September 20, 2005
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in an open meeting at 6:05 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present. It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess into executive session for 15 minutes for the purpose of consultation with attorneys for the City for matters which are privileged under the attorney-client privilege. The justification for the executive session is to maintain confidentiality of attorney-client matters.
The Commission adjourned from the executive session at 6:20 p.m.
The Commission then met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed October 22-29 as “University of Kansas Homecoming Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of September 6, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 14, 2005 and July 12, 2005; and Hughes Carnegie Center meeting minutes of September 12, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 324 vendors in the amount of $1,609,906.17 and payroll from September 4, 2005 to September 17, 2005 in the amount of $1,552,082.94. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Teller’s, 746 Massachusetts; Hereford House, 4931 West 6th No. 126; Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar; 3900 West 6th; the Class A Club Licenses for American Legion Post 14, 3408 West 6th; Lawrence Country Club, 400 Country Club Terrace; and the Caterer License for Hereford House, 4931 West 6th. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a tree and brush chipper for the Parks & Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Vegetation Management Supply $14,895
Vermeer Great Plains, Inc. $23,970
Morbark Inc. $25,555
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Vegetation Management Supply in the amount of $17,585, which includes an up grade John Deere engine, dual batteries, hydraulic brakes rather than electric brakes and a hand crank swivel discharge (total additional options will cost an additional $2,690.00).. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Kaw Water Treatment Plant Laboratory Remodel for the Utility Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
BA Green Construction Co. Inc. $57,450
Young’s Inc. $68,331.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to BA Green Construction Co. Inc., in the amount of $57,450. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of October 18, 2005 for Hanscom Tappan Addition, 2nd Plat, Street and Storm Sewer Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of October 4, 2005 for 3rd Street, Alabama to Illinois, Street and Storm Sewer Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a three-year agreement with Synergistic Online Solutions for disaster recovery services in the amount of $14,800 per year. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7924, establishing the maximum special assessments for the Anna Tappan Way benefit districts, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7927, amending the City’s ordinance regulating smoking in enclosed places, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6609, authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for main traffic-way improvements to Harper and 23rd Street. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-05-18-05) for Hutton Farms West No. 1, a proposed 99-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 21.117 acres, (the property generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Monterey Way and Peterson Road) and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way with an amendment to the condition for the release of building permits, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following note:
a. “Each lot is limited to one single-family detached dwelling”;
b. “Side yard setbacks have been reduced from 10’ to 5’ per the approved Preliminary Development Plan for this subdivision”;
c. ”The property owners shall participate in benefit districts for the financing of Monterey Way and Peterson Road.”
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following drainage easements:
a. Provision of a drainage easement for the proposed storm sewer crossing Block 6 at Lot 8;
b. Provision of a drainage easement for the proposed storm sewer crossing Block 3 at Lot 9; and
c. Reflect Terry Riordan as the Planning Commission Chairperson.
3. Execution of an agreement that precludes development of all lots in Hutton Farms West No. 1 until the completion of Monterey Way between Peterson Road and the north property line including intersection improvements with Peterson Road;
4. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works;
5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
6. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708.a.
Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-05-19-05) for Hutton Farms West No. 2, a one-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 17.306, (the property generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Monterey Way and Peterson Road), and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way with an amendment to the condition for the release of building permits, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following note:
a. “The maximum density for this phase shall exceed 7 dwelling units per acre and shall not exceed a maximum of 102 units.”
b. “Residential building types shall be restricted to single-family detached and attached structures, to not exceed a maximum of three attached units as a single building.”
