater detention basin to handle the stormwater run-off from this project and the surrounding properties. He said the actual drainage would be handled in a more appropriate manner at larger capacity than what existed today.
Commissioner Rundle asked if those improvements would be spelled out.
Patterson said it would be per the codes for stormwater drainage.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the prior problems with that site in terms of drainage.
Patterson said it was his understanding that that site had problems with a large area that was fairly flat and it ran off into the stormwater detention basin which might not have been sized properly to handle that run-off.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he had lived straight south of the area at 4101 West 7th and he knew what that water could do on the east side of that property. He said that area needed to be sized in such a way to be able to handle any existing water run-off created by that new building and parking lot in the area.
Patterson said the detention basin would be enlarged as part of this project. He said the water run-off would come into that detention basin, collected into a pipe and then channeled through the stormwater drainage pipes that were at that location.
Commissioner Hack asked about the existing size of the detention basin.
Patterson said he did not have that detention basin size. The applicant agent was present and they had talked to the Stormwater Engineer as far as what the existing size capacity was and what improvements would need to be made to that basin to be able to handle the stormwater drainage.
Commissioner Hack asked if the code required per square foot of impervious surface and “x” number of feet in the detention pond.
Patterson said it was based upon what the new improvements would be as far as the type of materials and the run-off from that project, which was based on a ten year storm with fifteen minute intensity.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the existing access off of 6th Street would be widened to accommodate this or would it simply be used for both front and back properties.
Patterson said the existing access would remain as it was. There was a variance granted for the return radius on the west side because it did encroach somewhat in front of the property in the public right-of-way. There was also a requirement on the plat that there would be a cross access easement granted for the use of the persons to the west of the property that would be 30 feet wide by 80 feet deep that the adjacent properties to the west would be able to use.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Kathy Smith, resident living directly east of the proposed development, said between the proposed fence on the property line and the greenspace before the parking lot, just west of her home, she asked how much was the typical amount of greenspace between a residential property and a commercial property. She said on this particular development the amount of greenspace was five feet. She asked if that was enough buffer between a commercial lot and a residential lot. She also asked if she could have some input on the style and design of the fence that they would be placing behind their lot.
She said she wanted to make sure they would not be putting a road running straight back to her house, but that had been answered. She said she was also curious about the size of the drainage pipe that would be used. The property did have a lot of flooding and sitting water. She wanted to make sure that this run-off from the development would not flood their property.
Joy Amon, property owner in the area, said they had their basement flooded twice, one flooding was minor and the other was major. The reason why this flooding occurred was because their sump pump could not keep up with the amount of water and the sewer was full of water. She said their neighbors north and south both had their basements flooded. She asked who would be responsible if that flooding happened again to their house. She also asked if the sewer area between both houses were enlarged, who would be responsible for fixing the yards and flower beds.
William Fleissner, property owner in the area, said according the map on the website and according to the label it said that it was based on a survey in April 2005 and the contour lines in his backyard were wrong on the map. He said when they were talking about drainage, they said the water would drain to the south, but if looking at the drain pipe it drained from the south to the northeast. All the water went south, but the water was shoved back to the northeast.
He said he would like to know more about the improvements. It seemed from the chart that they would make it deeper and wider and he couldn’t tell from the plat that they thought about all of the consequences. He said if they made it wider what if they ran into utility lines. He said if they made it deeper than the outlet had to also be made deeper and the whole sewer would need to be redone. He said on the next plat, he would like to know to know the height of the input of the drain and the output of the drain so he would know if the water would flow or it that water would sit in the retaining pool or his backyard. He said he thought this issue should be rethought and there should be a more detailed plan.
Judy Fleissner said the contours on the map did not show that there was a drainage that went between the back of their property and the easement that flowed vigorously down through their house and Amon’s house and on down through the property next door down to the Smith’s property. She said she had been at her property since 1993 and in 1994 their area had major flooding in their basements.
She said when Prescott Court was developed all the neighbors were concerned because they had already experienced flooding and the neighbors were firm in that they really needed to have a holding pond as well as the sewage line that went from the holding pond to the storm drains in the cul-de-sac.
She said before the flooding that she was familiar with, there were a couple of times with intense rain where the water would backup three or four houses before it would go down into the stormsewer. She said she had noticed at the last big rain, it started to backup again, but she did not know the reason for that backup. She said she could see from her driveway that the cul-de-sac street was completely covered up to about four or five houses which was a real concern. She said she was concerned that what was being proposed would not solve the problem. She said if they put the proposed building and the parking lot that that was going to make a large volume of water run faster, quicker, and probably into their basements.
Kevin Doyle, Engineer with Taylor Design Group, representing the developer on this project, said he appreciated the concerns that the down street neighbors were expressing. He said that was a primary concern as the designers of this project. He said when they first looked at this project they met with Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, and asked about the existing stormwater systems and Voigt said that there was quite a story that went with the history. He said he did not know much about the story before Prescott Place was designed and constructed, but when Prescott Place was constructed they had a much larger detention pond that was designed at that time. Due to some issues, such as size and configuration of that pond, the pond was significantly changed at some point in time in the last ten years. He said he did not know for certain whether or not those alterations directly caused the downstream problems that had happened in the past several years, but he was sure it did not make it any better. He said one of the things that Voigt encouraged them to do was to basically rethink that whole detention pond looking at Prescott Place, Chouteau Court system as well as looking at the Fairhaven commercial development and that was what they did. He said he did not have the specific numbers as to the size of the detention pond, but it was considerably larger as proposed then what was presently at that location.
He said the existing north end of the basin and berm began to climb at that point. The pipe in that area was the existing outlet from the detention pond as it sat right now and that pipe would be removed and a new pipe would be installed on the north side of the pond and it would be resized and an orifice plate would be put in to further constrict the amount of water that could leave that pond at any point in time. The volume of the pond had been sized such that it would handle all of the water from Prescott Place, plus all of the additional run-off from the Garber Development. The Garber Development would discharge stormwater at a rate no greater than 1.8 CFS per acre in a 1% storm which was the city’s design criteria and that would be met. In addition the pond was extended over to the west property line at the request of the City to allow for the adjacent property to the west, at some point in time, if it ever developed, it would have a place to discharge its stormwater so long as it was handled properly at that time. The stormwater was a primary consideration in the layout and the design of the site.
