July 12, 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, Rundle, and Schauner present. Commissioner Hack was not 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 28, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 329 vendors in the amount of $1,772,673.15 and payroll from June 26, 2005 to July 9, 2005, in the amount of $1,548,608.47. Motion carried unanimously.As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Pancho’s Mexican Restaurant, 711 West 23rd Street, Ste. 28; the Retail Liquor Licenses for Ray’s Wine & Spirits, 721 Wakarusa Ste. 107; and Ray’s Liquor Warehouse, 1215 West 6th Street. 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 Theresa Klinkenberg to the Aviation Advisory Board, for a term which will expire May 31, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for the Westwood Hills and Bauer Brook Estates Sanitary Sewer Study in the amount of $17,849. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the rejection of the bid received for Schedule I of the Airport Improvement Project and that a new bid date be set for this project at a yet to be determined date in 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
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, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
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 article of commerce, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7891, establishing public offense of aggressive panhandling, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5) Ordinance No. 7894, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Zinn-Burroughs House, located at 1927 Learnard Avenue, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7895, amending the City’s animal control laws concerning cruelty to animals, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7902 amending the definition of criminal trespass to include the unauthorized presence of a person on the roof of a building, 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, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7903, relating to the hunting and trapping of animals in parks, recreation, or open space areas owned by the City, 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)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-05-33-05) of approximately 1.004 acre from M-1 (Research Industrial District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office District) (the property is generally described as being located between East 19th and Homewood Streets, east of Bullene Avenue); and, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-19-05) of approximately 4.9 acres form A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended)); and, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to defer Ordinance No. 7892, amending certain provisions of the City of Lawrence code regarding use of the City’s right-of-way for one week because the Commission’s vote last week was 3-2 and Commissioner Hack was absent at this time. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Commissioner Rundle pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion, the rezonings (Z-03-20-05 & Z-03-21-05), both located south of 6th and west of Stonecreek. He said the action of the Planning Commission was to use the lesser change table and grant the applicant something less intense than the applicant requested. He said that action would entail a preliminary and final development plan in any case before the project could proceed. He asked if the rezonings could be delayed for a couple of weeks because that process had to occur anyway.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said typically staff would ask for a development plan if the applicant had requested a planned residential development. She said because this type of rezoning was a result of a lesser change table and the applicant request was for RM-1 and RM-2 zoning, she did not have a good idea of whether the applicant intended to pursue the planned residential development or not proceed on this property, but proceed with a different request. She said there was a condition that the zoning would not take affect until there was an approved development plan. That was typical when the rezoning was initiated by the Planning Commission rather than by the applicant.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any urgency to act on this matter at this time.
Finger said she could not speak for the applicant, but representatives for the applicant were present for discussion.
Paul Werner, speaking on behalf of Mike Stulz, said as a result of those rezonings, Stoneridge would be built all the way to 6th Street. He said there were a lot of agreements that they had to make with the City regarding benefit districts and how to get those streets built. As Finger said, it was still conditioned upon the development plan. The planned residential district process was long enough. He said they would like to know that they had the proposed zonings and be able to move on from that point. He said there was also a condition that they could not receive a building permit until Stoneridge connected to 6th Street. He said they were not in a hurry of planning on working on a plan.
Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the idea of new urbanism was catching on fast and it seemed at present, they were moving faster than the planning stages of the new urbanism idea. This particular area, at this time, should not have to play host to an idea that was way before its time and would not be approved in the very near future. New urbanism developments were specific and binding plans that were tied to the zoning and rely on very specific standards written into the zoning ordinance. The fact that there was not a new urbanism code left the development to ignore that idea.
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission also left the planned unit development unprotected and therefore the neighbors were looking at whatever sized multi-family that the developer wanted to put in their backyard. Also, as Planning Commissioner Burress noted, “It would be nice if the Commission could guarantee that Stonecreek Drive would not be connected.” She said she had not seen the plans, but according to the Planning Commission meeting minutes, if the density was not lessened they would be forced to have a cut-through at that point onto the cul-de-sac street.
Also, buffer areas were not addressed during the Planning Commission meeting. In the new zoning codes, zones would be considered with the development plan and should be considered now. She said they were asking that the City Commission defer the zoning until a preliminary plan had been brought forward and conditioned to be tied to this specific plan, otherwise the developer might not have to wait for some time to create a new urbanism development and go ahead with whatever fit the zoning that the Planning Commission approved. She said the Planning Commission minutes noted that they were discussing the size of the buildings and how tall they should be, limiting it to two stories and keeping the applicant’s stated intent to reassure the neighborhood.
Finger clarified that there were three conditions for the zoning. The second condition was an approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the zoning, so no zoning would take affect.
Mayor Highberger asked if there would be any expiration on that action.
Finger said there was no action other than what was standard in the code. She said if there was not activity on that file for 12 months, then that file would be closed out.
Commissioner Amyx asked why the Planning Commission would act on the zoning.
Werner said the zoning was not much, but there was discussion on that zoning and they had a density to work with. He said the applicant knew they needed to come back to a public hearing and everyone would have their shot to criticize the plan, but at least they were working on knowing what numbers were going to be on that site. He said it was a tremendous amount of work to produce a preliminary development plan. He said this would give them the incentive that they know the density if they brought in a reasonable plan. He said they knew all the neighbors were concerned, but they needed that incentive and information that they knew they were heading down some path that they thought they could get to an agreement on.
Finger asked Werner if he was asking that the City Commission confirm the Planning Commission’s recommendation at this time.
Werner said yes.