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following easements and corrections:
a. Provision of a drainage easement for the proposed storm sewer from the end of Lou Lou Lane;
b. provision of a corrected drainage easement shown in the southwest corner that ties to the adjacent plan as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan per the City Stormwater Engineer’s approval for the proposed storm sewer crossing Block 3 at Lot 9; and
c. Reflect Terry Riordan as the Planning Commission Chairperson
3. Provision of a revised Final Plat to provide a minimum of 3.15 acres within Tract B;
4. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for Monterey Way and Peterson Road;
5. Execution of an agreement that precludes development of all lots in Hutton Farms West No. 1 until the completion of Monterey Way between Peterson Road and the north property line including intersection improvements with Peterson Road;
6. Submission of public improvement plans to Public Works prior to filing of the Final Plat;
7. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
8. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708.a.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve an amendment to the building permit requirements for the Final Plat of Stonegate #4. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve as a temporary sign of community interest the directional sign at the northwest corner of Harper and 23rd streets for the Pilot Club Antique Show sign on October 28-30, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approval of SP-08-61-05: Revisions to Office Building at 1246 Haskell a site plan for revisions to site improvements to address identified inconsistencies with previously approved site plan.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Director of Planning, presented the staff report. She said this was a revised site plan for a small office building that was located on the northeast corner of 13th and Haskell Avenue. This property was originally site planned and approved in 2003 and had been a non-conforming commercial use in a single-family district. The property owner had rezoned to residence/office and renovated the existing building for an office use with 7 parking spaces.
This site plan came to the City Commission in an effort to resolve issues that were identified in the past year related to construction that did not comply with the approved site plan. The property owner was notified by the City in March that there were a number of issues with the site plan that did not comply with the approved plan. An appeal was filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals by the applicant and an appeal was also filed by the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association related to those violations.
Staff had been working with the property owner and had met with the neighborhood association to try and address those issues through this revised site plan that was submitted. The specific issues that were identified as being in violation were that originally the site plan showed a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of the building leading from the parking lot. A ten foot concrete sidewalk was constructed. There were issues with the plantings in that the landscape material that was planted along the perimeter of the parking lot and its effectiveness in screening those parking spaces from the adjacent residential areas.
She said there was also an issue in that the building included a garage door that was located on the south side of the building and that garage door was not specifically shown on the previously approved site plan. The revised site plan included the garage door and included the proposed placement of a concrete wheel stop across that 10 foot wide sidewalk to eliminate the ability to have vehicular access to the garage door and showed some additional plantings. She said staff had made recommendations that there be an additional row of landscaped shrubs because those that were planted were not sufficient in size to provide the screening. Staff had suggested that a permanent series of bollards be installed in the center of that 10 foot wide sidewalk to permanently eliminate any vehicular access to the garage door or as an alternative that five feet of the ten foot walkway be removed so that it was returned to the original size.
There had been a number of discussions about the proposed uses and the use that had been in the building and staff had also made a recommendation that the proposed uses that were allowed in the RO-2 District, specifically the type of office uses that were permitted, be listed on the face of the site plan rather than just the general office use label.
Staff had not specifically made a recommendation that the garage door be removed because garage doors were not inherently out of character with buildings in RO-2 Districts because RO-2 District could include a single-family home or duplex or a mixed office/residential building. Clearly this garage door with its orientation to the south as opposed to orientation to the parking lot did not serve the normal garage door function. Staff had provided the City Commission with an alternative recommendation that if the Commission found that this was out of character that the Commission could place a condition on the site plan that the garage door be removed and that the south wall be modified to either provide a window opening or that the garage door opening blocked up for a solid wall. Staff had worked with the applicant and believed that the permanent bollards was a reasonable compromise to in effect not allow that garage door to be used for vehicular use.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Greg Polk, applicant, gave a brief history of the building. He said this building had historically been a commercial building and was originally a trolley turn around stop for the City, grocery store, plumbing shop, cabinet shop, lawnmower repair shop, and a retail film development location.
He said when he first wanted to upgrade the property, he talked to Planning Staff and invited the neighborhood to the site and staff at that time had mentioned that site was a non-conforming use. He said at the suggestion of staff, he was going to rezone the property RO-2. He said he gave up access on Haskell and would use 13th Street as an entrance, build sidewalks, pave, landscape the parking lot, and to dedicate additional right-of-way on Haskell and vacate unnecessary right-of-ways on 13th Street.
The building was renovated and he received a copy of an occupancy permit from City of Lawrence for the property. Staff performed inspections on the property to make sure the property was in compliance. He said then he was notified by Planning that the site was not in compliance with the City Codes.
