August 16, 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.   

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of June 2, 2005 and July 7, 2005; the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of July 7, 2005; the Library Board meeting minutes of July 18, 2005; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of May 16, 2005 and June 20, 2005; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of August 1, 2005; and the Lawrence Alliance meeting minutes of June 22, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 324 vendors in the amount of $1,393,518.08.  Motion carried unanimously.  

The City Commission reviewed the bids for acquisition of the Quint Fire apparatus for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

	Conrad Fire (E-One)	Midwest Vehicle Professionals (Pierce)	Emergency Fire Equipment (Crimson)	Smeal Fire Apparatus (Smeal)
Net Bid with Discounts	$625,605.00	$638,156.00	$659,932	$699,691.00
Loose Equipment	0	41,000	3,4387	37,912.00
Bid Price	$625,605.00	$679,156.00	$694,319.00	$737,603.00
Options		6,515.00
Total Bid Price		$685,671.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Midwest Vehicle Professionals, Inc. (Pierce) in the amount of $685,671.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                             (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6605, providing for the acquisition of fire-fighting equipment and providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City of pay the cost of such equipment.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to re-carpet certain high traffic areas of the Lawrence Public Library to Commercial Floorworks, Inc., (off the state contract) for $25,975.  Motion carried unanimously.

(3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7915, adopting the 2005 Standard Traffic Ordinance which regulates the traffic within the City of Lawrence city limits.  Motion carried unanimously.           (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7916, allowing the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at Watson Park on September 4, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.      (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7917, allowing the temporary sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages at Burcham Park on September 10, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                            (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7918, allowing the temporary sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at South Park on September 10, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                            (7) 

Ordinance No. 7900, establishing solid waste service rates for the 2006 budget year, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (8)

Ordinance 7904, establishing water and sewer service rates for 2006 budget year.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                     (9)

Ordinance 7913, establishing the adopting and appropriating by fund the budget for the City of Lawrence beginning January 1, 2006, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.   Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.

(10)

Ordinance 7914, appropriating and budgeting property tax revenue for the 2006 budget, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.   Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously. (11)

Ordinance No. 7862, levying assessment on lots, pieces, and parcels of land in the City of Lawrence, Kansas to pay part of the costs for the construction of sanitary sewer improvements including pump station, force main, gravity lines and related and attendant improvements in and near Riverside Business Park as authorized by Resolution No. 6402, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, 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 Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-43-05) of approximately 3.2677 acres from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District) to POD-1 (with restrictions) (Planned Office Development District)  (the property is generally described as being located east of Wakarusa Drive and north of Harvard Road); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to construct appropriate variation of “speed humps” on Lawrence Avenue between 9^th Street and Harvard Road and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s to amend the “school crossing control policy” to permit installation of flashing beacons at locations with adult crossing guards where the crossing is not otherwise protected by stop signs or traffic signals; and adopt Resolution No. 6604, amending City’s school crossing control policy to permit a reduced speed zone with flashing beacon and an adult crossing guard at a school crossing.  Motion carried unanimously.       (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to move the flashing beacons on Kentucky Street adjacent to Cordley School to 19^th Street adjacent to Cordley School.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the submission to Kansas Department of Transportation of a grant request in the amount of $73,469 for funding of a Pedestrian Safety Campaign.  Motion carried unanimously.

(17)

Vice Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion, the waiving of the architect’s estimate and accepting the lowest bid for construction of Fire/Medical Station No. 4.  He said in this process the City Commission received a recommendation from staff as well as estimates from architects and engineers, but part of that decision making process came from the estimates received by the vendors.  He said because of the long list of vendors, the amount of construction, and that the estimate was $200,000 over the architect’s estimate, he suggested that this item go back through the bidding process.

Commissioner Rundle said he was always interested in saving money.

Commissioner Schauner said the architect’s fee in this case was over $100,000 and he asked about how the architect’s fee compared with the other fire station because they both were similarly designed.  He asked if the City received a break on the architect’s fee.     

Fire Chief Jim McSwain said that fee was approximately 2 percent lower.

Dan Sabatini, Architect, said Chief McSwain was correct in that fee was 2.4 to 2.5 percent lower.  He said since they were using the existing original drawings and design with modifications they lowered their fees.  He said in 2001 when they bid Fire/Medical Station No. 2 they had eleven bidders.  He said there was a change in direction as far as people’s need to bid because there were a lot more projects, therefore, those bidders were not being as competitive. 

He said he took full responsibility for submitting a low bid.  He said they used a professional estimator and in this case there happened to be a lot of rock removal.  They took effort in contacting local subcontractors to have those contractors give some estimates before placing their final estimates.  He said when looking at what was actually bid, the lowest bidder was $50,000 higher than the architect’s original estimate.  He said there was a lot of pressure with labor costs in the construction industry and also pressures with fuel and material prices.  He said he was positive that the City would not receive a lower bid in this situation.  He said there were three bidders that were all within one percent and it needed to be understood that those contractors were all looking at the same project.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the cost per square foot, for the difference between Fire/Medical Station No. 5 and Station No. 4.  He also asked when Station No. 5 went to bid.  

Sabatini said in December.

Vice Mayor Amyx said in eight months, the difference in the cost per square foot was $17.00 a square foot.

Sabatini said this project was well over double the size of that project.  He said  Station No. 5 was 24,000 or 25,000 square feet versus only 11,000 square feet so there was efficiency as far as costs.  

Wildgen said regarding Commissioner Schauner’s question about the fee difference in comparing fire stations, that difference was approximately $44,000.

Commissioner Schauner said if they took the two proposed cost reductions on the flat roof insulation and the nail base insulation, it would save approximately $8,000.  He asked if that savings was really of value or would they be faced with replacing that roofing in the long run.

Sabatini said there would be thicker insulation.  He said that particular product had become more expensive.

Chief McSwain said to be blunt, the architect screwed up.  The contractors were all together on their prices therefore the price of the contractors should have been the price of the estimate.  He said another issue was that the City needed to address the development to the west to allow adequate fire protection.  He said not having adequate fire protection placed the public in danger.  The longer it took a firefighter to get to an incident, the more dangerous it was for everyone involved.        

Mayor Highberger asked about the potential delay in re-bidding.   

Wildgen said construction would take place later next year.  If construction started now, the project would be completed in the summer which would be the latter part of 2006.  He said staff was pleased that they had five major bidders which was a good amount of bids for construction.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he appreciated that there were 5 bids, but in this particular case, there was something wrong with a 9 percent difference in the estimate and the lowest bid.  He said his opinion on this issue had nothing to do with fire and safety that Chief McSwain and his department provided in the western part of Lawrence.   

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Hack said there were a couple of factors to consider which were the rising costs involved in construction and fuel costs.   She said she was concerned about sending it out for re-bid and ending up with a higher bid.  She agreed with Vice Mayor Amyx in that the bids were higher than the architect’s estimate, but she was not sure they would receive better bids.

Commissioner Highberger said he would respectfully disagree with Commissioner Amyx.  He said if there was more of a range on the bids, he would be more inclined to agree with Commissioner Amyx or if there was any sign that any of those trends were going down instead of up, he would support re-bidding, but he did not see any of those ideas happening. He supported waiving the estimate and accepting the lowest bid.   

Commissioner Rundle asked what the minimum amount of time would be to re-bid the project.

Wildgen said he thought the project could be re-bid in December, but there was not a specific time requirement.

Commissioner Rundle asked if construction could start this fall.

Wildgen said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the project was re-bid in six months, it would delay the construction and occupancy of the new structure by six months.

Wildgen said correct. 

Commissioner Rundle said he was sympathetic to Vice Mayor Amyx’s comments, but he thought it was pressing that they moved forward.

Commissioner Schauner said this was a hard decision.  He said he was concerned about a delay causing the price to be a higher.  He said he did not think the inflationary pressures were going to lessen.   As long as the economy stayed strong, he thought they would continue to see builders not as hungry as they were a year ago and he expected the price of doing business would go up and not down. 

He said he was not at all happy with the error factor in the percentage of estimation, but he was going to vote to waive the engineer’s estimate.  He said he would not support any future project that was ten percent over the estimate.  