Commissioner Rundle read from the zoning code the “Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Developments”:
(1) To promote and permit flexibility that will encourage innovative and imaginative approaches in residential, commercial, and industrial development which will result in a more efficient, aesthetic, desirable and economic use of land while maintaining density and intensity of use consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan for the city;
(2) To promote development within the city that can be conveniently, efficiently and economically served by existing municipal utilities and services or by their logical extension;
(3) To promote design flexibility including placement of buildings, and use of open space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities to and through the site, and off-street parking areas in a manner that will best utilize potential on-site characteristics such as, topography, geology, geography, size or proximity.
(4) To provide for the preservation of historic or natural features where they are shown to be in the public's interest including but not limited to such features as: drainageways, floodplains, existing topography or rock outcroppings, unique areas of vegetation, historic landmarks or structures.
He said there was no way to know how those objectives were achieved without having a Preliminary Development Plan to consider. He said they would need to have a hearing on the Preliminary Development Plan, but at that point, they were limited in the restrictions that they could place on the plan.
He asked if staff recommended against one of those two requests.
Finger said staff recommended that the density was too high.
Werner said they did not ask for the Planned Residential District, but asked for conventional zoning which was on the highway and made perfect sense. He said they thought all of those meetings had been going fairly well, but clearly they were not so they took the PRD with the density that was suggested by staff which was lowered 15 units an acre on the corner. He said they were hoping to submit a final plat that would dedicate the right-of-way to get Stoneridge built to the highway next month. He said they had some incentive also, and they thought everyone wanted that street built. Everything on that list would be resolved with the Preliminary Development Plan except the density and at least knowing they were not going to fight that battle gave them some direction.
He said at the time, they were committed to construct two story buildings and that condition did not go through because some of the Planning Commissioners did not want to limit them to two story buildings. He said they did not want a cut-through street to Stonecreek because all of those issues would be addressed with the Preliminary Development plan. He said the zoning actually did not take affect unit the plan was seen.
Commissioner Rundle said on that point, since the zoning did not take affect, it did not seem that the applicant could represent to anyone that they had the zoning.
Werner said there was a Planned Residential Development on the City Commission’s regular agenda that went through with no public comment. He said there was an argument on density after a lot of work had been done and it did not seem that was the right time to have that argument.
Vice Mayor Amyx said on the recommended zoning by the Planning Commission, he asked about the difference in the density between what was recommended and the “Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Developments.”
Werner said there was no difference other than that they would know the number. All the City Commission’s action, at this time, would be a number to shoot for in the number of units so that they did not produce a plan with 100 units and then instead of arguing about buffering and where the building should be located and how tall those buildings were, they would be talking about whether it should just be 80 units. If they know it would be 80 units, they would plan the site for those 80 units and that was what approving the item on the agenda would help them do.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the Planning Commission believed either of the two zoning proposals was not acceptable.
Werner said no. He said it was just the opposite because they kept the same RM-1 density and with the RM-2 the Planning Commission cut that zoning to 15 units an acre which was standard. He said 15 units per acre on the corner seemed appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle asked Finger to outline what the City Commission’s powers or authority was if they waited on the zonings and if the Commission decided to go ahead on those zonings what would the Commission be giving up.
Finger said if the City Commission concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Commission would be sending a signal to the applicant that the density that the Planning Commission had suggested for the 15 and 12.5 dwelling units per acre, respectively, was acceptable and that a plan could be developed based on those suggestions.
If the City Commission deferred action, the City Commission would be saying that they were not sure they wanted to commit to anything until they saw that development plan. She said what the City Commission would be giving up was a small amount of control over what the final numbers on dwelling units might be. She said within a PUD, since that type of development could be clustered, that would give the applicant a false sense of hope that the applicant could get a certain amount of density. It might be that the only way the applicant could achieve that density, because of environmental features, was with larger buildings than what were typical within that neighborhood. She said the applicant did not indicate that idea of larger buildings, but that would be something the City Commission would be giving up by giving some type of assurance as to that density.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if the applicant was not given some sense of zoning, and then the applicant came up with a PUD, he asked what the applicant could ask for as far as the amount of density.
Finger said if the City Commission did not take action on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, then the applicant could ask for the full density of a PRD which would be 15 dwelling units an acre across the entire tract which included the RM-1 and the RM-2 pieces as requested by the applicant. She said that was what the applicant could request, but certainly that did not allow the transition that Horizon 2020 would require. She said the applicant would have less guidance on how to prepare a plan than might be acceptable. She said the applicant might shoot for something that was the highest density not knowing that it would or would not be acceptable to the City Commission because no action was taken to give any indication.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the specific action in this request was for the maximum amount of density that the City Commission would allow on that property.
Finger said yes, on different portions of that property, north and south.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the zoning was not in place until that development plan came before the City Commission and approved.
Finger said correct. She said the zoning was not in place and all the City Commission would be doing was taking an action to concur with the Planning Commission. She said an ordinance had not been drafted until those conditions were met.
Commissioner Schauner said what would be given up was once the applicant met the conditions, the City Commission would lose the ability to change that zoning. If the applicant met those conditions the zoning would automatically come into play.
Finger said if the City Commission approved the development plan the zoning would automatically come into play.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the City Commission would need to approve that development plan before that zoning ever went into place.
Finger said the City Commission needed to approve the plan, plat, and the density which was already given as a condition of the approval and would be written in the ordinance.
Commissioner Rundle said the City Commission could not go back and alter the decision on the zoning if the Commission did not think the development plan was appropriate.
Finger said she would not completely agree with that statement. She said certainly other City Commissions had taken a second look and perhaps said that was something that was not intended.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked, if the City Commission did not approve the development plan, would that zoning revert back to agriculture.