He said he wanted to discuss staff’s 4 recommendations for the revisions on the site plan. The first recommendation concerned the updated landscape schedule to provide a second row of evergreen shrubs around the perimeter of the parking lot. He said when he submitted his site plan to the City, it listed the plants that were on the plan and one of those plants was a spreading juniper. The City said that the plants needed to grow at least 3 feet tall, but everyone knew that a spreading juniper did not grow 3 feet tall, but that was the plant that the City’s Planning Staff told him that he needed to plant. He said he was confused why he was told to use a spreading juniper. He presented a photo of the site to the City Commission. He said in reference to the screening, if the City Commission felt that additional landscaping was needed, he would like to resolve that issue at this time and not involve the City’s Landscape Supervisor.
Secondly, it was staff’s recommendation to provide more landscaping around the A.C. Unit on the east side of the building. He said he did not have a problem with that recommendation and he would comply with that request.
Third, concerning the impervious/pervious site summary to reflect actual coverage, he said he had spoken to Paul Werner, architect for the site, and Werner was working on that information to provide to City Staff.
Fourth, concerning the installation of the permanent bollards in the center of the sidewalk or removed the garage door, he said the garage door had always been there. He said he did not have a problem with the bollards, but he would like the option to decide whether he wanted bollards or windows on the property and give him 90 to 120 days to deicide which best fit the needs of the property because the property was currently vacant. He said there was no sense in putting in both bollards and windows.
Finally, concerning the recommendation to specify the types of office uses, he said Stogsdill said it should be Use Group 9, but he thought it should include other Use Groups because the zoning was approved for all uses and he did not think he needed limitations on the zoning because this was not a zoning issue, but a site plan issue and he did not think zoning played any type of role in specifying what kind of use group should be on the site plan.
Michael Almon, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, read his statement to the City Commission which read:
“I am the Land Use chair of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association. It is gratifying to finally be allowed to air our grievances, after six months of inexplicable delays by staff from when we filed our appeal in the first week of April with the Board of Zoning Appeals. But the site plan problems did not arise only then, and land use problems will not end with approval of this site plan as submitted.
The problems go well beyond a simple one-lot site plan. The original site plan that you approved in March 2003, in spite of its landscaping shortcomings, is far superior to this revised one, but has proven ineffective due to staff inaction. This proposed revised site plan simply lets the developer off the hook.
If staff, at all levels, had been doing their job for the past two years, you would not be spending time on this pointless agenda item, the Polks’ would not be faced with the expense of correcting illegal construction changes or paying an attorney and architect to preserve those site plan violations, our tax dollars would have been more effectively spent on staff regulatory control rather than damage control, and the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association would not have had to waste our unpaid time watchdogging staff to operate correctly on our behalf.
So that you may better understand our grievances, let me provide a bit of context. The core issues here are fourfold. First, the hard evidence of the Polks willfully trying to operate above the law; second, City staff’s inability or timidity to enforce the law; third, BCNA being stymied in our negotiations with the Polks, and our attempts to have staff resolve the Polks’ infractions administratively; and fourth, the numerous incorrect staff judgments that BCNA could have appealed to the BZA, the most egregious one that we finally did.
Hopefully you have read the non-compliance chronology of events from March 2002 up to when BCNA filed with the BZA in April 2005. Because tonight’s Staff Review History omits some critical information, I will correct them.
In May 2002, the Polks who knew from their construction experience they needed a permit, structurally altered the building with a roof supporting I-beam to create a garage door opening, without a building permit. At the request of BCNA, City Building Inspection issued a “Stop Work Order”. The Polks ignored it, so BCNA asked the City Manager why this was being allowed. His reply was that City staff thought a permit was not needed for work done so far, even though it is specifically required in Sec. 20-1302-a-2 (Limitations on Non-Conforming Uses). Meanwhile, Planning staff had told the Polks that structural changes would require a permit, and only after the property was platted. Meanwhile, City Building Inspection issued a second “Stop Work Order”. If staff had not allowed the garage door opening to slip by, we would not be here tonight.
In June 2002, after negotiating with Greg Polk who refused to acknowledge that the commercial non-conforming use had expired in December 1999, BCNA provided the Planning Director with utility shut-off records to prove it. She issued an opinion that a tenant’s paying rent maintained the non-conforming use, based only on the word of the Polks reporting from the previous owner’s word. If such a flimsy non-conforming use case had not been allowed, we would not be here tonight.