Commissioner Hack asked Doyle if he had a chance to meet with the neighbors to explain those issues.
Doyle said he had not met face to face with the neighbors to the east, but he had corresponded with most of the neighbors by letter, email, and by phone. He said he had met with both the neighbors to the west and to the south and he thought those were the two individuals that would be most concerned because they had the most exposure to the project. The neighbors to the east obviously had a significant stormwater concern that predated the development, but the depth of their backyards separated them from the development and there would be screening fences. He said he had not had face to face contact with the neighbors to the east, but he had corresponded with most of those residents via email or phone.
Mary Mozingo, property owner in the area, said according to that drawing, the sewer line that went into Chouteau Court cul-de-sac was on her property line and would be replaced. She wanted to know what that meant and was her yard going to be dug up.
Patterson said on the south side of Mozingo’s property there was an existing stormwater pipe which was within an easement and if the applicant was replacing that line, then yes, they would have that ability to do work on that stormwater pipe.
Patterson said, in response to the question concerning the buffer between that property and the property to the east and whether or not five feet of buffer was typically required, normally a ten foot landscaped area was required, but they could go to five feet if there was a fence. He said the applicant was looking at installing a six foot high redwood, masonry, or cedar fence that would be the length of the parking lot along the east side and that fence would be at the property line or within one foot of the property line. On the west side of that fence there would be five feet landscape buffer area which in this case was mostly turf area.
The other question was the access and whether or not the access would be going to the cross access easement. The cross access easement would be for the driveway, 30 feet in width, 80 feet in depth, and that was for the properties to the west so that they could use that access or that access to West 6th Street. He said that was consistent with what was required on the plat that would be to the west and the plat further to the west.
Mayor Highberger said there had been a comment about the neighbors having input on the style and design of the fence. He said he assumed the applicant could volunteer to work with that neighbor on the style and design of the fence, otherwise as long as it met code requirements then the applicant could install any type of fence they wanted.
Patterson said correct.
Mayor Highberger said there was also a question about the height of the discharge of the drainage pipe from the lagoon and it sounded like that would stay the same.
Patterson said that would be better addressed by the applicant’s engineer about the height.
Mayor Highberger said there was also comment on who would be responsible if the drainage situation got worse and he assumed that was out of Patterson’s area.
Doyle said the way the detention basin worked was that it filled up with water and there were pipes leading from the lower side out to discharge the stormwater and that pipe size would effectively meter the rate of the stormwater being discharged from the detention basin. In other words, the stormwater detention basin will fill up and would slowly lower through the pipe at a certain rate of speed. He said it was possible with the stormwater detention basin for the water to come from the south and west and then it would go through the pipes which would go up to the existing stormwater pipes that discharged the stormwater from that area.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the stormwater detention basin going to be 3.5 times larger than the current stormwater detention basin.
Doyle said he was not sure of the current size.
Commissioner Schauner said the reason he asked was because there was about three and one half times the amount of impervious surface in the proposed development as was in the current development. He said he was curious if they were just going to maintain a bad situation or really improve a situation that already existed.
Commissioner Rundle said someone had mentioned an earlier project that had required a drainage basin, but then it had been altered. He asked if staff could track down the previous development proposals that had those drainage basins and were there site plan performance agreements.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said if a previous site plan had a stormwater plan submitted and if it was within current history since the stormwater ordinance, then Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, would have a copy of that stormwater plan and any changes made to it would be recorded in Voigt’s office. If it was prior to the stormwater ordinance, ten or twelve years ago, it might have been the simple formula that was used years ago which looked at a residential structure created “x” amount of run-off and anything over and above that would need to be detained during the period of the peak storm and slowly release it.
She said Planning Staff might not be able to answer some of the question being asked because it took knowledge of the entire stormwater system and not just this detention basin. She suggested that Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, could readily answer those types of questions.
Mayor Highberger asked about the height of the pond.
Doyle said the pond would be made deeper, but it would be outletting eventually into the same system. The pipe would be made a little bit shallower so that it would flow water a little bit slower than it did in the past. Right now, the part of the existing pipe out of the existing pond was much steeper.
Doyle said regarding Mazingo’s concern, he said the pipe was not being replaced all the way through the drainage easement on her property. He said in the last ten years, those modifications were made during Voigt’s tenure. At that time, there was basically a hole that was punched in the existing pipe and a grate was installed which was an inexpensive way of trying to get some area drainage into that system. He said they would remove that pipe all the way to that point and replace that existing pipe with a formal area inlet so it would function properly. The area would be graded and restored up to that point, but from that point on, through the middle of the houses, the pipe would be left as it was and nothing else would be removed.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the current depth of that pipe as it went out through the easement was lower than the new basin bottom.
Doyle said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked how the size of the proposed detention pond would compare with the size of the current pond.
Doyle said he did not have the specific numbers, but the proposed detention pond was considerably larger. He said Voigt reviewed the drainage study and was familiar with it and had checked the analysis and the calculations to ensure that it was appropriately designed using current engineering modeling and City regulations.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Doyle knew if the pipe that ran between the houses into the cul-de-sac on the east emptied into the street or in a basin.
Doyle said there were catch basins on the west and east side of Chouteau Court. The two pipes ran together and then at that point, continued off to the east and there was one more row of houses before it emptied into a drainage ditch or open channel that then flowed under Monterey Way.
Amon asked if the applicant was going to put a new pipe to replace the pipe that was on their borderline between the houses. She said her fence was set back prior before she moved in because of that pipe. She said part of her property looked like it was in the neighbor’s yard. She asked who would restore that part of her property and finance the cost of its current leveled condition. She said they had suffered over $5,000 worth of damages last summer and their insurance did not cover that loss. She asked who would be responsible if that drainage did not work out properly. She said this past year when there was a lot of rain the water was running to capacity at the top.
Mayor Highberger said they could not answer the legal question of what happened for liability for run-off.
Commissioner Rundle asked if staff could add a condition on the site plan that the fences and flowerbeds would be reasonably restored.