Finger said the zoning would have never moved forward and the zoning would stay as agriculture. She said hopefully when the new code took affect which would be perhaps before this action was finalized, the zoning would actually go to UR which was urban reserve, but equivalent to not being able to move forward until a zoning was approved.
Commissioner Schauner said part of his concern was that this street coming off of 6th Street was going to go right though an established neighborhood when it was extended to 6th Street. He said frankly 12.5 and 15 units per acre density might be too great a density to preserve the character and quality of that neighborhood immediately to the south.
He said he would much prefer to reserve for the City Commission as much flexibility as possible with respect to that piece of ground. He said he was not certain of the amount of neighborhood input. He preferred taking no action on this item.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he would take a little different view, in that the City Commission might want to set the maximum amount of density and then the Commission could control the ultimate zoning via the development plan. If the City Commission did not like the development plan, the developer would understand that he did not have a project. He said with regard to the street that would be controlled through the development plan in whether or not that street ever connected onto 6th Street. He said the City Commission had the ultimate control on how that area was going to be developed. He said the City Commission need to give an idea of how much density would occur on that property.
Commissioner Schauner said once the City Commission conditionally approved the zoning and the applicant came back with a plan, if the City Commission did not like the plan, then what they would hear from the applicant was that the applicant had gone through so much trouble to get to this point. He suggested leaving open both the zoning and the density. He said the applicant knew that there were neighborhood concerns to be met and he thought the applicant was likely to bring the City Commission a proposal that the neighborhood was not going to find some support for. He said even though this area was along a highway, whatever was built at that intersection, if it became an intersection, would have a dramatic impact on that western part of town. He said he would like to put the onus on the developer to work with the neighbors to come up with a plan that fits.
Commissioner Rundle agreed with Commissioner Schauner. He said he recognized that his view potentially created a 2-2 vote on those issues. He said since the zoning did not take effect until all of that was done, he could not see how the City Commission would be delaying anything. He suggested making the final decision when the City Commission had the development plan. He said they were not going to be coming up with something that was dramatically different than what the Planning Commission had already recommended changing. He said they could not make those judgments about whether or not they would gain by allowing that flexibility until they saw the development plan. He preferred holding off until the neighbors and developer could come together with a plan.
Mayor Highberger said he would be more sympathetic with that argument if it was not the case where the Planning Commission made the change from conventional zoning to PRD which was approved by a 10-0 vote. He said approving the Planning Commission’s decision still gave the City Commission substantial flexibility. He said he did not feel compromised in his ability to vote for or against what he believed to be a reasonable use of that property.
He said they were not talking about connecting that street because there were arguments either way. He said at the meeting with KDOT, KDOT talked about what was likely going to happen to 6th Street in the future and one clear area of discussion was a more interconnected street grid in that area was necessary if the entire 6th Street area was not going to fail completely.
He said they talked a lot about being business friendly and having a transparent process. He said it would be good to have a study session or a Commission item on how they addressed those issues and make a policy, but this issue was consistent with their practice and they were not losing anything substantial by moving forward. He would vote to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Rundle asked what would be the effect of a tie vote.
Finger said if there was going to be a tie vote she suggested deferring the vote until there were five City Commissioners present.
Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Director of Legal Services said the City Commission had a recommendation from the Planning Commission. If the City Commission wanted to deny that recommendation, it would take a supermajority vote. If the City Commission approved the recommendation it would take a majority vote or refer the issue back by a majority vote or the issue could be deferred. Because this was a recommendation from the Planning Commission it took a supermajority vote to change that recommendation. He said the recommendation he would have on a deferral was to defer it to a date certain because that was in keeping with the statutory requirements to take some action at some time in the future.
Mayor Highberger asked if a vote of the Commission was necessary for a deferral.
Corliss said yes. He said a tie vote would send the issue back to the Planning Commission with the City Commission’s minutes as the language expressing why the City Commission did not approve the recommendations. He said the key was that because this was a Planning Commission recommendation, if the City Commission wanted to change that recommendation, it would take a 2/3 vote or a supermajority vote of the City Commission.
Finger said the Mayor did have the authority under the “Roberts Rules of Order” to table the recommendation unless someone objected.
Commissioner Rundle said the Commission should defer the Planning Commission’s recommendation for at least two weeks to allow time for neighbors to discuss this issue.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not think two weeks was enough time. He suggested a 30 day deferral.
Commissioner Rundle moved to defer those zoning items for 30 days.
Werner noted that the deadline for a September Planning Commission submittal is August 10th. He asked the Commission to consider that timeframe.
Commissioner Schauner said the problem was that whatever was built at that location would be there for 40 years. He said 30 days seemed to be, in the grand scheme of things, a pretty minor timeframe.
Commissioner Rundle said business friendly was not meant to be at the expense of being neighborhood friendly or doing good planning.
Mayor Highberger concurred.
Commissioner Rundle said if it was possible for things to work out and they could move this issue forward within this 30 day timeframe, the City Commission would make every concession to do that.
Finger said if the City Commission took a 30 day deferral, the applicant would not be able to submit for the August 10th deadline for September’s meeting. She said if the deferral went to September 7th, the applicant would not be able to submit until September 28th for the November meeting.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if Commissioner Rundle would accept the date of August 2nd and if the City Commission could not come to any resolution on that date, then it would automatically go into September which gave in three weeks.
Moved by Rundle seconded by Schauner, to defer the rezonings Z-03-20-05 & Z-03-21-05 for up to 30 days. Aye: Amyx, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Highberger. Motion carried. (13)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said Ron Olin, Police Chief, provided a memo reporting on departmental activity associated with fireworks. He said the number of complaints were down from last year. The memo indicated the enforcement methods that were used this year and also indicated some of the issues that the department dealt with during that 4th of July time period.