In September 2002, the Polks attain RO-2 zoning while claiming they will provide a localized office for the neighborhood, and adequate fencing or hedges. Greg Polk stated in the Planning Commission minutes that the 10 foot wide opening they created was “window space”, but the BCNA rep noted that it was a structural change without a building permit.
In March 2003, this Commission approved the original site plan, which the Polks blithely filed as for “office use”, but subsequently applied for a building permit for “commercial remodel” (zoning application also listed commercial use). If staff had caught this inconsistency, we would not be here tonight.
In November 2004, the last building work completed was installing a garage door into what the Polks had referred to as a “window space”. BCNA was appalled but naively assumed City Inspections-Enforcement would not pass approval, because Victor Torres had told Linda Finger that the opening may need to be closed, and also it did not appear on the site plan. But BCNA was even more appalled when the Polks rented the space to an exterminator who was driving trucks on the sidewalk and grass and into the garage. If staff had not missed these “mistakes” as Victor Torres later called them, and has since taken full responsibility for, we would not be here tonight.
In January of 2005, it became apparent that staff had simply desk-issued the release of the site plan performance agreement and occupancy permit, with no on-site inspection. So BCNA took photographs of the violations and scheduled a meeting with Inspections-Enforcement in early March to prompt some corrective action.
On 30 March 2005, Barry Walthall issued the first of two Notice & Orders to correct site plan violations. However, not included in the Order was removal or replacement of the garage door.
So on 8 April 2005, BCNA appealed to the BZA for staff to include the garage door violation in their Notice & Order. The Polks also filed a counter appeal. And here is where what may be considered a string of questionable or confused staff decisions enters into the possible realm of obstructionism. City Manager’s Office Legal Staff seems to take charge of procedures, and the BZA hearing is tabled indefinitely for many puzzling and contradictory reasons.
Reasons given:
1) Appeal of staff decisions are rare, much less two appeals of the same issue, which is very thorny.
2) City Legal, Planning and Enforcement staff wanted to meet to coordinate departmental efforts.
3) At the 18 May meeting, the three Departments decided to add the garage door violation, which would make the BZA appeal moot.
4) 2nd Notice & Order on 13 June issued by Victor Torres included garage door as violation to be corrected, but Legal Dept. immediately rescinded that Notice & Order, contradicting their own agreement at the 18 May meeting.
5) Legal and Planning staff was supposedly trying to determine what the actual violations were. Hello? Can anyone read a site plan?
6) Legal staff is in negotiations with the Polks
7) Legal staff is not sure the BZA venue is proper for this case, and may take it to Municipal Court.
8) The Polks have made some site modifications – ludicrous shrubs, and a concrete wheel stop.
9) At 25 August meeting with Legal, Planning and Enforcement staff, BCNA learns the real reason for the delays – they have allowed the Polks to file a revised site plan “to address the violations”.
At that 25 August meeting, staff said in so many words that either the violations were not significant such as the landscaping, or, if significant such as the garage door, can simply be noted on the revised site plan to effectively nullify them as violations, or addressed by minor physical changes. Their main argument was that “construction changes in the field” are a typical reason for “tweaking” a revised site plan. But the Polks did not tweak their building for unanticipated circumstances. They made major construction revisions and tenancy discrepancies in full disregard of their site plan. Staff was demonstrating how they were being apologists for the Polks’ illegal actions.
BCNA strongly protested such a capitulation by staff to accept such a toothless site plan. Everyone in the room knew the Polks willfully violated the law, which should call for a stronger site plan, not a weaker one. Amazingly, the Staff Review before you tonight at least implies that you should strengthen this revised site plan.
But BCNA would urge strengthening by:
1) Bollards are not good enough, much less a wheel stop; the garage door itself is the earliest and primary violation upon which all others hinge. It must become wall or window.
2) A site plan performance agreement is not good enough; one was ignored and overlooked before, so a hefty performance bond must be imposed as well.