Finger said the City Commission could add any condition, but she said she would be cautious because if those improvements were in public easements, then the City Commission would be setting a large ticketed precedence of replacing a lot of private improvements on public easements.
Mayor Highberger suggested that staff get a legal opinion on that idea. He said it sounded as though there might be improvements on the public easement and it might be disturbed by the installation of waterlines.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said clearly utilities had the right to use that easement and they often had cooperation with the developers in that they would come back and make the area look decent, but not plant every flower that was disturbed. He said if a fence was on an easement there was jeopardy in placing a fence on that easement.
Commissioner Rundle asked where someone would look to see who had the right to do what with the easement.
Wildgen said the plat should show the different types of easements.
Commissioner Rundle said with an existing easement, the neighbors would go to an earlier plat.
Wildgen said correct.
Commissioner Rundle said that plat would be something that neighbors might want to be informed of because that was the guiding doctrine. That plat was the governing that easement right now and who had the right to do what.
Wildgen said the City’s standards were a ten year design standard.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the question of the size of the detention pond was information that the City Commission needed to know. Also, he said the Commission needed to know the new size of that pipe that would be running to the east from the area and whether that would be adequate enough to take care of any of those future flooding problems. He suggested deferring this item for one week to give Voigt or the developer the opportunity to relay to the City Commission that pertinent information.
Finger said staff would take this issue back to Voigt and get those answers.
Doyle said the elliptical pipe was 20” x 28”, it would have an orifice plate on that pipe so that it would restrict the water into the pipe, but the pipe would be larger. He said 23,000 cubic feet would be the ultimate size of the detention pond.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Doyle knew the size of that detention pond currently.
Doyle said he did not have that number. That number was modified at some point in time and they were not concerned with its inadequacy, they wanted to make sure that the new proposed pond functioned as it was suppose to.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to defer considering the approval of the site plan (SP-05-40-05) for two weeks and directed staff to provide a memo on stormwater information to include information regarding the size of the proposed detention basin compared to the existing basin, the size of detention basin piping, and also directed the stormwater engineer to conduct a meeting with the developer and the neighbors to the east and south to review the stormwater information. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way on PF-05-15-05: Final Plat for Auto Exchange Dealership (Dunigan Subdivision 2nd Plat). This proposed one-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 0.5 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 3301 South Iowa Street.
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the location of the plat was the southwest corner of 33rd and Iowa Streets and was approximately 72 feet wide by 283 feet on the Iowa Street side and 308 feet on the interior west side. The zoning was Planned Commercial Development and the item had been heard previously by the City Commission for the Preliminary Development Plan and approved on March 1, 2005. The Final Plat and Final Development Plan were approved by the Planning Commission by an 8 -2 vote on June 20, 2005.
He said there were two Planning Commissioners who had some concerns. One concern was the right-of-way along south Iowa Street, but this property was dedicating an additional ten feet of right-of-way on South Iowa Street which conformed with the alignment further south and South Iowa Street then had at least 120 feet of public right-of-way for the property.
The other concern was the sidewalks in relationship to the curbs. The concern was with the new urbanism types of design and development in that there needed to be some separation between the curbs and the sidewalk. There was approximately 23 feet from the back of curb where the property line started and the sidewalk, south would be 6 feet in width along Iowa Street adjacent to the property line which would make that approximately 17 feet from the sidewalk to the back of curb along Iowa Street.
He said the Final Plat was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Commission’s task was to accept the dedication of rights-of-way and easements and staff’s recommendation was for approval subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-05-15-05) for Auto Exchange Dealership, a one-lot commercial subdivision containing approximately 0.5 acres, located at 3301 South Iowa; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a;
2. Submission of Public Improvement Plans to Public Works prior to filing of the Final Plat.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
4. Pinning of Lot in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
5. Reflect the new Planning Commission Chairperson’s name on the plat (Chairperson to be selected at June Planning Commission meeting.)
Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Consider adopting on first reading, the following public civility ordinances.
a) Ordinance No. 7891, establishing public offense of aggressive panhandling;
b) Ordinance No. 7892, amending certain provisions of the City of Lawrence code regarding use of the City’s right-of-way;
c) Ordinance No. 7893, establishing public offense of illegal camping; and
d) Ordinance No. 7902, amending the definition of criminal trespass to include the unauthorized presence of a person on the roof of a building
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said two weeks ago there was discussion regarding Ordinance No. 7891, 7892 and 7893. Those ordinances were collectively entitled public civility ordinances with respect to aggressive panhandling, regulating the use of the City’s right-of-way, and illegalizing camping on certain properties within the City.
After that initial discussion, he understood that it was the Commission’s will that the penalty provisions of those ordinances received some tweaking so that they better reflected what the City Commission would like to see upon conviction of those ordinances. He said he also understood that the City Commission decided to have the criminal trespass ordinance amended to prohibit entrance upon the roofs of buildings without permission which was Ordinance No. 7902. He said rather than rehashing the previous discussions, he would discuss the changes and answer any questions the Commission might have regarding any of those ordinances. He said staff recommended the following:
1) In order to provide an adequate penalty range to address repeated violations of the Aggressive Panhandling ordinance, or to punish a single incident that is particularly egregious, the City’s general penalty section should apply. The general penalty contained in Section 1-112 of the City Code allows a Municipal Judge to impose a fine in the amount of $1 to $1000, or a jail sentence not to exceed 180 days, or both;
2) During the previous discussion of these ordinances, Commissioner Rundle correctly pointed out that Article 8 of Chapter XVI of the City Code contains a separate penalty provision that applies to violations of that article. This provision may be found at section 16-810. That section would punish a violation of the City’s Use of Right of Way ordinance by fining the offender in an amount not less than $20 nor more than $500, or imprisonment not to exceed three months, or both. The operation of this ordinance will essentially halve the maximum penalty previously discussed for a violation of this ordinance;
3) During the discussion of the Unlawful Camping ordinance, it appeared that the Governing Body concluded that a violation of this ordinance conducted on private property was more serious than one occurring on public property. A penalty section has been incorporated into this ordinance that attempts to reflect that distinction. Under the proposed penalty provision, a first violation of the ordinance on public property would be punished by a fine not to exceed $100 or a jail term not to exceed 10 days or both. A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of the ordinance that occurs on public property would subject the offender to a fine not to exceed $500 or a 30 day jail sentence or both. Any violation occurring on private property would be punishable by up to a $1000 fine, or 6 months in jail, or both.