The City Commission reviewed the bids for Fire Station No. 4, for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

VENDOR	TOTAL BID
Architect’s Estimate	$2,111,240.00
Champion Builders, Base	2,310,000.00
Alternate 1	- 5,360.00
Alternate 2	-  3,000.00
Alternate 3	-  20,400.00
McPherson Contractors, Base	2,423,000.00
Alternate 1	- 5,400.00
Alternate 2	-  800.00
Alternate 3	-  20,000.00
BA Green Construction, Base	2,428,000.00
Alternate 1	- 3,000.00
Alternate 2	-  3,000.00
Alternate 3	-  21,000.00
Al J. Mueller Construction, Base	2,480,000.00
Alternate 1	- 5,300.00
Alternate 2	-  500.00
Alternate 3	-  12,000.00
Vanum Construction Co., Base	2,600,000.00
Alternate 1	- 5,400.00
Alternate 2	-  3,200.00
Alternate 3	-  22,400.00

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to waive the architect’s estimate and accept the lowest bid from Champion Builders for the construction of Fire/Medical Station No. 4, 1800 Block Wakarusa, in the amount of $2,281,240.  Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Amyx.  Motion carried.                                                                                                        (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved b y Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No 6606, ordering the improvement and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for the design construction of certain city facilities pursuant to Charter Ordinance No. 32.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                   (19)

Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion, the rezoning (Z-04-27-05) for the southeast corner of Wakarusa and Eisenhower.  He said as he looked at the Planning Commission’s minutes, he saw that single-family homes were being used as a buffer on this project.   

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said those single-family homes were being used as a transition and she would not call those types of homes a buffer.  She said the applicant was backing dissimilar uses, which was why the single-family was shown there.  She said the approved zoning was originally for a planned residential development in that area but that zoning had expired prior to taking effect.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the setback was between the two uses.

Finger said approximately 60 feet minimum from structure to structure.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any other buffering required.

Finger said during the site plan process staff would look at the applicant’s proposal.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence, said she was the one who brought up the point of using single family residences as a buffer.  She said the applicant and Finger used the word buffer at the Planning Commission meeting.  She said because there was not a plan, they were asking for PRD zoning.  She said the applicant stated at the Planning Commission that the single-family residents would know what they were moving into.     

Commissioner Rundle asked what she was asking the Commission to do. 

Klingenberg said they were looking at conditioning the area so that it would give those single-families some considerations and a safety net.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the specific conditions were taken out.

Klingenberg said there were no conditions.  She said there was a row of single-family along Eisenhower and that it backed up to all multi-family. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if height limitation would be a condition.

Klingenberg said height limitation, berms, and landscaping would be conditions.  Also, setback needed to be reconsidered.   

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if Klingenberg was asking the City Commission to place stipulations specifically on the zoning.

Klingenberg said yes.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if staff usually placed stipulations on zoning, site plans, or development plans.

Finger said that type of stipulation was generally on development plans.  She said the Commission could place stipulations on site plans or zoning, but it would be more difficult to track. 

Commissioner Schauner said under the new zoning rules and regulations, assuming they would be born someday, he asked if the site plan would be in the purview of the Planning Office rather than coming to the City Commission.  In the future, without any zoning conditioning the Planning Department would have the final say in approving those site plans.

Finger said in the new development code, it would have a section transitioning and relationships to single-family zoning properties.  The new code would talk about the setbacks and how to create that transition and it would no longer be a nebulous term.

Commissioner Schauner asked how those changes would be different than what Klingenberg was asking for.

Finger said one of the requirements in those changes was that there would not be balconies above the second story on the side of the building that overlooked the single-family yard. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be an increase in privacy for all of the people who lived back to back.                

Finger said that was what the code was designed to accomplish was an increase in privacy for both the single-family residents and the apartment dwellers.

Klingenberg said at this time they did not have those zoning regulations.  She said she heard that zoning would not be approved until the plan was approved, but the problem was if the plan fit the zoning then it was approved and the neighborhoods did not have any say after the zoning was approved.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Paul Werner, Architect, said they were getting penalized for doing the right thing because that was represented with a 7-0 vote by the Planning Commission.  He said the zoning was PRD-2 all the way to Eisenhower, but they thought that zoning was more inappropriate so they placed the row of single-family houses on Eisenhower.  He said he guessed that this discussion would not have taken place if they would have placed duplexes along that row, but they saw that as penalizing the people that already lived in that area.  He said it was a back to back relationship of the lowest density, multi-family which was RM-1 zoned.  Again, they thought they had done the right thing with zoning, the right back to back relationship, and the 7-0 vote helped to clarify.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was a possibility to have the balconies on the front of the buildings.

Werner said the three story apartment buildings were not an option.  He said there were too many new two-story attached garage concepts.  

Veronica Howard, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said she had a property that faced open land.  She said she would like a guarantee that 3 story buildings would not be built in that area.  She said right now the zoning behind her property was single-family zoning, but what she had learned was that did not mean anything until there was a home built behind her.  She said if the Commission zoned that property with stipulations then the applicant had to come before the Commission with a plan which was a guarantee.   

She said she was told when they bought their home that it was single-family, but after they closed on their house they found out that it was not zoned single-family and was zoned agricultural.  She asked the City Commission to give them a guarantee that they would not have balconies and people staring down at her family.

Finger said Howard’s points were all valid, but she thought they were directed to Items 6a and 6b on the regular agenda and that the Commission’s discussion was in regard to Items 6a and 6b on the consent agenda. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if Eisenhower has been re-designated as a collector or had it always been a collector.

Finger said Eisenhower was a residential collector.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Eisenhower was different than Harvard Road.

Finger said yes because Eisenhower picked up neighborhood traffic and distributed that traffic within the neighborhood.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked how those two zonings, the rezoning to RS-2 and rezoning to RM-1 fronted or backed one another and whether they could condition that piece of property for height even though Werner stated that he did not want build to that height on his client’s property.

Finger said she did not believe there had been any zonings that had been conditioned based on a height restriction that were conventional zonings.  Height restrictions and other conditions could be place on planned unit zonings but placing it on a conventional district would be very hard to track and there wasn’t code authority for it in the current code.  The development code would provide a broader code authority for conventional districts.

Vice Mayor Amyx said based on what Finger said, they had never conditioned height on a zoning, but conditioning had always been done on the development plan.

Finger said conditioning had always been done on the plan or on the planned zoning district.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked why they would not look at those two zonings together as a plan. 

Finger said the applicant was trying to rezone from a planned district to two conventional districts.

Mayor Highberger asked for a second opinion on whether the Commission could condition a conventional zoning in a manner that was suggested. 

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Commission did not have any City code authority to condition conventional zoning.  The Commission had that specific authority under the Planned Unit Development Chapter so that when the Commission was zoning property under that PUD Chapter, they could establish conditions.  The Commission did not have code authority in order to place a height condition, for example, on a conventional zoning requirement.  He said when they had this issue in the past, that had always been staff’s response and there was not a good way to get at that otherwise.  The best way was to get it into the code so that the Commission had the authority that if they wanted to establish reasonable conditions, they could.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Corliss was convinced that was absolutely necessary that the general statutory authority did not provide any support for conditioning zoning.

Corliss said the argument that he had heard that was against conditioning zoning was that there was a statutory requirement that for each zoning category there was, that it had the same setback requirements throughout the entire zoning category.  He said there had been that uniformity requirement in the state law.  If the Commission went ahead and proceeded to condition the zoning, then staff would argue that that was within your power.  He said his response was that the Commission did not have that specific code authority.          

Commissioner Schauner asked if they could accomplish that same thing by limiting the number of units per acre.

Corliss said again, that was establishing a condition within the zoning ordinance.  

Commissioner Schauner said the only way to assure that a three story building would not be constructed would be to not approve that zoning request.

Corliss said and they would need to go under a PUD (Planned Unit Development) where the Commission could guarantee that.

Mayor Highberger said if the zoning was approved before any construction occurred, the City Commission would need to approve a site plan and under that site plan review, the Commission would have the authority to determine whether the proposed uses were compatible with the adjacent uses.

Corliss said correct.  When the Commission was reviewing a site plan, they did have that general authority given those performance type languages in the site plan condition.  He said one of the criteria for approving the site plan was compatibility and the Commission could respond to something like that on height.  He said height was specifically mentioned in the site plan criteria, but that would be later in the process.

Commissioner Rundle said under the new zoning code, they would receive the plat when they received those rezoning requests and they would not be able to condition the zoning anymore.

Commissioner Hack said the site plan approval would be by staff according to stricter regulations that would be part of the new zoning code.

Commissioner Rundle said they kept looking out onto the horizon to finally have better regulations to stop some of those practices of breaking up the steps of the Commission’s approvals and to component uses, and conditioning one approval on the completion of some other step.  He said he was done with that type of practice and he wished they would go ahead and stop those practices now, rather than waiting for the new zoning code.  He said if this area had been a Planned Unit Development, they would have a development plan and that plan would have put in conditions.  He said it was inherent in the whole zoning process that they would somehow address the concerns as early as possible in the approval process, rather than hoping for them to be addressed later on.  He said he was not convinced that they were going to be able to have that much flexibility when this came back to the Commission.

Commissioner Hack said that was where they were and those were the rules of the game under which the City Commission, Planning Commission, and applicant operated.  She said in a perfect world they would have the new opportunities to do that with the new zoning code, but the new zoning code was taking longer than it should have.  She said duplexes would create more driveways and impervious surface.  She said she supported those rezonings and it was a much better plan than it would have been otherwise.         