Commissioner Rundle said he would be interested in further information on those citations after the prosecution had run its course.
Corliss suggested that staff would draft a report to the City Commission in approximately 90 to 120 days.
Also during the City Manager’s Report, Mayor Highberger thanked Michael Tubbs, Management Analyst, for the report on the water conservation efforts.
Commissioner Rundle asked for feedback on the street inventory. He said the memo stated the Pavement Management System had been developed to prioritize street maintenance projects. He asked Wildgen to elaborate on how that idea would play out.
Wildgen said when the management system was completed staff would use that information to prioritize the 2006 budgeted amount for the streets and projects that would be highlighted in that inventory. He said staff would complete that system this fall and then those prioritized projects would be brought back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Rundle said rather than deciding how much to budget and then prioritizing expenditures, it seemed that a real Pavement Management System would help the Commission analyze how much needed to be spent for projects.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said with respect to Commissioner Rundle’s comment, he asked if staff answered that question on the final report. He said the report indicated how much staff thought was needed for those projects for the next couple of years.
Commissioner Rundle said the true Pavement Management System would have that analytical piece. He said staff would not be able to fully implement the system without that inventory.
Soules said in October the Pavement Management Inventory would be done and then staff would try to bring staff’s analysis to the City Commission in the winter and then the list would be brought to the City Commission based on that analysis earlier next year so the Commission could have that information for the 2007 budget process.
Commissioner Schauner asked for an update on the Massachusetts Street waterline project.
Wildgen said he had talked to the inspector and they were completing the tie ends back to the commercial uses this week and finishing up the electrical connections. Late this week or early next week, they would close that cut. Once that cut was completed, they would move to the east side of the street for the electrical connections on that side. He said once all that was completed, they would move to 7th Street.
Commissioner Schauner asked when they would be moving off of Massachusetts Street.
Wildgen said probably late next week if the weather held up. He said they had one day that they could not work next week because of the sidewalk sale.
Commissioner Rundle said he had heard a glowing comment about the degree of planning and coordination had really minimized the inconvenience and kept accessibility to those businesses. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approving PDP-05-04-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Park West Gardens. This proposed 70-unit multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 5.652 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Overland Drive between Eisenhower Drive and E 1000 (Queens) Road.
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the surrounding properties to the north were zoned RMD (Residential Duplex District) which had duplexes on the duplex lots, to the east was also PRD-2 which was vacant, across the street to Overland was a vacant property zoned A (Agriculture), and at the southeast corner of Queens Road and Overland Drive was an approved townhouse project called Overland Point. He said to the west of the property across Queens Road which was still gravel was a vacant property that was zoned agriculture at this time.
The Preliminary Development Plan included 9 buildings which would be used for rental properties. Within the 9 buildings there were 70 dwelling units, 32 one bedroom units and 38 two bedroom units. He said with this property which was zoned PRD had 12.4 dwelling units per net residential acre. The zoning district allowed for maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. They also had 37% common open space and the minimum open space required was 20%. The minimum parking required for this number of dwelling units for apartments was 105 parking spaces. They had within their facility 153 parking spaces. There would be one parking space within an attached garage for each of those units within those buildings.
On June 22, 2005, the Planning Commission heard and approved the request on a vote of 9-1, subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report.
The only access for the property was off of Eisenhower Drive and was a collector street and Overland Drive immediately to the south was approved last year.
Commissioner Schauner said there was a significant amount of ground to the west of Queens Road, currently zoned agriculture. He asked about Horizon 2020’s vision for this ground, including this property and to the west of that property. He said there was a potential for a very large number of residential units from this development west all the way to the South Lawrence Trafficway.
He said what he was concerned about was piecemeal approvals were being requested for this development marching west. He said he was not seeing a master road plan or a master plan with respect to what the ultimate development was for that area.
Patterson said Transportation 2025 did show an overall master plan that showed Overland Drive continuing on past Queens Road going up to George Williams Way and going beyond that and turning back to the north. There were two plans besides the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020 which were the Northwest Plan and a Nodal Plan which dealt more specifically with the corner of K-10 and U.S. Highway 40 or west 6th Street. Further to the west was the Oregon Trail Subdivision and there was also the Marcado Project which was at the northeast corner and the project was currently under review. He said the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020, gave the policies of intensities backing up from west 6th Street going to the north and what type of facilities and densities should be in that area.
Commissioner Schauner said approximately a month ago they attended a corridor simulation program from KDOT, he asked if the CORSIUM was based on the Northwest Plan.
Finger said yes. She said that was in the model for Transporation 2025 and they used that as the base and updated that plan based on the Nodal Plan which was adopted after the Northwest Area Plan.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Northwest Area Plan included another north, east, or west through artery other than 6th Street.
Finger said the Northwest Area Plan showed Overland Drive and Transportation 2025 which included Overland Drive and to the south Harvard Road, but she did not know if they had actually configured it in the model. She said there was a proposed road ¼ of a mile north of Overland Drive which connected back into Overland Drive as shown in Transporation 2025. She did not know if that specifically was modeled because the Northwest Area Plan showed that as remaining an agricultural density for the period of time up to 2025 based on the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan at the time.
Commissioner Schauner said 40 highway would need to be improved above and beyond the current project in order to handle the projected volume of traffic on that road.
Finger said to handle the projected volumes of traffic once the entire area was built out, it was to have double left turns at all of the intersections that were ¼ mile spaced and that could require some additional improvement off-site and depending on what your delays were there might need to be some improvements in the turn lanes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would require widening that road.
Finger said she could not answer that question.
Soules said he did not know if they were looking at a 6 lane section through that area, but they were looking at the double left turns and the potential right turn lanes.