Kalila Dalton, Lawrence, read a statement on behalf of Kansas Mutual Aid which stated: “The laws being proposed to the City Commission seemed to be a symptom of an overall illness striking our city, the criminalization of homelessness. While proponents of the law say that they will target specific behavior rather than a sector of our population, the fact remains that an overwhelming majority of those affected by the laws would be the homeless and very poor. Few people panhandle aggressively or not if they have money; few people sleep in the park all the time if they have homes to sleep in; and the very nature of the obstruction of right-of-way laws seems to call for selective enforcement against the homeless. It will not be well dressed shoppers or college students gathering breath before driving off in their cars who will be arrested for sitting on the sidewalk.
Even if the laws themselves were not directed at homeless people, the enforcement of them will be. The Lawrence Police Force has a long track record of hassling homeless folks who were doing nothing to hurt anyone. Enforcing laws that they would never apply to others or generally letting the homeless know that they were not liked or wanted. Sometimes that harassment takes a brutal form as in the case of the man who had his face bloodied by the police or the woman who had her arm broken. Many cases of police brutality were also kept secret out of fear. There was little doubt that the police will use their new found legal permission to harass the homeless to their fullest ability.
And why were these laws being written? For months now it has been much in the paper as that downtown business owners are concerned about homelessness. They say that homeless people are driving away their business, harassing their customers, or building fires around their businesses.
Assuming this is true, and not everyone has experienced these behaviors, few seem to be interested in why homeless people would be doing such things. If it was cold outside and you have nowhere warm to be, it seems reasonable to build a fire. If you have no money and need some to survive, it seems reasonable to ask apparently well off people for money and if the problem is simply that they downtown looking poor, and poverty takes away people’s appetite to spend, perhaps that is the correct reaction.
The gentrification of our City was seen as mirror toward a more modern Lawrence as simply the installation of urban comforts for a rapidly expanding city. Meanwhile, some of our most valuable necessities lack far behind. Our shelters are woefully under funded and far too small to hold the number of people who seek housing there. While our social service organizations are doing a valiant job of trying to meet the communities needs, they were not getting nearly the support or, as usual, the money that they need.
While nationally human service budgets are cut and priorities are changing, Lawrence is following suit. This denies our compelling tradition of being a progressive city of serving the needs of all residents, not just those with money and influence.
Many homeless people are children and many homeless women are homeless as a result of fleeing domestic violence. The urge to move poverty from the public fear as an understandable one considering that they we have never adequately addressed it, out of sight, out of mind.
Outlawing homelessness will not make it stop it will just temporarily remove people to the city jail before they return to the streets. The cost of their jail time and court proceedings will fall largely on local taxpayers and it is not a solution at all. Instead they propose a renewed community involvement rather than the isolation of prison and police harassment. We need the strength of the community to allow all of the people of Lawrence to achieve their human potential. We need increased funding to local shelters, enlargement of their bed capacities, 24 hour access to them, and improvement to their services. We need expanded substance treatment programs and job assistance, free child care facilities, and health care for those who are impoverished and we need more than anything else a basic respect and appreciation for human life that cannot be legislated. Modifying the proposed law to ease our consciences is not enough. They must be rejected all together in favor of a truly human society.”
Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said he was in favor of the strengthening of the proposed ordinances. He said he had attended one of the meetings where the ordinances were discussed. He said the previous speaker was correct in that additional funds should be spent to address homelessness concerns including shelters, food and other issues. He said when saying that the majority of the population of Lawrence, Kansas had to abide by laws and then turn around and say that homeless persons did not need to abide by the same laws, the homeless were not being helped nor was the town as a whole.
He said he really hoped the ordinances were adopted, but more so enforced. The enforcement had to start with the City Commission saying to the police that they were to write notices to appear for offenses, then Municipal Court had to enforce the law, and if required, the jail had to accommodate the people. He said the homeless population did not have money so that could not pay the fine. If a homeless person appears in Municipal Court for a notice to appear, on most occasions, the case was thrown out because the fine could not be paid anyway which becomes a revolving door. He said in the passing of those ordinances the City Commission had to say “yes” the ordinance would be enforced or it would just be the status quo and nothing would change in terms of anti-social behavior and unlawful behavior for the neighborhood around the homeless services or downtown.
David Strano, Lawrence, said he agreed with the previous speaker, that the City needed to increase funding for shelters and for local homeless initiatives in this town, but the speaker went further on to say that the homeless more or less belonged in jail since the homeless could not pay fines. It seemed that the new shelter that was going to be provided for the homeless in this City was going to be the City jail if those 4 new ordinances were enforced.
He said he worked for an organization called Kansas Mutual Aid that dealt a lot with interaction between working poor, working class people, and the police in this City. He said there had been a big increase over the past year of the types of calls they were receiving to their 24 hour hotline about police interaction with the homeless, especially in a brutal nature. He said they feared that Ordinance No’s 7891 and 7892 were the two ordinances that would further this behavior because it gave the police the direct judge, jury and executioner power to decide what was going to happen and who was in violation of what when it came to the City right-of-way ordinances.
He said they knew that people who were bar goers, late at night who were passed out drunk were not going to be the ones hauled off to jail, it was going to be the homeless population. That was going to be the way those ordinances would play out in this city.
He said they were talking about selective enforcement of ordinances, but that was not being discussed, it was the selective passing of ordinances that would target a specific population of this City. Those were 4 new ordinances that were designed to target the homeless population of this city. Anyone of the City Commissioners who voted for any of those ordinances was saying very clearly to the public of Lawrence that they valued property over human life.
James Applehanz, Lawrence, asked about the clarification on the camping ordinance and wanted to know if it would apply to someone sleeping in a vehicle that they owned.