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission did not approve this request, the applicant had the choice of coming back to the City Commission and ask for PUD, for example, or some other code provision that would provide for more of a guarantee for next door neighbors about height and other compatibility issues.  

Corliss said that was his understanding.  He said the zoning was not Planned Unit Development and that the applicant would need to ask for PUD zoning.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked, regarding the RM zoning that was requested, if a plan would come back to the City Commission or would that zoning be allowed and whatever height would be allowed under the current code.

Finger said the site plan would come before the City Commission.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if that would be the only time the City Commission would have the opportunity to address the neighbors concerns about height.

Finger said the City Commission would see the final plat.  The applicants provided the preliminary plat with the zoning requests and it showed the 30 foot setback for the single-family lots but that greenspace was not set aside as a buffer on the RM piece.  The Commission would have the opportunity at the final plat stage to review the requested additional separation between uses along with single-family or retention of the natural vegetation.

Commissioner Hack said this area was zoned agricultural.

Commissioner Schauner said they talked a lot about trying to shorten this process and one of the things that Werner was frustrated about was that he went through a process and then he was asked specific questions and then he brought a site plan and there would be even more discussion, debate, and negotiation with staff and perhaps the City Commission.  He said it seemed if the Commission had the authority to condition the zoning, it would make the rest of the project development go a lot faster because the applicant would know exactly what conditions had to be met early on in the process rather than doing a site plan, having to negotiate it, make changes and lengthen the whole process.  In many ways it seemed the applicant was better off, in terms of timeliness of process, to know what those conditions were right now so that whether his current owner or future owner wanted to developed that property, they would at least know what benchmarks they had to meet in order to get a satisfactory okay from someone. 

Werner said one of the reasons they thought they received a 7-0 vote from the Planning Commission was that they were along Wakarusa Dr. and the other side was up to the City park. He said they were backing up to 12 single-family homes that this owner would build, but he did not think anyone thought that limiting the entire 9 or 10 acres to two story buildings would be appropriate.  He said Wakarusa was five lanes wide and the houses across the street were going to be 200 feet away.  He said the word they used at the time was a “no brainier” for their M-1 zoning.   

He said David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, said there was no such thing as a “residential collector”, and that a street was either a collector or a residential street.  He said if it was done today, Eisenhower would probably have 80 feet of right-of-way.  He said they were having shared driveways on all their single-family homes that were required from planning when they went through the platting process to limit those driveways.  Again, they went to single family as opposed to duplex to try to cut that in half.  He urged the City Commission to approve the RM-1 zoning and they would get the Commission a site plan in a few months.         

Klingenberg said Werner was using a road as a buffer zone.  She said there were single family homes on both sides.  She said it was a nice sized road, but it was still single family homes and once again the zoning did not say that roads were used as a buffer zone.   

Commissioner Rundle said the Commission needed to make decisions based on the information and staff’s comments about conditioning zoning were persuasive.  Before the meeting someone was speaking with equal conviction that the City Commission could condition zoning. 

The fact that this area was a PRD and no development plan was ever filed, now this area was coming back and the City Commission was revisiting this issue again, pointed out the other side of zoning.  He asked if they wanted to give the applicant some assurance that he could proceed through the development once he received approvals, but they also wanted the whole approval process to take into account the affect on the neighboring properties.  He said this left the Commission open to another possibility of coming back in the future with a different plan if that area did not get developed.  He said it seemed logical to condition so that everybody had some assurance of what was going to happen and it would not be changed at the site plan stage.

Commissioner Schauner said as he looked at the map, it looked as though all the houses along that area eventually would want to get on Eisenhower to go either north or south.  He said it was beginning to look a whole lot like Harvard and if they were talking about driveways onto a collector, the next thing the Commission would hear was that they needed some speed bumps on Eisenhower because of the fast traffic trying to get from north to south and they would be repeating a very bad policy decision that was made years ago to permit houses be built on Harvard.  He said that was a little bit different take on that project, but until now, he had not heard much discussion about this street as a collector street.  He said he was concerned that permitting houses with driveways onto a collector was very inconsistent with what they required with the Harvard Road extension into the developing area west of Stoneridge.

Finger said in Horizon 2020 and the codes they tried to minimize reducing the amount of access points along collector streets.  She said in this case, the only lots fronting onto Eisenhower front onto the existing lots that were to the east of Campbell Court.  She said the applicant’s project would reflect that sharing of the driveways.              

Commissioner Rundle asked how many lots would take their access off of Eisenhower.

Finger said six lots on the west side and 12 lots with shared access points on the east side.

She said when receiving a Planning Commission recommendation there were three actions the Commission could take: they could concur with the Planning Commission recommendation; disagree with a super majority vote; or send the issue back with specific reasons for the Planning Commission to take a look at why the City Commission disagreed.

Mayor Highberger said it was significant that this issue passed the Planning Commission with a 7-0 vote.  He said he understood the concerns raised by the citizens, but he did not see anything inherently wrong with the proposal.  He said he thought the Commission had control on how those transitions worked by approving the site plan and he certainly would not be ready to approve a site plan that allowed a 3 story apartment building looking over a single-family home.  He said some of the things that were recommended, as a way to minimize the potential problems, were a step away from the type of development they would be moving toward.  He said they needed to find a way to make those different types of building work together and they would have an opportunity to do that when they reviewed the site plan.  He said he supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Commissioner Hack concurred with the Mayor.  She said when a recommendation came from the Planning Commission with a 7-0 vote, it was hard to turn the other direction.     

Vice Mayor Amyx said this recommendation did not have a plat or site plan coming to the City Commission and there would be no way that he could think of putting multiple family zoning at that particular area.  As long as the applicant understood that, he concurred with the Mayor that the height restriction, when it came back, would be of highest concern.  He said without playing his hand and conditioning the zoning he would not vote for anything that was 3 stories.

Finger said there were two things that the commission could condition conventional zoning on: site planning and platting.  These were two conditions that could be placed on conventional zoning approvals as there was case law to support such actions.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-27-05) of approximately 3.973 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), subject to the condition of recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance (the property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Eisenhower Drive); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Schauner.  Nay: Rundle. Motion carried.        (20)

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-28-05) of approximately 11.165 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District) subject to the condition of recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance and approval of a site plan prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance  (the property is generally described as being located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Schauner.  Nay: Rundle. Motion carried.                                                                (21)

Commissioner Schauner had a question about the rezoning (Z-06-43-05) (consent agenda item 6(c)) of property located east of Wakarusa Drive and north of Harvard Road.  He asked if staff had a concern about whether this rezoning would increase the likelihood of commercial retail use at this location.

Finger said based on the restrictions no. 

Commissioner Schauner if the rezoning was going to office use. 

Finger said correct, there were some limited personal service type of uses.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it included dry cleaners and other uses.

Finger said yes.  

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said during a rain event that took place last Saturday, City crews tried to direct traffic around 3^rd Street, but traffic backed up due to trains passing by in that area. 

He said 23^rd and Ousdahl had similar drainage problems. 

He said the good news was that a number of drainage projects that were completed in the last two years were working well.                                         

He said the Commission would be able to review the North Lawrence Stormwater Study in approximately 30 days.                                                                                            (22)

Discuss the annual report of the Public Incentive Review Committee.

Mayor Highberger presented the background on the information.  He said the Public Incentive Review Committee (PIRC) met in April 2005 to receive the tax abatement report prepared by Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk.  The Commission discussed a number of items related to that report.  He said the PIRC decided that they needed more guidance from the City Commission on how to proceed.  The PIRC had questions about how to measure non-compliance, what to do about non-compliance, and investigate ways to improve the use of public incentives. The City Commission asked that the report be brought back for discussion and further direction to PIRC.         

He said one concern was there was some degree of non-compliance with some of the tax abatements that were approved prior to the current tax abatement policy.  He said there was no clear direction in the policy about how to measure and handle non-compliance.  He said it was felt that it might be wise for PIRC to discuss how to address those concerns. 

Commissioner Hack asked the Mayor if he meant how to address those concerns with companies that had that contractual agreement per the new abatement ordinance.

Mayor Highberger said the concern was primarily with companies that received abatements prior to that policy.  He said he did not pick up on a strong sentiment that there should be a more punitive approach, but some clarification might be in order.

Commissioner Schauner asked if PIRC was going to provide some recommendations with respect to what those changes should be.

Mayor Highberger suggested referring the recommendations back to PIRC for suggestions sand then the recommendations would come back to the City Commission for approval.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like PIRC to provide the City Commission with recommendation on how the policy might be improved with respect to those companies that came under the new policy.

Mayor Highberger said they would not be discussing the recommendation in detail and basically the City Commission’s action would be to refer the matter back to PIRC for recommendations on the three items he mentioned including how to measure compliance, would the tax abatement policy want enforcement steps if necessary, and general ways to improve the use of public incentives.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Hack thanked Brenda McFadden, member of the PIRC, for agreeing to serve on the committee. 