Vice Mayor Amyx said they were specific when they said that they had used the plans that the City had adopted as far as development plans to base their recommendation on that corridor simulation program.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said he did not have any concerns about this particular project other than there was only one way in and out for 70 units. He said he was surprised that they did not have any information from the Fire Department about that issue. He said he was going to vote against this Preliminary Development Plan but not because it was a bad project. He said he was not at all happy with what he saw as a lack of specifics with respect on how they were going to develop that northwest corridor. Based on conversations he had with some folks, there was a huge amount of additional residential plan for that area. The area on the County side of the SLT was ripe for development. He said he did not think they were being nearly pro-active enough in planning for that area in a way that would cause 6th Street to work, not just up to Wakarusa, but on to the east as that road narrowed those cars would need to be put somewhere and the rest of the City was all located to the east of Wakarusa. He said they could go along approving one plan right after another and say this plan was okay on its own merits and he did not find any particular problem with this particular development standing alone, but in the context of the rest of that un-platted and un-built ground it was literally a no-brainer that they would be marching toward a very untenable situation. He said they did not know what was going to happen with the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa. He said there were too many unanswered questions and not enough pro-active planning for that section. He said he voted against a development out by the church for the same reason. He said he did not think it was in the Commission’s long-term best interest to just be approving those plans one at a time without taking into account the context of the potential density for that part of town.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the plan at this location was well thought out. He said his concern was that there were three different plans and unless the Commission wanted to get specific on what they wanted on every piece of property, they had to look at every plan one at a time. Not everybody was going to come in and develop at one time.
Commissioner Schauner said what they ought to have there was the maximum build out to be for that area and how many buildings would they anticipate in that area and that number ought to be driven by what the City’s street network could reasonably expect to handle.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if each individual owner of property would come in and try to maximize the use of their property.
Commissioner Schauner said they could also sell traffic rights and other things. There were other ways that property owners could accommodate their financial interest without building a lot more houses on the property.
He said what they were going to receive was 20 or 30 projects coming to the City Commission and they would end up with a tremendous amount of density and essentially a repeat of the argument that they were going to have at 6th and Wakarusa where Horizon 2020 said 450,000 square feet of developed commercial on that node and the last person to bat had not nearly enough square footage in their opinion to build a successful commercial development. He said they would end up in that very same position in the northwest quadrant unless they said upfront that here was the final build out and based on acreage or square footage or some formula that Planning could provide the Commission with to guide those decisions along the way because this particular one fits its less then 15 units per acre, but as getting into different development out there they might want greater density zoning and there would not be any real control over the ultimate build out because they had not seen the big picture up front. He said they would be approving plans on a piecemeal basis and that was the lack of proactivity that he was trying to express a concern about.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he did not totally disagree with Commissioner Schauner’s concerns, but he was afraid that the City Commission was taking on the responsibility of the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission did a very good job in sending the City Commission plans that took care of what were an acceptable density or land use and then the Planning Commission forwarded pieces at a time. He said the Planning Commission was making solid recommendations.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought the Planning Commission’s recommendation was a solid recommendation with respect to that plan. He said as he read the Planning Commission minutes he did not see where they had a discussion about how this plan fit into the overall density for that northwest area. He said he did not have any interest in becoming the Planning Commission, but he would like the Planning Commission, every time the City Commission saw one of those pieces, to say how it would fit into the Northwest Plan.
Commissioner Rundle suggested having this general discussion another time because it would be very fruitful. He said when looking at Transportation 2025, it not only outlined the major thoroughfares network, but it also outlined a rather large amount of work to be done which again would go in the direction of clarifying how they wanted that area to develop. He said there was not any conflict on what Commission Schauner was discussing. He said it was spelled out in that plan that they had to revise the subdivision regulations, establish access standards, and acquire pedestrian facilities. He said it implied that they were going to get specific about the whole community as it developed.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-04-05) for Park West Gardens, a proposed 70-unit multiple-family residential subdivision containing approximately 5.652 acres, property is generally described as being located north of Overland Drive between Eisenhower Drive and East 1000 (Queens) Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following revisions to the Development Plan:
a. Modify note no. 2.6 to, “A photometric plan will be submitted for approval with the Final Development Plan”;
b. Modify note no. 2.15, change “licensed” to “licensed”;
c. Include a 5’ wide sidewalk along the west side of Eisenhower Drive.
2. Provision of the following note on the face of the Development Plan:
a. “Public improvement plans will be submitted to Public Works before the Final Development Plan is filed at the Register of Deeds”; and
3. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Improvements to Queens Road and to the intersection of Queens Road/Overland Drive.
Aye: Amyx, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (15)
Receive report from Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, concerning KDOT applications for KLINK, Geometric Improvements and Economic Development improvements
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said next year in 2007, the City of Lawrence was approved for resurfacing Iowa Street from Harvard to Irving Hill Road, and 23rd Street from 6th Street from Haskell to the east city limits. For 2008, staff proposed Iowa Street from 6th Street to Harvard Road, and Iowa from Irving Hill Road to 23rd Street and the total cost was estimated at $663,000 with the state participating up to $200,000.
He said concerning geometric improvements for fiscal 2009, staff had two recommendations which were:
1. Center turn lane on West 6th Street from Folks Road east to approximately 1,000 feet west of Monterey Way (Hy-Vee), estimated cost is $1.2 million (request form state $900,00; city share $300,000)
2. Left turn lanes on Michigan Street (north and south bond) at 6th Street. Traffic counts in 2001 were 32,515 vehicles per day (vpd) on 6th Street and 6,880 vpd on Michigan. Projected future traffic volumes (2025) on 6th street are 55,910 vpd. Providing a left turning movement on Michigan will allow better traffic flow and improve (extend) the “green time” on US 40 (6th Street). The estimated cost is $950,000 (requested from state, $760,000; city share, $190,000.