He suggested that instead of adopting new ordinances that it might be helpful to look at other options to help out instead of blaming the victim, maybe they could help the victim. He said if the City was so concerned about public right-of-way, he suggested looking at a car-less downtown which would free up more public right-of-way for people to use and people would not be blocking traffic. He said that idea had worked in many cities in their downtown areas. In fact, there were whole cities that were car-less which worked great in building communities.
He said it came to his attention that the only free camping area that was ever in the City limits was now where the Eagle Bend Golf Course was. He suggested looking into another free camping area to replace this loss of public space.
Evan Lance asked about Ordinance No. 7891. He said the punishment for violating this ordinance was fines or jail time. He said he did not understand the logic of fining people for panhandling because they simply did not have money to start with.
He said the total effect of those ordinances was sending a message that homeless people were not going to be accepted in the parks or anywhere in Lawrence. He said that was okay if looking at it from the point of view that this was not a problem of the City, that this was a problem of people who were undesired. He said when taking into account that people were unable to find work or unable to work in the jobs that they were qualified to do for various reasons, this was a problem of the city and the problem could not be eliminated by discouraging those people to live in Lawrence.
Ted Boyle, President North Lawrence Improvement Association, said the residents of North Lawrence supported the proposed ordinances. The residents of North Lawrence were concerned about the illegal camping along the Kaw River on the north side.
He said about 1988 or 1989 there was a transient that came to town and won over a family that lived behind Johnny’s Tavern and the transient ended up killing a nine year old boy.
A few years back they had 4 individuals removed from the river, a quarter mile from the bridge. He said there would be 4 to 6 individuals in the winter time and 12 to 15 individuals in the summertime. He said their neighborhood believed that the illegal camping should be enforced for the safety and welfare of the North Lawrence residents.
He said there was a difference between transient and homeless. A true homeless person was typically temporarily down on their economic luck and needed a short period of time to get themselves together with the help of places like the Ballard Center, North Lawrence Improvement Association, Bert Nash, Independence Inc., and Salvation Army. He said if a person did not want to better themselves in Lawrence then that person would live on the street or on the river for their entire life.
Those people that were removed from the river lived on the river for 6 years. He said when those people were removed, they were offered jobs by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and a place to live, but they refused that work because they did not want that lifestyle.
As far as aggressive panhandling, he said he was raised in Lawrence since 1951 and Lawrence never had panhandler’s downtown or loitering because that was against the law, but now Lawrence had aggressive panhandlers.
The funding part of this issue was like Community Development Block Grant money from the Federal Government to be placed in the neighborhoods and better the City. The more money you give the transients, alias homeless, it took away from the neighborhoods and the neighborhoods were the core of the City. He said if you spend the money in the neighborhoods you could slow down or stop this homeless situation. He said the 5 targeted neighborhoods that received CDBG money were low to moderate income, those were the working poor. He said if you take that money away and spend it on transients or homeless people that took away from the core of the neighborhoods
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said she was sorry that the ordinances were being discussed together because it was like grouping the problem into one basket and trying to get rid of it or pass it. She said there were many different considerations and each should be given time to be looked at.
She addressed the camping on the river issue. She said there was an incident in 1987 or 1988, but for the most part those people simply just wanted to be left alone. Unfortunately, those people were, in many cases, alienated from this society and from this community. She said she did not believe they were a danger to this community. It was a kind of intolerance not to accept that there were other lifestyles even if it was not the one that other people might choose. She said there would be more problems downtown if those people were simply rounded up.
She said there were people who prefer to live outdoors and that should be tolerated, but they should be in one place where it was away from the center of downtown from parks where there were kids playing. She said a way to handle this particular issue was to work with a committee that would help be a liaison. She said the Homeless Coalition tried to get together such a committee, but so alienated were those people from any society that they did not want to be part of a system, they wanted to be left alone.
She said the homeless in many cases were trying to see that the place that they were living was taken care of. She said the City could do a lot more in many of the parks and camping at Clinton Park to try to establish a place for camping that might be helping the City’s homeless situation because there were too many other needs in this homeless community that were not being addressed head on and that would continue to bother the community. She said one way to handle this situation, at least on a small aspect, was to make some place where people could be and be left alone. She hoped the Commission would consider this ordinance separate from those other ordinances.
She said the downtown merchants had the right to feel that people could come and go into their stores and be treated with respect and dignity. She said they were now overstepping the whole issue and trying to make something that was blanket and intolerant and representative of the qualities that this community was proud of.
Saunny Scott, Lawrence, spoke about the camping ordinance. She said jail was a very expensive option in terms of helping people out and other options needed to be looked at. She said camping was part of the American tradition and suggested that an area could be setup with basic amenities such as on a sanitation or patrol car routes. She said if they had a place where camping was allowed with certain parameters that people had to follow and a certain level of sanitation was one of those parameters. She said she would much rather have people lighting fires to cook by or keep warm at a camping site rather than behind the businesses on Massachusetts Street. She said that was another alternative that seemed to be less dangerous and less costly than putting people in jail.
Loring Henderson, Director, Lawrence Community Shelter, said he wanted to repeat that this was an area for cooperation with the neighbors. He said he was concerned about Ordinance 7893, concerning camping and he joined with others who had commented that if camping was not allowed there would not be a place for people to go and the City was not solving a problem, but creating a problem unintended. He asked that the City or some group of people give some consideration to how this issue could be sorted out. He said it was not discussed or looked at by the Taskforce for Homeless Services and there had been no group that could say what the pro’s and con’s were and what might be a more realistic proposal to bring to the City Commission.
He said the wording of the ordinance stated “it was unlawful for a person to camp without the prior consent of the owner.” He suggested that the City in some fashion give prior consent or set up a process for getting a permit to camp.
He said if this ordinance passed, it was a blunt instrument that was going to roll out other issues for the City because they did not have the space for people to stay, if they were not camping.
He also discussed the aggressive panhandling ordinance and said an unintended consequence was that in another city a local shelter offered classes on how to beg so that homeless people would know what to do and what not to do. He said he was not sure what the consequence would be when it was passed, but he was not so concerned about aggressive panhandling than he was about the issue of camping.
He said overall he wanted to address two or three points concerning the myths about homelessness and people who were experiencing homelessness around those ordinances. Those ordinances were against homeless people, those ordinance were not against college students or people who had homes. He said there had been discussion about not aiming those ordinances at just the homeless, but in fact those ordinances were.