Commissioner Hack said PIRC had been asked to look at what formula was used for the cost/benefit ratio and that there was some question about the numbers in terms of employees and that impact.  She asked if that concern had been addressed.

Heather Ackerly, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said PIRC had not looked at that issue yet.  She said they were going to be looking at the formula to make sure it was up-to-date and was reflective of the situations.

Commissioner Rundle asked if looking at those issues was in the works

Ackerly said yes.

Moved By Schauner, seconded by Hack, to refer back to PIRC to provide the Commission with recommendations on how to address non-compliance among tax abated companies and on how to improve the use of public incentives.  Motion carried unanimously.

                 (23)

Receive request from Lawrence Freenet.

Joshua Montgomery presented the request from Lawrence Freenet.  He said Lawrence Freenet was a non-profit community networking project with the goal of providing free internet to the entire Lawrence community.  He said they were a group of volunteers that lived in Lawrence who were building tools to help the community communicate. 

He said the Freenet project fills four major needs of the Lawrence community:

1. Freenet provides internet access to those who could not otherwise afford a high speed connection to the internet;

2. Freenet refurbishes legacy equipment and installs it in homes that would otherwise have not computer;

3. Freenet staff works one on one with troubled teens to provide constructive activities for them to participate in after school and on weekends; and

4. Freenet captive portal provides a forum for community debate and an instrument for other non-profits to raise awareness of issues and activities.

He said their group conducted surveys both in North Lawrence and Southwest Lawrence.  He said the difference was apparent in that the area around 6^th and Maine Streets there were approximately 115 wireless hubs per square mile which gave them a rough estimate of information technology (IT) density in that area.  In Southwest Lawrence there were 352 wireless hubs per square mile which meant there were a lot more computers in that area.  He said their goal was to change that and bring IT into neighborhoods were that was not available. 

He said their mission was to create free broadband network throughout Kansas communities as an alternative to traditional ISP’s.  He said their vision was that they had seen communities that were free to exchange information regardless of income or background and they saw the community coming together using this tool as a way of communicating.

He said they were also looking at alternative energy solutions for some of their backbone equipment because they had the need to locate that equipment in some places where there was no power therefore, they were looking at solar and wind alternatives to provide power for that equipment.

He said they were taking surplus computers from organizations such as the City, University, and private industry, refurbishing those computers, and getting those computers out to people who would otherwise not be able to afford a computer. 

He said they were looking at serving non-profit organizations within the community with high speed access.  He said there were several non-profit organizations in town that paid a significant fee for access to the internet and they would like to replace that with the same quality of service to free that money up in their budget to use that money for other things.

He said also, they were looking at providing voice mail for the homeless.  One issue their group identified was that they could provide the homeless community with a phone number which would give the homeless the ability to apply for jobs and receive messages from family.  He said there were a number of other IT projects that they could get involved in as the network matured.

In terms of current resources their backbone ISP was mounted on a Westar pole.  They were currently working with Westar to complete a contract that would allow them access to electrical utility poles throughout the City. 

He said they had several thousand dollars in donation with more money coming in every week and were looking for additional donations from the private sector and they were not at this point seeking municipal money to make this project possible.   

He said to provide the citizens of Lawrence with Freenet they would need to mount those antennas on light poles, traffic control poles, water towers or multistory buildings.  He said they had submitted a list of 10 to 12 specific locations initially and would like to expand that list out to 50 to 75 locations City wide.  Their preference for installing access points was as follows:

1. Install on a private residence or private business;

2. Utility pole or city building, or water tower; and

3. Westar pole (fee was charged on a monthly basis for the use of that pole)     

He said another thing that was desperately needed at the moment was space.  He said they were looking for 300 to 400 square feet of office/warehouse that was dry and had a bathroom where they could take those truck loads of computers, refurbish them and locate servers. 

He said they were also looking to buy a surplus cherry picker so they could do those installs, specifically on the poles without needing to call Westar every time they need something put up or down on the pole.

He said one of the big things Lawrence would get out of this idea was reputation and having a network of this nature that spanned the entire city and it would cement Lawrence’s reputation as a desirable location for high tech businesses.  Lawrence, Kansas was already one of the most desirable places to live in the Midwest and this idea was one more reason for a business to locate in Lawrence and bring good high paying technology jobs into Lawrence.

He said they were also promoting community events with a forum to post those events to make that information available to the entire community.  He said they could build ultrafast, point to point, links within the City.  He said they would be more than happy to work with the City to provide data services where they were needed.  The City spent a lot of money on data, on leased lines and other things to move information from one point to another and in some cases that was appropriate, but where it was appropriate, they would like to provide that service to the City.           

He said they had a lot of success so far.  They turned on their initial users this month and they now had their first backbone access point up and running and they were looking to rapidly expand over the next couple of months with cooperation from the City, Westar, Bert Nash, The University of Kansas, and a great group of volunteers that were spending a lot of time and effort to make this service available to the community at large.

Commissioner Rundle asked about the security of this network compared to similar networks.

Montgomery said they brought the network up as an open network and were deploying security over the next several months to bring the security up to the same level and quality that was expected from any ISP.  The goal was to make it work first and to secure it as items go on.  He said going forward the network would be of equivalent security to any internet service provider. 

Commissioner Hack asked if Montgomery had a longevity plan for his organization. 

Montgomery said absolutely.  He said the organization was organized as a Kansas non-profit and they had filed 501(c)(3) with the government.  He said they currently had a small Board of Directors and were looking to expand.  He said he would like someone from the City, Bert Nash, and USD 497, to sit on the board in order to make sure they had access to the expertise and things go forward in the same way that was presented to the City and other organizations.  

Vice Mayor Amyx said that there was a big list of resources that were needed.  He suggested that City staff and staff from Freenet meet to discuss any recommendations on using City property.   

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff met a few times with staff from Freenet and City staff were excited about the possibilities and being part of the team.  He said staff would want to be careful about the integrity of certain facilities such as the water tower.  He said there was a lot of possibilities and potential for City buildings that could be made available.    

Montgomery said Freenet was present to receive official sanction.  One of the things needed was to be treated differently from another outside organization.  For example, if Verizon asked to place an antenna on top of a water pole, Verizon had significant resources in that they charged their customers.  He said in order to gain access to water towers, where appropriate, they would need to be treated slightly differently and it was indicated by City staff that in order to be treated differently from other organizations that they would need approval from the City Commission.       

Commissioner Hack said if the City Commission gave their approval for using water towers or light poles and another ISP came to the Commission to ask for that same treatment, she did not know if that would place them in a difficult legal position or if it was setting some type of precedent.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said Montgomery had done a good job at outlining their needs and request.  He said he told Montgomery that it might be appropriate to come to the City Commission and indicate that request.  He said they could work out some type of an agreement that would essentially say that in exchange for the use of those public properties this was what you would be doing for the community.  He said that idea would need to be outlined in some level of specificity and discussions about liability issues, insurance and indemnification were those types of issues that needed to be responded to.  He said if they had specific requests such as not having the funds to do that, then there was some general direction from the Commission that stated their support and staff would try to work out some type of accommodation and if it was not successful, Montgomery could come back and make a case for something more specific.  He said he did not know how that would work as far as their ability to acquire insurance, retain an engineer, or putting equipment on a water tower.  He said if they were not able to do those things, then there was general direction from the City Commission to find a way to make that happen in exchange for the community service and that was the distinction that was applicable to the investor owned utilities.  He said the utilities that were using public right-of-way were providing a service for a fee, but Montgomery would be providing a service for the community that was based on a not-for-profit model which he could distinguish between.                  

Commissioner Schauner said this idea was the type of entrepreneurial spirit even if it was not a fee for service that they always wanted people to bring to this City.  He said anything the City could do within reason, the City should do.  He said wireless was the wave of the future and he would very much like to see this City be on the leading edge of that idea.  He said he looked forward to the City’s strong involvement and support of this project.  

Montgomery said he would encourage the City to grant the same concessions to Sunflower or Verizon if they were willing to serve the entire community with free internet.  He said that would accomplish all the goals that they were trying to accomplish and they could all go back to spending their evenings watching TV.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Hack said she would like to commend the volunteers from Freenet.  She said, speaking as a teacher, the digital divide became more and more obvious with school children which were a terrible and difficult situation for children.  She suggested that Freenet work with some of the after school programs if they were not already doing so.  She said there were children at the junior high level that would love to have that opportunity.   She said she was supportive of this project.     

Commissioner Rundle said this was exciting and staff had already assured him of some of his initial concerns.  He said if the Commission considered the traffic signal poles, staff would need to make sure that it would be compatible with regulations, safety and access.  He said the City Commission’s approval would be general and staff would need to get down to the fine details.

Mayor Highberger said this was a great project.  He said this idea had a possibility of having astounding benefits for Lawrence such as bridging that digital divide.  He said it would also help the bioscience recruitment efforts.  He said just the image of Lawrence as a town that understood the value of modern communications would help with many things.  He supported a motion to encourage City staff to participate and cooperate in any reasonable way.