The geometric improvement projects were competitive in nature, but staff was looking for direction from the City Commission as to which application to submit.
He said concerning Economic Development for fiscal year 2009, recently there had been renewed attention given to East Hills Industrial Park access onto K-10. He said staff recommended submitting the extension of East Hills Drive to Franklin Road, and Franklin to K-10. A work group had been established which included KDOT, City of Lawrence, Douglas County and surrounding businesses and industries. Franklin Road was identified as an arterial for this area and this would provide a safe outlet to K-10 once this intersection was signalized. The estimated cost was $2,500,000 (request from State, $1,875,000; city share $675,000).
Commissioner Schauner asked if this particular project would change the ingress and egress from K-10 into the East Hills Business Park.
Soules said staff was proposing extending the road out to Franklin and then improving Franklin out to K-10. It could be left open or closed at that point. He said they had talked about signalizing that intersection there was a bit of a sight problem on K-10.
Commissioner Rundle said he was curious if there was some advantage to having both intersections. He asked if that would disperse the traffic.
Soules said that was a potential, but there were concerns about people coming in an out of the business park and the speed.
Commissioner Rundle said the concern was the safety of that intersection.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the KLINK funds were limited on what they could be spent on.
Soules said those funds were limited to resurfacing.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the project on West 6th would require widening that street to come up with the turning lane or was that a re-striping project.
Soules said that would be a widening project.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the area of McDonald Drive was the state’s responsibility.
Soules said that was the Kansas Turnpike Authority’s responsibility.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the KTA had any plans on doing anything with that stretch of road.
Soules said the KTA had mentioned that work needed to be done on that road, but it was a funding issue for them as well.
Commissioner Rundle suggested doing type of small cost share with the City to see if that would up that priority.
Soules said it could perhaps.
Wildgen said approximately two years ago the KTA wanted to share that project 50/50 and the City declined because that was the same year the City was losing state funds. He said he would encourage the KTA to take their responsibility seriously and not put that on the City’s system.
Mayor Highberger asked if that idea was something that could be handled administratively.
Wildgen said a letter from the Mayor might be well worth the time.
Commissioner Rundle said regarding those two choices for geometric improvements, he was leaning toward the intersection improvements at Michigan. He asked if Soules could contrast the gain that each of those improvements would give.
Soules said the benefit to widening the 5th lane on 6th Street between Hy-Vee and Folks Road would get people out of the way of that through traffic. The turn lane on Michigan was a congestion issue. During the peak hours in the morning and evening the traffic backed up. If there was a dedicated left turn lane, they could get people off of Michigan onto 6th Street and get people moving quicker off of Michigan to give more “green time” to 6th Street.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the intersection at 6th and Michigan carried a lot of the traffic from the industrial park and that traffic did back up. He asked if it was a situation of looking at the expansion or the finishing of 6th Street west by Folks Road. He asked if the safety issue in that area was greater than the concern of traffic backing up and fender benders at 6th and Michigan.
Soules said at 6th and Michigan accidents would probably be more severe, but there were also cost issues.
Commissioner Rundle said the rear end accident was statistically less likely to be life threatening or the level of physical harm as a broad side that might occur at 6th and Michigan.
Soules said that was the understanding.
Commissioner Rundle said he was still leaning toward the 6th and Michigan project.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Steve Braswell, Lawrence, said there was a fair amount of traffic on 6th and Michigan, but he did not think that a million dollars needed to be spent at that intersection. The accidents that he saw were on 6th Street and most of those accidents occurred coming down the hill from Iowa Street. He suggested that staff look at the stop light timing. The light was long for 6th Street traffic and really short for the Michigan Street traffic. Most of the traffic on Michigan Street was coming from the north, but the light was so short that a pedestrian crossing on the east side of Michigan Street toward McDonald’s could hold up a dozen cars. He said if the green light for the Michigan traffic was 30 seconds longer, it would go a long way to alleviating this problem. He strongly urged the Commission to look at the green light timing on Michigan Street.
Mayor Highberger asked if the timing of lights had been analyzed recently.
Soules said he did not know how recent those lights had been analyzed, but the signals along 6th Street were coordinated. He said staff could change the timing and give more “green time” to Michigan Street, but that would back up a lot of traffic on 6th Street. He said 30 seconds in traffic signal timing was a long time. He said staff could look at that idea.
Corliss said when looking at the entire length of 6th Street with the re-striping that would occur immediately to the west and the improvements that were happening west of Folks Road, that was the missing gap of the 5th lane and there might be some value in considering that idea.
Commissioner Schauner suggested the west 6th Street project because that rationale made sense. He said he was always amazed that it cost one million dollars to strip a street or add a lane. He said he thought west 6th Street should be completed and when moving to the east, worry about Michigan Street at some later date.
Vice Mayor Amyx concurred. He said anytime some part of the grid could be finished was good.
Mayor Highberger asked if the estimate for the center turn lane on West 6th Street included right-of-way.
Soules said he did not think the City would need to acquire right-of-way. He said Michigan Street would be eligible for other funding, but the widening of the road might not be eligible for funding. He said staff submitted up to 5 safety funded projects each year.
Mayor Highberger said he did not have a strong preference either way, but if the City had potential access for other funding for Michigan, he was fine with the conversion of 6th Street to 5 lanes.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendations of staff and to recommend as a priority the project of adding the center turn lane on West 6th Street from Folks Road east to approximately 1,000 feet west of Monterey Way (Hy-Vee). Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider adopting on first reading, the following public civility ordinance:
Ordinance No. 7893, establishing public offense of illegal camping. This ordinance has been revised, at the direction of the City Commission, by deleting the language that applied the ordinance prohibitions to public parks, recreation facilities, and other City-owned property.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said last week Ordinance No. 7893, was presented to the City Commission for first reading and it included what was then, subsection B of the ordinance which made it illegal to engage in camping in public parks, public recreation facilities, or City owned property.