He said to him it was a myth that the homeless were driving away business from downtown. He said parking lots, restaurants and shops were packed and the convention center was thinking of building downtown because “people want to be downtown.” He said a friend of his that was walking with him downtown recently said “I’m never coming downtown again” and her reason was because of the teens and the college students who were drinking and it had nothing to do with homeless people.
He asked for the City Commission’s consideration that the camping ordinance be looked into more thoroughly because he believed there were more serious arguments for providing a space for people to camp in the City.
Randy Dyke, Lawrence, said an incident happened Memorial Day weekend. He said there were citizens fishing on the river that threatened the homeless people. He said he called the Lawrence Police Department personally and nothing was done. He said those individuals were drunk and were able to drive away, that was why they were asking for a controlled area.
He said the Salvation Army was building a new shelter, but it was going to hold less people then the existing shelter. He said some of the homeless had applied for housing, but they would need to go through “Project Able” which took more than 6 months.
He said Manhattan, Kansas would buy someone a bus ticket to get them out of their town to Lawrence, Kansas. He said they were asking the City of Lawrence to help the homeless by allowing them a controlled environment.
Mark Cline, Lawrence, said he spoke to someone with the Friends of the Kaw, and they suggested that they should not be regarding the Kaw River as a place where they dredged sand and dump sewage, but should have respect for that natural body of water. Instead, an artificial body of water was built which was Clinton Lake which had a camp ground. He said what they should have was an improved campground with fees at the Kansas River where the rich thinking people could camp and an unimproved camping area for the people who were poor. He said that person from the Friends of the Kaw said that idea had been done in a couple of cities that were highly successful. He said generally this camping ordinance needed to be tabled or discarded.
He said an acquaintance said that Lawrence was highly racist with a smiley face put on the surface. He said a person claimed that Lawrence proudly proclaimed to be non-racist, but charged ahead and pursued policies that disproportionately affect people of color which was quite relevant. He said many homeless were people of color.
He said the relationship between the police and the homeless still existed. If the Commission proceeded with those ordinances and made an outlaw population of the homeless then no one would ever use a cell phone if there was trouble.
He said if they tossed people out of a campground where would they go. He said he would guess that the homeless would be walking downtown at 3:00 a.m. He said there had been a number of times in recent weeks that fights, shooting, and vandalism occurred after 1:00 a.m.
One of the arguments presented for a blanket camping ordinance instead of a more careful enforcement of anti-trespassing laws was that it would be inconvenient for a business owner to put up a No Trespassing sign. He said our perspective might be wrong if inconvenience was the standard and not protecting people from death, permanent injury, or rape.
Steve Braswell, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said he came to address the camping ordinance. He said the Kansas River ran through their neighborhood and consensus was that they supported that ordinance. He said letting someone camp at a particular location was not taking care of a situation. Something needed to be done, but that idea was not a good solution. He said one good point made by a speaker was the concern about the aggressive and overzealous police enforcement of those ordinances which the community could keep an eye on. He said he liked the way the ordinances were described as “public civility ordinances” and he thought all the ordinances were reasonable. Again, he said the homeless situation needed to be addressed, but allowing camping was not a good way to deal with that.
Boyle said it seemed like as many advocates there were for the homeless that the problem could be solved by each one of those advocates taking a homeless person home and let them camp in their backyard to see what their neighbors think of that idea. He said his backyard was the Kansas River and the levee. He said when those people camp down by the river that directly affected him and the residents along the Kansas River.
Marcus Crawford, Lawrence, said there were valid arguments on both sides of this issue. He said he was homeless and a hard worker and dedicated. He said he had been in the penitentiary for two decades and came out with no support. The only thing he asked was that someone give him a chance to prove his worth.
He said the teenagers and colleges student were the people that were doing the damage downtown. He said the Commission needed to think about what they were doing because it would have an adverse affect either way. No one was a winner, but there needed to be solution to help this issue.
Raleigh Worthington, Lawrence, addressed the issue of crime. He said he had been in Lawrence since 1989 and had been homeless for eight to nine months. Prior to being homeless he lived in neighborhoods all over the city. He said he discovered that economics had nothing to do with the crime level. The crime level was everywhere, in any neighborhood. If someone checked the record they would be able to find that there were far more crimes in neighborhoods where people had homes where in situation where people did not have homes.
James Dunn, Lawrence, said there was affordable housing in this community. He said he wanted to comment positively about “Project Able” because they had been very helpful to people to bridge some of their issues. He said people could be part of that program and work with case managers.
Mayor Highberger said he appreciated everyone coming down to discuss this issue and obviously there were a lot of strong feelings about this issue as well it should be because it was one of the big issues facing our city and it needed to be handled in a way that addressed this problem and the needs of all our residents, rich or poor.
He said he had some concerns about those proposed civility ordinances. He suggested that the aggressive panhandling ordinance might be tweaked in some areas, but the behaviors that it prohibited were the behaviors that should not be tolerated. He said he supported Ordinance No. 7891.
However, he was not sure about Ordinance No. 7892 which concerned the use of right-of-way. He said he understood how the right-of-way was currently being used and he understood the changes, but it appeared the intent was to prohibit things that some people did not want to look at rather than behaviors that were a threat to the safety and welfare of the people of Lawrence and he did not support that ordinance the way it was written.
He said, as for the camping ordinance, he understood peoples’ concerns for having a safe place to camp, but that idea was not on the agenda for discussion and therefore, he would not address that question. He said there were two parts to this ordinance, one that prohibited camping areas and one that prohibited camping on private property. He said he supported the part that addressed camping on private property. He said our neighborhoods should be protected from people who were camping on their properties which did not apply just to downtown businesses, but also to property owners all over the city making it easier for the property owner to stop people camping on their property.
As far as public camping was concerned, there was an existing trespassing ordinance that was adequate to address that issue. He said it would require the city to jump through another hoop when the city asked people not to camp on public property. He said the ordinance was currently being enforced and he did not see any need for a change.
Ordinance No. 7902, regarding the definition of criminal trespass, he did not think it was unreasonable to prevent people from being on top of buildings without authorization and he supported that ordinance.