3) A condition on the face of the site plan listing all the Use Group 9 uses is nice but ineffective for controlling scofflaws like the Polks. The ignored the condition on the original site plan listing the proposed use as “office use”. Only removing the garage door will stop them.
On a final note, BCNA would urge two systemic changes be made to City procedures:
1) The Code Section for revised site plans be rewritten to include wording to allow "minor site plan revisions only for unanticipated circumstances in the field that prohibit strict compliance to the site plan requirements".
2) Staff inter-departmental procedures be investigated to assure that such needless catering to the wishes of developers not be the priority of City staff at the expense of operating on the behalf of the citizenry and neighborhoods.”
Beth Ann Mansur, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, read a letter from Richard Heckler which read:
“Good Evening, this is a matter of principle, a modification of this type simply cannot qualify as minor. From day one 1246 Haskell had a modified cutout the size of a garage door which I thought a bit drastic considering the building originally had large windows leaving open the possibility of retrofit. I did visit the former camera shop on more than one occasion so I was a bit familiar with it. What we have is a willful and knowingly violation of a site plan. Victor Torres is willing to except responsibility on behalf of his department. Frankly, I do not want the City accepting responsibility for the City did not commit the numerous violations on this site. This activity is unacceptable. The only practical and sensible way to resolve this matter is to require Mr. Polk to accept responsibility and restore this building to its original approved site plan. Otherwise, the message to builders throughout the City is, introduce a site plan get the City, County, and Planning Commission approval however, in the end, do as you please. It also reinforces the message being less than honest with concerned representatives with the neighborhood is an acceptable practice. While this situation begs the question, where were the inspectors, it does not in any way relieve Mr. Polk of his responsibility to produce what was originally approve by the City/County Planning Commission.”
Loralee Stevens, President Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, read her statement to the City Commission which read:
“I’m no construction or building guru, however, I can tell the difference between a bay window and a garage door.
I am dismayed that Mr. Polk in his remodeling of this building could so blatantly stray from the agreed upon and neighborhood supported plan. I am also disappointed that, despite informal and formal complaints by the neighborhood for months, city staff delayed enforcing the first plan or deal with our concerns, and then moved forward a new site plan that incorporated all the developers’ site plans violations! And then recommended that BZA not deal with these violations, but defer--in essence forwarding the new plan on to the city commission - which brings us here tonight.
At the most recent BZA meeting when this action occurred, I was stunned when one of the members asked those of us from the neighborhood why we could or would questions staff’s recommendation. We’ll I’m assuming that BZA - a citizen board is in place and public comment is offered in situations like this one! Our neighborhood strongly disagreed and still does with staff’s unwillingness to enforce the first site plan or address of our grave complaints with the Polk property.
Only one lone member of the BZA said, “This is NOT a way to do business…to delay for months, and ignore neighborhood complains, then create a new plan and never deal with the violations of the first building plan…” He was the lone “no” vote to on this action.
Our neighborhood isn’t affluent, but we are an active and aware group. We are very aware of how pro-developer-anti neighborhood this whole debacle has been. We ask that you, the city commission, send staff the charge of addressing our issues and concerns by not approving this currently suggested site plan.
How handy it would be if all of us could ignore agreed-upon plans, do whatever we want to anyway, and then, with the blessing and assistance of city staff, have it all be ok in the end.
As a citizen of Brook Creek and a resident of, I am very concerned that is deemed an acceptable way for developers to do business in less-affluent neighborhoods in this city. I’d say shame on Mr. Polk for his intentional disregard for neighborhood concerns, but what is more unpalatable to me is that this type of egregious and blatant violation actually gets city-level support in my beloved town of Lawrence, Kansas.”
Jane Eldredge, Attorney for the applicant, said it was terrible when there was a breakdown in communication. She said not once, when the neighbors had a concern did they contact Polk and they might not be so angry and upset if they had done so.
She said when the Polks bought this building like many buildings in Lawrence it was an old commercial building. This building was surrounded by two unplatted lots and was part of the Fairfax Addition to Lawrence from 1917. They had hoped to be able to use the property in a commercial capacity. When there was a dispute about non-conforming use and the staff made a recommendation as a compromise to zone that piece of property to RO-2, the Polks complied. She said the Polks met with the neighborhood and had a site plan that did incorporate the changes that were seen in today’s plan.