After the direction of the City Commission last week, a new version of that ordinance was presented which deleted the former subsection B in the penalty section. All other provisions of the ordinance remained the same.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Herman Leon, Lawrence, said there was a great deal of support for the attempt to make this community safe. He said that the City Commission would be hearing from an official representative of the Homeless Coalition in support of how the City Commission was handling this issue.
He said there had been conversations with police officers who had shown themselves sympathetic to a shifting the City’s priorities to make time available for more general foot patrols downtown.
He said he was attending this meeting as a point of personal privilege. He said there was a family that lived by the river for 7 years. That family came from Texas and was a religious family who had a village by the river. He said when it was time for the City to change its policy a City staff member met with members of the family and discussed that issue. He said there were offers from two people who owned property outside of town to offer the family a substitute place. He said the father of the family had alerted staff that they had decided to leave and they did not want to make trouble for the community. He said the family wanted on record that they had never been a public nuisance. He said what was presented about the family’s situation was an inaccurate picture of what that situation was and what happened.
Peter Crooks, one of the family members that lived by the river, said his family lived on the river for a reason and not just because they had to. He said his family made a path and planted gardens by the river to make it a livable and habitable place for people to come visit. He said many citizens began to grow to respect this way of life as a positive outlet rather than living in the gutter.
He said when they were told to leave that area, they left peacefully. He said now that this issue was brought up again on record, he wanted to say something on behalf of his family who was completely unaware of this situation because they were in Michigan trying to live normal lives. He said his sister had 3 babies and his dad had a car and cell phone and probably made more money than most people present.
He said his family was terrified about the incident and left the area, but he stuck around because Lawrence was his home. He said whether or not he lived in a teepee, tree house, or a house he had an understanding with people that he would do his best to try to be a person that society expected to raise children and be good citizens. He hoped that he clarified who his family was, who they were now, and what they had become which were people who were able to enjoy the simplicity of getting back to the garden.
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said the language in Ordinance No. 7893 that applied the ordinance prohibition to public parks had been deleted. She said she had asked the secretary to send her a copy of the ordinance and she hated to question the esteemed attorney’s but the second “whereas” it felt to her at least it was dubious as to what it was really saying because it stated “Whereas, camping in areas not designed or designated for that purpose presents a risk to the public health and sanitation of the community, and harms the aesthetics of the community.” She said it seemed that did not specify only private property, but could very well be construed as any place not designed or designated. She said she would like that issue clarified and what was the City Commission actually voting on because she did not think the question ever was about private property and living on top of roofs, but for people to have some place.
Corliss said the recitals did not have any ability to be enforced as a particular part of the ordinance those recitals were there to provide the purpose statements and some history of the ordinance. He said the point was that private property used for camping could present a risk to public health or sanitation and could harm the aesthetics of the community.
Enoch said the ordinance read: “camping in areas not designed or designated.” She said at the present time they did not have a place on public property except at Clinton Lake.
Corliss said there was a private camping ground, KOA Campgrounds which was designed for that purpose.
Enoch said that was not a public camping ground.
Corliss said the camp ground was open to the public, but it was on private property. He said the point was that staff thought that recital was still responsive to the issue that camping on private property could have a public harm.
Enoch said she would like to suggest that either that second “whereas” be revised to say what Corliss said it was saying or else be eliminated because it did seem to include any area that was not designed or designated for the purpose.
Corliss said staff could add camping on private property not designed or designated which was the City Commission’s intent.
Christopher Collins, formerly homeless and an active member of the Coalition on Homeless Concerns, read the following prepared statement: “The Coalition for Homeless Concerns supports the ordinance of aggressive panhandling, blocking public right-of-way, and camping on private property and request a more thoughtful discussion and planning before the Commission tackled the camping on public space and would like to be involved in the process.”
Randy Dyke, Lawrence, said a lot of the problem now was the Kaw River. He asked if there was actually a right-of-way on the Kaw River.
Mayor Highberger suggested saving staff responses at the end of the discussion. Again, he asked people to remember the discussion was about the ordinance and not camping on private property.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to discuss the “whereas.” He said it seemed that those “whereas” build on one another. The first two “whereas” clauses essentially created the first two steps towards the third which talked specifically about private property. He said the ordinance was intended to address only private property that was designated or designed for the purpose of camping. He said it seemed that the ordinance was fairly clear and he supported the ordinance as written without an amendment.
Mayor Highberger said the only part of the ordinance that would have direct legal effect was the language under 4-417 Illegal Camping. He supported the ordinance as drafted.
Commissioner Rundle said the “whereas” had no force of law. He supported the ordinance as drafted.
Vice Mayor Amyx said as a Commission, they had came to an agreement that they were going to say where it was illegal to camp and that was on private property and that was what the ordinance addressed. He supported the ordinance as written.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7893, establishing public offense of illegal camping. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Laura Routh, Lawrence, said she watched with great interest the discussions the City Commission had regarding the ordinances that addressed the issue of homelessness. She came before the City Commission to argue that the enforcement of those ordinances might have unintended consequences both legal and moral. She asked the City Commission that they seriously consider the larger implications of their decisions in that context.
The homeless population was by definition already disenfranchised. Homeless people stand to be further alienated and perhaps victimized if those ordinances were implemented without some accountability. She said by that she meant that the Commission needed to focus attention onto the Police Department’s role in the enforcement of those ordinances. She asked about whom the Lawrence Police Department would be accountable to.