He said he was only supportive of those ordinances in the context of what was being done as a result of the Homeless Task Force in which they would be moving forward to make sure there were adequate resources and take care of people who could not take care of themselves.
The homeless problem could not be solved tonight because it was very complex. There were different types of homeless people, there were people who were homeless because they were down on their luck, mentally ill, or people who choose not to participate in that part of society. He said some of those ordinances were the best way to handle most of those people. He said he heard that up to 30% in the County jail were mentally ill. He said the County jail should not be the mental inpatient facility and they needed to find a better way to handle that situation as a society.
He said if our society was going to expect people to get back on their feet after getting out of prison, then better resources needed to be provided with a transition plan. He said there were a lot of things that needed to be done at a state and city level in order to tackle that problem.
He voted in favor of Ordinance No.’s 7891, 7902, voted against 7892 and 7893 as currently drafted, but if Ordinance No. 7893 was revised, he could support that ordinance.
Commissioner Hack asked if the Mayor could explain how the trespassing law adequately handled those situations in the Pinckney and North Lawrence neighborhoods.
Mayor Highberger said the trespassing law had been used to remove people from public right-of-way currently.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said for trespassing, the general city penalty provision which included fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 6 months was currently on the books.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Mayor Highberger was not in favor of part of Ordinance No. 7893.
Mayor Highberger said regarding Ordinance No. 7893, he was in favor of the part of that ordinance that made it an offense to camp on private property.
Commissioner Hack said asked if the Mayor felt that the current trespassing ordinance covered making camping illegal on public property.
Mayor Highberger said that ordinance was adequate to address that type of situation.
Commissioner Hack said the Taskforce on Homeless Concerns had been addressing homeless issues for two years and they were coming to grips with some of the issues which were the relief which was the immediate concerns of homeless people and the rehabilitation which was the second step.
She agreed that jail was the most expensive option, but she did not know if there was a follow up option and hoped there would be an opportunity for conversation from the Taskforce.
Camping in public places was a difficult issue because the place of choice appeared to be the Kansas River, but camping was also downtown, East Lawrence, Pinckney Neighborhood, and North Lawrence’s backyard. She said the Commission’s responsibility was to protect the health, safety, and welfare of this entire community.
She supported Ordinance No.’s 7891, 7892, and the first part of Ordinance No. 7893, public offense on illegal camping and private places, but would count on the city’s trespassing laws to be enforced. She also supported Ordinance No.7902.
She hoped the “us” versus “them” could be toned down and she hoped they could encourage more communication with those people on the Homeless Task Force and to be able to make sure that those ordinances were enforced fairly. She said she did not feel groups were being targeted, but she was willing to have that conversation.
Commissioner Rundle said the tension and polarity somewhat mirrored the meetings of the Task Force. He said some people were very disappointed that the taskforce did not endorse the proposed ordinances that were recommended by the downtown businesses, but they could see that there might be unintended consequences.
He said a lot of people felt backed into a corner which ever side of the question a person was on. There was not a complete constellation of services to be effective in intervention, but he agreed there were behaviors on the part of a few and those behaviors were intolerable. It would be nice to somehow exercise leadership within all sectors to get people to discourage bad behaviors and encourage mutual respect. He said there was some work getting started with an initiative in the faith community that perhaps some bridge building could be done in that regard.
He concurred with the Mayor in supporting Ordinance No. 7891, but the Commission needed to go more slowly on the other proposed ordinances. He said camping on private property should not be allowed.
He said the Commission needed to be cognizant of the concerns of the people whose backyards were where people were camping. He said the Commission needed to proceed cautiously.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he had an opportunity to talk to several people to get feedback on those issues. He said he hoped that no one that found themselves in the situation of being homeless would feel that those ordinances were directed specifically at the homeless.
He said as a downtown business person he had the opportunity to see first hand a lot of the problems in the downtown area.
He said he supported Ordinance No.’s 7891, 7892, and 7902. As for 7893 concerning illegal camping, if a person wanted to camp, they would need valid identification to receive a permit to camp and that might be an area of discussion. He asked if the criminal trespassing ordinance was enforceable.
Mayor Highberger said that trespassing ordinance had been used.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if that ordinance withstood the test of time.
Miller said that ordinance was not new. He said that ordinance substantially mirrored the state statute on the same subject. In other words, the language in our ordinance with the exception of the roof trespassing was applicable everywhere in the State of Kansas through the District Court prosecution process.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the language was stricter in the current trespassing ordinance than in the new ordinance regarding the camping portion on public property.
Miller said it depended on how you would define what “stricter” meant.
Vice Mayor Amyx the part that was strict was the fines, the $1,000 versus $100.00 and 10 days in jail.
Miller the penalty provision was the same. The main difference between the two ordinances, the proposed camping ordinance and the criminal trespass statute was the idea of prior notice which was required under the criminal trespass statute and essentially was implied in the camping statute. Right now, if a person found someone camping in their yard, that person would be required to tell that person camping to leave and if they left and went to the neighbor’s yard, that neighbor would be required to tell that person camping to leave. That camping person could work his/her way down the street and only if that person came back to the property, would they be guilty of criminal trespass. That was the main difference between the two ordinances.
In the camping ordinance it prohibited camping on private property without the consent of the owner and it made a blanket prohibition to that so there was no requirement that if you found a person camping in your yard, you could tell them to leave or have your yard barred against entry or a sign posted stating No Trespassing.
Commissioner Schauner said what was being discussed was only addressing symptoms and they were not really talking about fixing anything with those ordinances. He said he did not think the City had the resources to “fix” those fundamental problems that this capitalist society had created. Some people did well and some people did less well in this economic system.
The issue of discussion was a fairly narrow issue and that was whether the Commission should pass these four ordinances. He said the other Commissioners had been very eloquent in their support of or opposition to those ordinances.
He said he supported Ordinance No. 7891 despite the fact that he had not been aggressively panhandled.
Ordinance No. 7893, he supported with respect to private property, but he wanted more discussion about illegal camping on public property. He said he was not satisfied that the City had tools currently that would resolve the issue around the river. He said he wanted discussion with stakeholders and legal staff about camping on public property.