Moved by Highberger seconded by Hack, to encourage city staff to cooperate and work with Lawrence Freenet and to make City facilities available, as staff believed appropriate.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (24)

Consider approval of application for Save America’s Treasures grant.  Consider contract GLPM Architects for design of Phase II Improvements for the Carnegie Library building. 

Lynne Braddock Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, presented the staff report.  She said staff had included in the Commission’s packets a memo that gave a brief history of the Carnegie Library and information on “Save America’s Treasures Grant” in which the City was working in conjunction with the National Parks Service.   She said this grant was not applied for by the City, but came to staff through some resourceful citizens who were trying to save some of the City’s local historical treasures. She said staff had been working with the Park Service for approximately one year with the transferring and grant funds from the Murphy-Bromelsick House in Hobbs Park to the Carnegie Library.  There had been substantial work performed on the Carnegie Library and those funds had to be appropriated or those funds would not be available therefore, there was a very quick turnaround on this grant.  The grant deadline was extended until August 18^th, 2005 so they could Fed-Ex the signed grant form to Save America’s Treasures if the Commission approved the signing of the grant application.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City’s part of the match needed to be immediately.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City’s match needed to be within two years.     

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City’s match needed to be in cash.

Zollner said the money could be a mixture of cash, in-kind, and actual material services. 

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

David Dunfield, GLPM Architects, said they had been working on the Carnegie Library Building since 1998.  At that time, it was discussed as being part of the expansion of the Arts Center which was the previous occupant of that building.  He said that project did not come to fruition, but the Arts Center had a nice new home on New Hampshire. The work that was started in 1998 carried on into 2002 at which time they undertook a facility analysis and study that began to define what the buildings maintenance needs were to stabilize its condition.  Secondly, they needed to define what further steps needed to be taken in order to bring the Carnegie back to a useful condition for the future. 

The Phase 1 stabilization project was completed in 2003 or the beginning of 2004.  He said the building was in very good physical condition. The exterior of the building was more than stable.  They replaced a boiler so that the building was at least heated during the winter to avoid deterioration and fire sprinkler systems were added at that time in order to preserve the building against loss, but the building was not in a condition that was suitable to be occupied.  It had a number of life/safety code violations in its current state.  In addition, it was far from meeting current accessibility standards.  To go on to that next step in the process, whoever the ultimate user of the building might be, there were a number of things that needed to happen such as accessibility improvements including an elevator, accessible restrooms, accessible stairs, and other improvement were simply essential as were upgrades to the electrical system, increase in the number of plumbing fixtures in the building, and a new exit stair which were all life/safety code requirements.  In order to make the building functional and operational a new HVAC system, lighting, finishes, and other improvements needed to brought up to a usable standard. 

He said those improvements were what GLPM had identified as the Phase 2 project and if the Commission agreed to those improvements, then they would need to go back into the design process and discuss how they would bring this building up to a usable standard and make the building again an asset to the community for use.

Commissioner Schauner said as he read the letter they would be getting into approximately $1,000,000 to repair, restore, and make this structure usable and habitable.

 Dunfield said given the discussion earlier about architect estimates, he cautioned the Commission about that figure.

Commissioner Schauner said he raised that estimate by $100,000 from what was stated in the letter because he assumed the figure could be off by approximately 8% to 10%.

Dunfield said that number came from a 2002 study which they then tried to roughly escalate for inflation, but it was based on some assumptions about how the building would be used and what the design characteristics of the builder were that might or might not be what was desired at this time. 

He said yes, if they wanted to discuss this issue in very round numbers, that $1,000,000 was a good figure to use.  

Commissioner Schauner asked if that figure was in addition to the $200,000.

Dunfield said that $200,000 was included.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they could get the elevator, the generic interior finishes, access, stairway and other improvements for that $200,000.

Wildgen said it would take the $1,000,000 to complete that project.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the City could get for $200,000.

Wildgen said the $98,000 would get the design work ready to prepare for the bidding for Phase 2.  He said to get a tenant in that building they needed that project done all at once.

Commissioner Schauner said by agreeing to do the work proposed, the City Commission needed to be prepared to go forward with the balance of the expense that could be in a round number $1,000,000 commitment.

Wildgen said correct.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment. 

Commissioner Schauner said Zollner had made a comment about community volunteers who made application for that grant money.  He said Mark Kaplan was the person responsible for getting that grant.  Kaplan and Congressman Moore were responsible for securing the money and Kaplan’s work went under the radar screen and Kaplan needed public credit especially in light of the fact that the Commission approved spending some money to finish up the Murphy House.  He said the $98,000 that the City was receiving, which it would not have received otherwise, did a good job of offsetting some of that expense.     

Commissioner Hack said she knew that by accepting this proposal the Commission was launching themselves into a much greater expense, but she thought the Commission should accept the proposal or that beautiful building would only sit as a monument.  She said she was not sure that was good prudent long-range planning in taking care of downtown.  She supported approval of the application and the contract.  

Mayor Highberger echoed Commissioner Hack’s comments.  He said they had been on this path for a while, but they would be continuing down the path where they would be spending a significant amount of public money, but the Carnegie Library was part of this City’s heritage and they had the responsibility of maintaining that heritage.  He said he thoroughly supported approving the application and the contract.    

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to see the Carnegie Library become the bustling hub of activities that building had throughout its life.  He said the Commission needed to proceed rapidly with the renovations rather than dragging the project out over the years. 

Vice Mayor Amyx said the Carnegie building had been part of his life since he had been born.  He thanked Dunfield for his work and Kaplan for his work in making sure that grant money was available.    

Wildgen said Dunfield pointed out that the City might be eligible for Heritage Trust Money from the state to help write down that costs and part of Dunfield’s contract was to prepare documents to help make that application.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the performance timeline for that contract.

Wildgen said 5 to 6 months on the design was the timeline.  He said sometime earlier next year, staff would bring Dunfield back to review possibilities and options.  He mentioned that on the first phase of the project, the City would receive tax credits from the state.

Commissioner Hack said the potential of the heritage area designation would afford the City the opportunity for generating funds. 

Dunfield said it was probably too early to tell.  He said that idea was certainly a possibility.  The heritage area designation would come with at least a potential for federal funding and potentially the Carnegie could be a beneficiary of that funding, but that was something that the City could not count on at this point.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the application for Save America's Treasures Grant and a contract with GLPM Architects for design of Phase II improvements for the Carnegie Library building.  Motion carried unanimously. (25)

CPA-2005-04:  Consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, which proposes to incorporate into the plan a new chapter pertaining specifically to rural planning and development of the unincorporated areas of Douglas County.  This draft chapter has been prepared by members of the Rural Planning Committee (RPC), a subcommittee appointed by the Chair of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission.  

Mayor Highberger said the intent of this amendment was to receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission.  He said from the study session with the County, the County was discussing some related rural planning issues and he suggested that the City Commission allow those discussions to take place and then try to come to a mutual agreement at that time.    

Linda Finger said she had met with the County Commission three times in the last two weeks on the issue of rural development.  She said they were making significant progress in reviewing a set of draft regulations that would allow for a different set of rules and regulation to apply to the urban growth area.  She thought there was agreement among all three County Commissioners that there was something better than the current 5 acre exemption.

Commissioner Schauner asked if any of that information was available in writing.  

Finger said that the information the County Commission began with was available in writing.  However, staff’s draft text had been revised twice based on County Commission discussion.   She said staff was working to have that information available for the County Commission to review and after that occurred, staff would make that information available to the City Commission, Planning Commission and general public.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the County Commission’s proposal was going to be integrated into the plan, or would the information be sent back to the Planning Commission to integrate into the current proposed plan.  

Finger said the County Commission was looking at the subdivision regulations.  She said they had on their agenda to receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation on Chapter 13 on August 22^nd. 

Commissioner Schauner said the concern he had was the Rural Planning Committee’s document, the Comprehensive Plan that was being addressed, as he understood it had essentially been put aside and in its place a different document drafted.  He asked if the document that was being drafted was going to go back through the Planning Commission for approval.   

Finger said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked where the City Commission would fit into that discussion. 

Finger said the subdivision regulations were jointly adopted so that information could come to the City Commission but had to go through the Planning Commission too.  She said the zoning regulations had some minor changes and those regulations were County only and so the County Commission could take final action on them. The County Commission was also considering revisions to Horizon 2020 and those revisions would also come to the City Commission after public hearing at the Planning Commission level.  She said she anticipated that these would be available as public documents after the County Commission reviewed their revisions in September.     

Commissioner Rundle asked Finger to confirm if Commissioner Schauner’s presumption was correct in that the current plan had been set aside. 