In short, the City Commission had given the Police Department new and expanded and even extraordinary powers. Those were powers that individual officers would exercise with varying levels of discretion and the receiving population, as has been established, was vulnerable. In most cases homeless people did not have the same level of resources nor the same access to recourse that many others did and they enjoyed a higher level of service.
Currently, the Lawrence Police Department was pretty unaccountable to the citizens of Lawrence, even the homeowning, taxpaying citizenry. She gave an example:
In February of this year after having significant problems interacting with the Police Department, she submitted a public records request. While she received acknowledgement of that request within the time allotted under state law, she did not receive an actual response until last week. It took six months for the Lawrence Police Department to respond to this citizen’s request for information. She shared copies of that response to the City Commission. In short, much of her request was denied. Those parts that were granted would cost her nearly $400, but that $400 represented access to information. That was not copying costs, but simply the cost for compiling the information. If it took six months for the Lawrence Police Department to respond to a taxpayer and a homeowner, she asked about how long it would take the Police Department to respond to complaints or request for information from homeless people.
She said she had been told numerous stories about the Lawrence Police Department and officers behaving violently and abusively in the line of duty. It was the homeless population who would likely be subject to those ordinances and they were a population that had limited chance under the current system to successfully defend themselves or defend their rights.
Currently if a person had a complaint about the Police Department, a person would have to go to the Police Department to lodge that complaint. The system did not work for anyone.
She implored the City Commission to also act on what had been a repeated request of this community which was to begin a formation of a Police Review Board. She provided the City Commission with some suggested draft language for such an ordinance.
Mayor Highberger said before moving on with comment, he inadvertently omitted the question about the right-of-way on the river. He asked if staff could formulate a response to that question.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that was not right-of-way on the river, but there was publicly owned land. The levee system was publicly owned.
Corliss said the levee was owned by the City of Lawrence with perhaps a few exceptions and there might be areas where it was privately owned. He said the City had maps that would show what the City owned if that would be helpful to any individual.
Commissioner Rundle asked how far east did the City own levee property.
Corliss said the City owned property in Leavenworth County on the north side and on the south side City property did not go past the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Wildgen said the Penny Plant was between the Eagle Restoration area, Penny property and then the Water Treatment Plant. The north side was probably 12 miles long and went all the way from the old landfill to Mud Creek and on the south side the City did not own much levee property.
Christopher Collins, Lawrence, said the Coalition on Homeless Concerns asked him to deliver two messages. The message concerned increased police patrols downtown which said “The Coalition on Homeless Concerns supported sensitivity in crisis intervention training for Lawrence Police Officers on downtown patrol and would not be opposed to increased foot patrols.” He said on a personal note, he had noticed an improvement in general quality of life downtown with the stepping up of police patrols on foot and on bicycles. He said the one thing the Coalition was concerned about especially in light of the new ordinances that the vast majority affected would be the homeless that the necessary sensitivity training be applied so as not to result in a wider gap between the homeless of Lawrence and the law enforcement.
Mark Cline, Lawrence, said he would like to validate Routh’s harsh criticism that she had offered on the operation of the Lawrence Police Department.
Steve Braswell, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said regarding the civility ordinances, he said it was hard not to feel that this issue was an “us” versus “them” type of situation which felt awkward. He said he specifically wanted to talk about not going forward with an ordinance about camping on public property because by doing that they avoided an issue. He said it seemed that the City did not pass ordinances “willy nilly.” He said those ordinances were passed to help construct a view of the community of a way of life. He said they adopt ordinances because they wanted to direct behavior to a certain way of life. He said they were not addressing their view of camping on public property. He said all of this issue had come up because of homeless questions, but what about avid fisherman. He asked if it could be articulated the community’s view of camping on public property. He also asked if it was okay to go camping along the river on public property. He said if they were going to let people camp, there needed to be provisions such as sanitary facilities.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Contract – Westwood Hills & Bauer Brook Estates Sanitary Sewer Study to Professional Engineering Consultants for $17,849.
2. Bid – Rejected, Schedule I of Airport Improvement Project and set new bid date to be determined.
3. Ordinance No. 7882 – 2nd Read, exempt from ad valorem taxation 55%, bldg expansion & machinery for Prosoco.
4. Ordinance No. 7884 – 2nd Read, exempt from ad valorem taxation 55%, new construction & machinery for Serologicals.
5. Ordinance No. 7891 – 2nd Read, Aggressive Panhandling.
6. Ordinance No. 7894 – 2nd Read, Historical Register, Zinn-Burroughs, 1927 Learnard Ave.
7. Ordinance No. 7895 – 2nd Read, Cruelty to animals.
8. Ordinance No. 7902 – 2nd Read, criminal trespass on roof of buildings.
9. Ordinance No. 7903 – 2nd Read, trapping animals in parks, recreation or open space.
10. Rezone – (Z-05-33-05) 1.004 acre, M-1 to RO-2, E 19th & Homewood.
11. Rezone – (Z-03-19-05) 4.9 acres, A to RS-2, S of 6th & W of Stonecreek.
12. Ordinance No. 7892 – 2nd Read, City’s right-of-way.
13. Rezone – (Z-03-20-05) 7.4 acres, A to RM-1, S of 6th & W of Stonecreek & Rezone – (Z03-21-05) 4.2 acres, A to RM-2, S of 6th & W of Stonecreek (Defer for 30 days)
14. City Manager’s Report
15. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-05-04-05) Park West Gardens, 5.652 acres, N of Overland
16. KLINK – KDOT applications for geo & eco improvements.
17. Ordinance No. 7893 – 1st Read, illegal camping.