He said 7902, he supported because he wanted to see criminal trespass applied to roof tops of buildings in downtown.
Finally, regarding Ordinance 7892, the Mayor might have said it best when he said it was an attempt to address the things people did not want to see. He said he thought people felt badly when they saw someone sleeping on the street. He supported Ordinance No. 7892, he said he did not really like it.
He said they had discussion about a Citizen Review Board for the Police Department and if in fact there were issues surrounding selective enforcement or inappropriate enforcement of ordinances on the books, they needed to have more discussion about a Police Review Board as a way to address those issues. He said Ordinance No’s 7891 and 7892 were fairly blunt instruments and he would like to see more discussion about how they could put a finer point on those ordinances.
Commissioner Rundle said the targets of malicious, violent, and criminal behavior was more often likely to be people who find themselves homeless sometimes. He said the Commission needed to keep that idea in mind when thinking about those issues.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7891, establishing public offense of aggressive panhandling. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7892, amending certain provisions of the City of Lawrence code regarding us of the City’s right-of-way. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Schauner. Nay: Highberger and Rundle. Abstain: None: Motion carried. (26)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to revise Ordinance No. 7893, establishing public offense of illegal camping and bring it back for first reading at a future Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7902 amending the definition of criminal trespass to include the unauthorized presence of a person on the roof of a building. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hilda Enoch said she did not understand how criminal trespass under Ordinance No. 7893 was an improvement over what this ordinance was offering for public camping. She said it sounded that it was more severe. The time in jail was longer and the fine was higher and it did not still address the question. She said it seemed like the Commission was getting off the hook by saying they were going to just take care of private trespassing and private camping. On the other hand, the Commission was saying the criminal trespassing was going to take care of public camping and indeed it was because it was much more stringent and she asked how that would help.
David Strano said concerning the public right-of-way use, the question he would like to ask the Commission to consider was what that meant for political protest in Lawrence. He said did that mean that groups that stand in front of the Douglas County Courthouse who were appropriating public right-of-way every Saturday, he asked if that meant they would need to change their policy. He said the new public right-of-way ordinance would impact the First Amendment rights of protest as well. He said the ordinance was vague and open ended.
Miller said one of the specific exceptions in the ordinance was an exception to the application of the ordinance in circumstances where the First Amendment would prohibit the application of the ordinance. He said essentially that concern had been addressed in the ordinance itself.
A person asked about the handing out free food.
Miller said in the circumstances described, that would not violate the ordinance provided that a person was not blocking the right-of-way. In other words, not intentionally blocking the right-of-way or not blocking the right-of-way accidentally with actions and not move when a police officer came and asked a person to move. He said as long as a person did not fall under either or those prohibitions, there was no problem in the ordinance. He said a person could hand out free food just as they could under the laws that existed today.
Marcus Crawford said he had hot coffee thrown on him by a teenager when he was minding his own business. He said they told the police of the incident and the police basically laughed in their face.
He said he did not want to be homeless and preferred living in a home. He said if someone would take a chance on hiring him, they would see what his true worth was.
James Dunn said he mentioned “Project Able” earlier and wanted to share something positive. Over a year ago a gentleman came from the homeless population on his property through the “Project Able” support program. He said that homeless person said he was meeting with his case manager through “Project Able” to sign off of the program because he had gotten a job.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:00p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Engineering Agreement – Clinton Water Treatment Plant Expansion to Black & Veatch for $71,600.
2. Bid Date – Waterline Relocation at Kasold Bridge & KS Turnpike, July 26, 2005.
3. Bid – Comprehensive Housing Rehab for 1526 W 22nd, Old Home Store, to Old Home Depot, $20,951.
4. Ordinance No. 7882 – 1st Read, exempt from ad valorem taxation 55%, bldg expansion & machinery for Prosoco.
5. Ordinance No. 7884 – 1st Read, exempt from ad valorem taxation 55%, new construction & machinery for Serologicals.
6. Ordinance No. 7894 – 1st Read, Historical Register, Zinn-Burroughs, 1927 Learnard Ave.
7. Ordinance No. 7895 – 1st Read, Cruelty to animals.
8. Ordinance No. 7903 – 1st Read, trapping animals in parks, recreation or open space.
9. Ordinance No. 7874 – 2nd Read, Free State Brewing Sidewalk Dining.
10. Ordinance No. 7875 – 2nd Read, annex 13.366 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy, E of K-10.
11. Ordinance No. 7897 – 2nd Read, “no parking” E side of Eldridge between Seele Way & Trail.
12. Ordinance No. 7898 – 2nd Read, “stop sign” Field Stone Dr at Grand Vista Dr.
13. Resolution No. 6601 – 1220 Pennsylvania environmentally blighted.
14. Site Plan – (SP-05-37-05) Southern Hills Shopping Ctr, 1601 W 23rd.
15. Final Plat – (PF-05-21-05) Bella Sera at the Preserve, 8.239 acres, 4500 W Bob Billings Pkwy.
16. Final Plat – (PF-04-14-05) Lake Estates at Alvamar, 12.584 acres, NE corner of 22nd Terr and Lake Pointe Dr.
17. Agreement – Johnson County Contractor Licensing Program.
18. Mortgage Release – Jay Castor & Malhalley Allen, 730 Maine.
19. Subordination Agreement – Donna Logan, 1603 Wedgewood.
20. Subordination Agreement – Sandra Reed, 1410 W 22nd.
21. Bid – 2005 Cured-in-Place-Pipe Program, Utilities Maintenance Contractors for $372,503.84.
22. Bid – BMW motorcycle for PD from Engle Motors for $18,403.
23. Site Plan – (SP-05-40-05) 2 story bldg 4101 W 6th.
24. Final Plat – (PF-05-15-05) Auto Exchange Dealership, .5 acres, 3310 W Iowa.
25. Ordinance No. 7891 – 1st Read, Aggressive Panhandling.
26. Ordinance No. 7892 – 1st Read, City’s Right-of-Way.
27. Ordinance No. 7893 – 1st Read, Illegal Camping.
28. Ordinance No. 7902 – 1st Read, criminal trespass on roof of b