Finger said the Commission had instructed staff to begin this work because they were not happy with the draft Chapter 13.  She said she could not speak for the County Commission as to their intent with regard to an action on Chapter 13.

Mayor Highberger said nothing had been set aside.  He said after the County finished its deliberation, the City Commission would have a chance to consider what the County had done and the Rural Planning Committee’s recommendations would still be on the table.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission would have an additional opportunity to consider and discuss the Rural Planning Committee’s recommendations separate and apart from whatever was being developed currently.

Finger said absolutely.  She said that information was out there for their deliberations.    

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the County Commission could send their recommendations through the process and end up replacing what the Rural Planning Committee had sent to the City Commission.  

Finger said they could send what staff was working on through the process that would provide an alternative to what was in Chapter 13’s proposal and many of the policies set fourth in Chapter 13 were reflected in the proposed revisions but the actual regulatory language to implement these policies was simplified.

Vice Mayor Amyx said as it currently stood, the City Commission would receive the Rural Planning Committee’s recommendation as it was written now along with whatever new language the County Commission might send back through the Planning Commission.

Finger said the work done by the Rural Planning Committee was presented in Chapter 13 and the City Commission would receive in draft form the code revisions being considered by the County Commission.  She said the County Commission had asked her to revise the timeline for these revisions because of the number of changes they had made and that this task was not anticipated in the timeline.  She said staff was hoping to take the revised text back to the County Commission in three weeks.    

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Rundle said he appreciated the efforts of the County Commission to try and come up with something that would move them closer to a unified front Countywide as they moved forward.  He acknowledged that this was very unusual and what they were doing was uncharted waters.  He said he was a little uneasy that there were no guidelines or no process that was spelled out in their current planning guidelines.    

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the Planning Commission recommendation to defer action until the County Commission acts.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                            (26)

Consider adopting findings of fact and deny rezoning request for Z-06-35-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.711 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard and east of George Williams Way. 

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said this item was brought forward as a recommendation for denial which was staff’s recommendation as well as the Planning Commission’s.  The subject property was a platted subdivision and was known as the Green Tree Subdivision located on the eastern side of George Williams Way.  The streets were also constructed and platted as a single-family residential district. 

The applicant addressed the Planning Commission about a proposed change to duplex development which was forwarded to the City Commission with recommendation of denial.  The applicant anticipating closure of this item based on the City Commission’s action and had discussed with staff an alternative proposal that would be coming to the City Commission in early October for only a portion of that same subject property which was yet to be evaluated through a public hearing process. 

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Mark O’Lear, Lawrence, said he was concerned about the safety for his children.  If the duplex district was allowed it would double the density and number of cars their children would need to dodge.  He said as far as he knew, the new code did not have RMD zoning in the code.  He said if that area was zoned RMD and was not built on until the new code came into place, the area would then be zoned RM-12 which could allow apartments in that area.  He said they were led to believe that that area would remain single-family which was suggested by Horizon 2020.  He asked the City Commission to deny this request   

Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said his Association was opposed to this rezoning.  He commented about what he called incremental rezoning which meant rezoning from one level to another level to get to, in a short period of time, get to higher density rezoning which was intended in the first place.  He said he would like to see the City Commission, in general, discourage this type of rezoning.  He said if they were going to do incremental rezoning then there should be some type of change in the community that justified that type of rezoning.     

Commissioner Rundle asked if the staff report provided the findings of fact that the City Commission needed to accompany denial of the rezoning.

Finger said yes.  

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the findings of fact and to deny the request to rezone (Z-06-35-05) approximately 26.711 acres from RS-2 to RM-D, property located north of Harvard and east of George Williams Way.  Motion carried unanimously.    (27)

Z-03-20-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.4 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located south of 6^th Street and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended).

Z-03-21-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.2 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-2 (Residence-Office) District.  The property is generally described as being located south of 6^th Street and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended). 

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the two rezoning request were both multi-family zoning districts with the RM-2 being the most intense of the two rezonings which was located at the corner of Stoneridge Drive extended.  Because of the proximity to West 6^th Street the concept of multi-family made sense.  She said those uses could be backed with single-family and require through the platting, additional greenspace or setback.  She said staff did not recommend RM-2 intensity because the intersection needed to be far more controlled as well as access because of how close the property resulted in being near that intersection.  Staff recommended through the lesser change table that that property go to Planned Residential District (PRD).

The Planning Commission’s action was to forward a recommendation for approval that through the lesser change actually recommended PRD for both properties, both the RM-1 and RM-2.    The acreage was suitable for a PUD as well and staff also recognized that there were some drainage issues through this property that were going to need to be treated sensitively as they moved through that development process.               

Paul Werner, Architect, said he was somewhat thrown for a loop at the Planning Commission when it was discussed how tall those buildings would be.  He said the minutes stated that they had always intended those buildings to be two story building.  A couple of the Planning Commissioners had been to a seminar and did not want to tie their hands and convinced the other Planning Commissioners not to make that a condition.  He said a 10-0 vote from the Planning Commission said something.   He asked the City Commission to support that motion because that would give them the assurance that they were going in the right direction.  He said he could talk to his client about producing a plan and he hoped they would not get into those comments in a letter the City Commission received about buffers of 100 feet which was inappropriate to discuss.            

Commissioner Rundle asked if Werner had no problem with that original condition.

Werner said he did not.

Mark O’Lear, Lawrence, said he was happy to hear about the height limit and they would like that height limit to be a condition for a two story maximum.  He presented a map of the area and discussed his concerns.  He said everyone agreed that they did not want Winthrop Court opened up.  He said as one limitation on the PRD would be to limit the density so that when a traffic study was completed they would not need to open that area up. 

He also raised stormwater concerns and presented pictures.

He said they would like to see the site plan and zoning be approved at the same time so there was one comprehensive picture of what was going to be in that area.

Vice Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission concurred with the recommendation for the PRD zoning, would O’Lear would like to see the zoning conditioned upon the final plan being approved.

O’Lear said yes.  He said it would be nice for the residents to have a say in that process.

He said Planning Commissioner Burress mentioned that there were water drainage problem all over town where everyone would say those problems would be addressed in the site plan process.  He said it would nice to see that issue taken care of in the design before everything was approved.    

Gwen Klingenberg presented photos.  She said Werner discussed only putting two story buildings in that area.  However, at 27^th and Wakarusa there were properties that were supposed to be single-family, but all of a sudden the developer came in and now they had 3 story buildings in backyards because the zoning and plans were changed.

This particular area should not need to play host to an idea that was way before its time and not be approved in the very near future because there were no codes.  New Urbanism development was 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 ordinance left a developer to ignore the condition.  Unfortunately, the Planning Commission also let the Planned Unit Development unprotected and therefore the neighbors were looking at whatever sized multi-family the developer wanted to put in despite what they said.  She said Werner said the Women’s League of Voters reference to Canyon Court was a bad example and pointed out that Canyon Court had 2 story buildings, and she said she wanted to point out that there were 3 story buildings. 

Also Planning Commissioner Burress as was noted earlier said “It would be nice if the Commission could guarantee that Stone Creek would not be connected unless the density was restricted more access points would be needed.”  According to the Planning Commission meetings if the density was not lessened, they would be forced to have a cut through at the point onto the cul-de-sac.  She said someone said that if it was shown that more access points were needed for this development additional access would not be allowed onto 6^th Street and would likely need to occur on Stonecreek Drive.  She said Burress also suggested that a single PRD with two sections and density restrictions of 12 dwelling units per acre to eliminate concerns about the transition.       

She said at the last Commission meeting it was stated that they would like to be business friendly.  She reiterated that Commissioner Rundle stated that “Business friendly was not meant to be at the expense of being neighborhood friendly or doing good planning.”       

Chris Conroy, Lawrence, said he lived on Stonecreek Drive and was concerned about the stormwater in the area.  He presented photos to the City Commission taken in January 2005 before any development had occurred in the area.  He said in the last few weeks there had been few developments along their drainage ditch.  He said a higher density upstream would pose a greater safety and health hazard to the residents down below.   He said if there was going to be some type of development they would like to see those site plans before they were approved. 

The primary concerns from a health and safety standpoint would be that this was an attractive nuisance for children.  He said it was a 30 to 40 foot wide ditch which had significant water and no constraints for children to play.  He said if there were safety precautions, they were certainly important.  Finally, there might be some health risk associated with mosquitoes or rats that could pose a health risk to children and adults.

He said in summary they would like to see a limit on the density up stream and if they had the opportunity to review some site plans, they would appreciate that review.      

Cory Lang, Lawrence, resident on Stonecreek, agreed with everything that was said about switching zoning.  He said that Winthrop Court should be zoned RS-2.  He said when he bought his house he saw that area as RS-2, but he understood that things change. 

Alan Cowles said this whole discussion had been taking place since December of last year.  He said architect Paul Werner and developer Mike Stultz met with the neighbors on 3 or 4 occasions and the neighborhood appreciated those meetings even though there were a few differences. 

He said if putting additional population on one part of 6^th Street, you could not put population on another and still have it work.  He said if everything was developed that was requested, they would have 35 minute travel times between Folks Road and K-10.        

Veronica Howard, resident on Stonecreek Drive, suggested that it be a stipulation that the architect and developer put into writing that they could only construct, at the most, two story buildings and that the road was completely vacated.       

Werner said they had no desire to connect the street or create a cut-through through the project.  He said there might be an instance, which would not come from them, but from the Fire Department, to create a crash gate or some secondary emergency entrance only.  He said their density maxed out was somewhere in the 124 or 125 units range.  Tuckaway was right off 6^th Street and everyone thought it had one entrance, but its main entrance was on 6^th Street and had a crash gate through Graystone and that gate had been there for 10 years and never been used and it was 132 units.  He said they did not want to attach to Stonecreek and they would not have an entrance at that location, but if someone forces them to have a secondary emergency entrance what they had built before was a nice looking fence that the fire department knew that they could go through that fence if for some reason that main entrance was blocked.  He said he did not want anyone to get the wrong idea if the site plan showed that crash fence.

He said they did discuss about the drainage during a Planning Commission meeting and the best thing in the world was a PRD because it did get designed.              

Commissioner Rundle asked if the 12 dwelling units per acre were okay.

Werner said it was 12 units that were on the RM-1 portion and 15 units on the corner.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the elevation difference between the high point of their project and the person who had the Birdseye view of their project.

Werner said to the northeast it went up the hill approximately 15 feet. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the elevation on the north side of 6^th Street at that approximate location drained to the south or the north.      

Werner said he believed that it drained to the south.  He said nothing had been done to the ditch and 6^th Street had been doubled or tripled in size.  He said he did not doubt the water had gotten a lot worse.  He said there was a pipe coming out on the south side of 6^th Street and it was running wild. 

O’Lear said in the previous notes from the Planning Commission it stated that they wanted 150 to 160 units.  He said it would be ten times the density at that location.

Commissioner Rundle said with the density that had been approved, he asked if it was permissible to cut it to one access and was this something the Fire Department would typically require an emergency entrance for.

Day said staff had not closed the door on the ability to utilize the Winthrop Court access because it very well might need to be some type of secondary access.  Until staff saw a development plan, it was very difficult to access.  The Fire Department not only needed access in case something was blocked, but also to get to different sides of the building depending on what that layout looked like. 

In terms of having secondary access, she said she believed that the fire department had been commenting that if there were 30 units or more rather than single family, duplex, or some other type of multi-family the Fire Department would be looking at a secondary access.  It was quite obvious that direct access to 6^th Street would not be permitted.  She said that issue needed to be evaluated which was staff’s reluctance at the public hearing and that there was more planning that needed to go into this project.  She said as a planned unit development that was a public hearing item.  That development plan went through the same process which was staff review, public hearing meeting at the Planning Commission, and then a meeting with the City Commission.  She said it was not an automatic approval at any means.       

Commissioner Hack asked if the Commission approved those two rezoning would that move the process forward to address some of the very concerns that had been expressed by the neighbors and to have some of those concerns resolved.  She asked if there was process that still needed to take place. 

Day said yes.  Staff had also been relatively silent on the question of density whether there were 15 dwelling units at the corner and 12 units around the balance of that property.  Again, that was an issue that needed to be addressed.     

Commissioner Hack said right now staff did not have anything to look at because the City Commission had not given a go ahead.

Day said correct.  She said they did not have a plan to bring forward at that time.  She said they did do the preliminary plat and they did propose a vacation of Winthrop Court.  At a minimum, Utilities had said that if they vacated that right-of-way, which was a separate action that still needed to take place, at a minimum an easement be kept so that utilities could be in and out of that location.  She said there were a lot of issues in discussion stages.    

Commissioner Rundle asked if what was approved was all a density of 12 units per acre or was there a mix.

Day said there was that discussion and understanding, but she did not recall if the minutes specified that.  She said the request moved all of the zoning to PRD-2 and that maximum was 15 units per acre.  She said they could step down from that number for any portion of this proposal.  She said that was certainly the expectation and direct throughout that discussion. 

Commissioner Schauner said between these two items there was 11.6 acres.  At 15 units per acre that would be 150 to 160 units and at 12 units per acre it would be 30 less than those figures.  He asked if the City Commission could condition the rezoning to accommodate both the water and density to no more than 12 and a two story limitation.  

Day said yes. 

Commissioner Schauner said whatever plan was brought to staff from Werner would know in advance that it had those conditions to work within.

Day asked if Commissioner Schauner was looking at a condition that stated not to exceed 12 dwelling units per acre rather than the idea of a guarantee of 12 dwelling units per acre.

Commissioner Schauner said yes.

Werner said that acreage was gross square footage to the center of the right-of-way and they had a little over nine acres.    He said that went from the center line to 6^th and center line of Stoneridge and they were losing 2 ½ or 3 acres. 

Day said there was going to be other unbuildable ground going through that area as well with the detention and that was why staff stepped aside.  She said that area would be a unique piece of property to work with.  Certainly, the direction to the applicant had been made clear that the more intense activity would go to the corner and the less intense would go closer to the single family.  She said what that density ultimately would look like would be based on what was in that acreage. Until staff saw some more detailed plans, it was difficult to understand what was being approved at this point.

Commissioner Schauner said whatever their net buildable acreage was, he asked if the Commission could still say, “No more than some number.”        

Day said yes.

Commissioner Hack said there were concerns with height, density, and water.  She suggested leaving some of those issues open to see the plan.  She said there were opportunities as this issue moved forward to adjust and make comment on the density.

Commissioner Schauner said he had a concern with Commissioner Hack’s thinking.  He said he thought it would be doing Werner’s client a disservice because Werner would be spending time, money and effort on a plan that might be inconsistent with the neighbor’s concerns.  He said he would rather give some clear direction about the maximum perimeter within which the developer had to operate.  He said that was better protection for Werner, his client, and the neighborhood.  He said if he owned that ground, he would want to know what the maximum he could do at that location so he could build his plan accordingly.    

Mayor Highberger asked staff to clarify what the Planning Commission approved for the RM-2 zoning in terms of the density limitation.   

Commissioner Schauner said Shelia Stogsdill, Assistant Director of Planning, said the lesser change table would also allow PRD-2 zoning, allowing up to 12 units per acre which was similar to the density being requested.

Day said PRD-2 allowed a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre that the condition could restrict down to a lesser number. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if that had taken place.

O’Lear said the intent of the original motion was to permit 15 dwelling units per acre on the RM-2.

Mayor Highberger said what came from the Planning Commission was that they approved a maximum density of 12 units per acre on the RM-1 and 15 units per acre on the RM-2.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the neighbors were justified in their concerns about the access to Stonecreek.  He thought that Winthrop Court should be vacated.  He agreed that a two story maximum height should be part of the PRD, but he was concerned about the amount of density that would be on that piece of property if those items were approved.  He said that was too much traffic on Winthrop Road and that traffic would be sent through the center of a single-family neighborhood.  He said he was willing to look at the next step and conditionally zone those two items based on the plat.  He thought the number of units per acre did make sense.  He said he shared Werner’s concern about the Fire Department requiring an emergency entrance for their project.  He said before this plan came forward, he suggested that Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, come before the City Commission and explain the future plans for any type of drainage in that entire area.              

Commissioner Schauner said his concern regarding drainage was that that entire area, west of Wakarusa, was being done a little piece at a time.  He said that might work well on some issues, but water had a mind of its own.  He said as they built out the area north of 40 highway there would be more and more impervious surface.  The water seen running behind those houses would not compare to what they would see if there was a full build out of several hundred residences, north of 6^th Street.   He said they were having difficulty having a large scale plan for controlling where the water went and how they kept it from inundating the neighbors.  He said what he would like Voigt to bring to the City Commission would be a water management plan for that entire section of development so that they did not end up with having a discussion about pieces of property and how they would handle those individual properties.  He said there needed to be a bigger picture look at the water control problem.       

Commissioner Hack said one of the issues that former Commissioner Dunfield discussed was watershed drainage area studies. She said she knew Voigt worked on those types of issues, but she suggested an update on those studies.  She said watershed drainage was a concept that was being used in other areas and she suggested that idea be considered.  She said she had confidence in Voigt because he was a stickler for those types of details.    

Commissioner Rundle asked Vice Mayor Amyx what zoning cap he was looking at.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he would agree to 12 units per acre for the entire area. 

Commissioner Rundle said he understood that was 9 developable acres at the most.  He asked if that would be up to 108 units.

Commissioner Schauner suggested that they use a number times buildable acres rather than a maximum number.  

Vice Mayor Amyx said the maximum would be 12 units per acre for both rezoning items.

Mayor Highberger said there were a number of issues raised.  He said the stormwater issues that were raised he found concerning and he would like more information on long-term planning for that area.  He said they would all be paying attention to make sure that stormwater issues on this project would be addressed so that the situation was not made worse. 

He said as for Winthrop Court, he did not oppose blocking that off, but he would rather address that issue in the Preliminary Development Plan stage. He said he knew there were fire concerns and he would like to keep the possibility of the crash gate opened. 

He said he would like to see the City get to a point of designing the street network for a neighborhood like this area as a large area rather than piece by piece.

He said he disagreed with Commissioner Schauner in that what was being done now was going to make Stoneridge somewhat like Harvard Road.  He said it was not the number of driveways that caused traffic problems, but large amounts of traffic that were funneled into the streets with no place to go.  He said that issue had come up at a presentation from KDOT and they were clear that if the City was able to build a more inner connected street grid in the areas around 6^th Street, traffic could be alleviated.   He said that would mean that some people would have more traffic going past their houses than if they lived in a cul-de-sac, but it was something that needed to be done in order for 6^th Street not to collapse entirely.           

He said he understood the concept of approving the PRD zoning and the Preliminary Development Plan at the same time, in this case, because the PRD was suggested by the Planning Commission rather than brought fourth by the applicant.  He said he was willing to go forward with the zoning at this time so long as the zoning was conditioned on the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the other conditions that were approved.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with the Mayor in that they needed a different grid system for street interconnectivity, but until then, unless they had that, the number of driveways on a collector did make a difference.

Mayor Highberger asked if Commissioner Schauner’s concern was too much traffic.

Commissioner Schauner said not too much traffic, but just the fact that people were backing into a street that was a busy collector.  Again, he said he very much supported a more grid like approach to building out the area north of 6^th Street for example with fewer cul-de-sacs because that would make a huge difference in the way streets worked.     

Commissioner Rundle said concerning new urbanism, he wanted to echo what had been said earlier.  He said he appreciated the Planning Commission’s eagerness to move in that direction, but there needed to be some guidelines that everyone agreed on what new urbanism was going to be in the community before the current standards could be relaxed.  He said they could not just relax current standards and hope new urbanism happened.  He said there would need to be discussion to decide the standards that would be followed.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-20-05) of approximately 7.4 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-1 (Multiple Family Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended), subject to the following conditions:

1. Density shall be limited to not more than 12 dwelling units per buildable acre;

2. Building height shall not exceed a maximum of 2 stories;

3. Publication of zoning ordinance is subject to approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and such preliminary development plan approval shall include:

a          Consideration of stormwater issues

b.         Vacation of Winthrop Court.  

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (28)

  Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-21-05) of approximately 4.2 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-2 (Residence-Office District)t.  The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended), subject to the following conditions.

1. Density shall be limited to not more than 12 dwelling units per buildable acre;

2. Building height shall not exceed a maximum of 2 stories;

3. Publication of zoning ordinance is subject to approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and such preliminary development plan approval shall include:

a          Consideration of stormwater issues

b.         Vacation of Winthrop Court

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                       (29)

Permanently establish NO LEFT TURN 4PM-6PM MON-FRI on 23^rd Street at Ohio Street, Tennessee Street, Vermont Street, New Hampshire Street and Learnard Avenue.  

Establish NO LEFT TURN 7AM-9AM MON-FRI on 23rd Street at Ohio Street, Tennessee Street, Vermont Street, New Hampshire Street and Learnard Avenue, on a 90-day trial basis.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the City Commission received a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to construct a two-way left turn lane on 23^rd Street between Ohio Street and Learnard Avenue.  As an alternative, the City Commission suggested that peak hour left turn restrictions be established on a trial basis.  He said the TSC took a look at the results and made a recommendation to make that a permanent restriction. 

He said they also had feedback to extend those hours to the morning peak hours and the TSC recommended those hours extend from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday – Friday on a trial basis.     

He said Vice Mayor Amyx suggested looking at the peak hour left turning movements at Massachusetts, Louisiana and Alabama in which staff would look at timings to make sure they would not end up with any type of problem at those intersections.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the reason why he brought up that idea was because of the stacking at that location on Friday and Saturday mornings.  He said if missing the light and because of the restrictions placed on the left turn, the only places traffic could go were Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Alabama Streets. 

Commissioner Rundle said he was curious if David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, knew of any other intersections such as Iowa, University, or Stratford that had a high accident rate.

Soules said back in October they did discuss Iowa, University and the Stratford area and the TSC needed to take a look at those streets and bring back recommendations.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Michael Pomes, President of the Park Hill Neighborhood Association, said on the whole they did support the recommendations for the restrictions and he also was requesting that the City perform two more traffic and speed studies.  The first study would be to show what effect that the establishment of the afternoon to evening restriction had done to cut down on cut-through traffic speeding through the neighborhood and then wait for the morning restrictions to see what effect those restrictions had.      

He said he fully agreed with the devotion to keep those restrictions going and also to extend the hours.  He said all of the streets that ran parallel to the bottom of the hill which were Tennessee to Massachusetts Streets should have similar restrictions because they all caused the same problem.  He said he noticed the traffic was a lot better since the turn restriction were in place.     

Mayor Highberger said he assumed staff would be performing traffic counts and speed studies.  He supported both recommendations although he pointed out that they were imposing some temporary lack of connectivity, but that was something that needed to be considered when they consider their further connectivity discussions.   

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no left turn” from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Friday, on 23^rd Street at Ohio Street, Tennessee, Street, Vermont Street, New Hampshire Street and Learnard Avenue; and directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                  (30)

      Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no left turn” 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Monday-Friday, on 23^rd Street at Ohio Street, Tennessee Street, Vermont Street, New Hampshire Street and Learnard Avenue, on a 90-day trial basis.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                 (31)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

Moved by Schauner , seconded by Amyx  , to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2005

1. Bid – Quint Fire Apparatus to Midwest Vehicle Professionals for $685,671.

2. Resolution No. 6605 – GOB to pay for acquisition of fire-fighting equipment.

3. Bids - Fire Station No. 4, 1800 Block of Wakarusa to Champion Builders for $2,281,240.

4. Resolution No. 6606 – GOB for Fire Station No. 4 for design & construction.

5. Re-carpet – Lawrence Public Library to Commercial Floorworks for $25,975.

6. Ordinance No. 7915 – 1^st Read, 2005 STO.

7. Ordinance No. 7916 – 1^st Read, alcoholic beverages at Watson Park on Sept 4.

8. Ordinance No. 7917 – 1^st Read, alcoholic beverages at Burcham Park, Sept 10.

9. Ordinance No. 7918 – 1^st Read, alcoholic beverages at South Park, Sept 10. 

10. Ordinance No. 7900 – 2^nd Read, solid waste service rates for 2006 budget year.

11. Ordinance No. 7904 – 2^nd Read, water & sewer service rates for 2006 budge year.

12. Ordinance No. 7913 – 2^nd Read, appropriating by fund the budget for Lawrence beginning Jan 1, 2006.

13. Ordinance No. 7914 – 2^nd Read, appropriating & budgeting property tax revenue for the 2006 budget.  

14. Ordinance No. 7862 – 2^nd Read, levy assessments Riverside Business Park.

15. Rezone – (Z-04-27-05) 3,973 acres from A to RS-2, SE corner of Wakarusa & Eisenhower.

16. Rezone – (Z-04-28-05) 11.165 acres from A to RM-1, W of Wakarusa & E of Eisenhower.

17. Rezone – (Z-06-43-05) 3.2677 acres from RM-1 to POD-1, E of Wakarusa & N of Harvard.

18. TSC – “speed humps” Lawrence Ave between 9^th & Harvard.

19. TSC – “school crossing control policy” flashing beacons adopt Resolution No. 6604, amend City’s school crossing control policy. 

20. TSC – “move flashing beacons on Kentucky adjacent to Cordley at 19^th.

21. KDOT – Pedestrian Safety Campaign for $73,469.

22. City Manager’s Report.

23. Public Incentive Review Committee annual report.

24. Lawrence Freenet.

25. Save America’s Treasures grant, GLPM Architects for Phase II improvements to Carnegie Library.

26. Comprehensive Plan – (CPA-2005-04) Rural planning & development of unincorporated areas.

27. Rezone – (Z-06-35-05) 26.711 acres from RS-2 to RM-D, N of Harvard & E of GWW.

28. Rezone – (Z-03-20-05) 7.4 acres from A to RM-1, S of 6^th and W of Stoneridge Dr.

29. Rezone – (Z-03-21-05) 4.2 acres from A to RM-2, S of 6^th & W of Stoneridge Dr.

30. TSC – “no left turn” 4 pm to 6 pm, Mon-Fri, 23^rd at Ohio, Tenn, Vermont, New Hamp & Learnard.

31. TSC – “no left turn” 7 am to 9 am, Mon-Fri, 23^rd at Ohio, Tenn, Vermont, New Hamp & Learnard.