She said the plan also followed the landscape ordinance. She said half the plants that were used in the shrubbery were in 5 gallon containers. She said she did not know why they had not grown, but perhaps it was because the year had not gone by. The spreaders would never get to be 3 feet tall, but the Polks thought they were doing everything appropriately.
She said the City inspector that worked with the Polks was Lee Smith and in the course of the inspections the inspector asked that the brick be installed at the intersection of the roadway. She said there were changes in how they did things, for awhile they were using bricks in the City’s sidewalk crossing, particularly for handicapped access, and then for awhile they were not using bricks, but at the time that this was being constructed, the inspector asked that the Polks put in the bricks at the roadway even though it was not part of the site plan. She said the Polks asked if they could construct a 10 foot sidewalk instead of a 5 foot sidewalk and the inspector said that it would be no problem. She said that was how those two changes were made, not because anybody was willfully violating anything.
She said the photos that Almon showed with the garage door open with people in that garage were some of the Polks employees working on the building. She said that building was occupied by a tenant who should not have been in that zoning and as soon as the Polks found out about that, they worked to get that tenant out and it was not an intentional violation. The tenant had asked for some temporary office space while between locations.
She said staff had done an admirable job and she thought that retrofitting older buildings was a challenge. She said this was a building with 746 gross square feet and on a street where there were other commercial types of uses. The area was well screened and surrounded by a landscape buffer in addition to the plantings that were done. The Polks had always tried to work with staff and to accommodate what staff requests. She said she thought they had met the landscaping requirements under the ordinance, but they agreed to have more landscaping and it would seem that the appropriate thing to do was to add another 15 to 20 bushes particularly where the spreaders were in order to get the height, but there wasn’t any difficulty with the screening to the adjoining unplatted residential uses because of the number of large trees that had been retained.
As to the garage doors, there were windows in that garage door and that garage door was used most recently by the lawn mowing business that had been at that location because that was the way they got the lawnmowers in and out. She said the garage door had clearly been used and it could be seen that the driveway serviced the garage door and went out at the corner of Haskell Avenue.
All of the things that the City wanted in terms of additional right-of-way, the Polks complied with. That building was still non-conforming in that it did not sit back from the right-of-way all that it should. She said she could not see that this had caused anybody any harm. The request that they had made to either put in bollards or take out the garage door and replace with windows seemed reasonable and in either way what was being done was preventing any possibility of misuse of a driveway using the sidewalk as a driveway. She said the Polks should have 90 to 120 days to determine what was best, but not use anything until one of those two conditions had been met.
The issue of listing the types of offices was intended to be helpful, but there were other use groups that were fitting in the RO-2 zoning. She said it seemed to be confusing to only list some of the particular uses and one use group when there were six or seven use groups. Most of the use groups contained uses that would never fit at that location, but to appear to exclude them on a site plan could be problematic. She said it was important that there was clarity as to which use groups and if they wanted a note on the plan stating the RO-2 was limited to all the use groups, provided the parking requirement were met, that would be appropriate.
She said she understood what a difficult proposition this had been for everybody, but the focus should be on solving the problems and the name calling should be restrained and refrained because she could assure everyone that the Polks did not intend to cause any harm, to do anything that was illegal, or to do anything other than follow staff’s recommendation in their efforts to rehab this property which was a darn sight more attractive than it was when the Polks bought that property. She hoped they could continue to encourage people to rehab older properties and not leave those properties as eyesores.
Commissioner Rundle asked when the counter-appeal was filed.
Eldredge said both appeals were filed on the same day. She said she filed the appeal on behalf of the applicant and was unaware of the neighborhood’s appeal. She said similarly, the neighborhood was also probably unaware of Mr. Polk’s appeal. She said she did raise the question with City staff about whether a neighborhood association had standing to have an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that was an issue that did not need to be discussed at this time.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked Linda Finger, Planning Director, whether there was a site plan of record.
Finger said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the Commission could approve the revised site plan or leave the existing site plan in place.
Finger said correct.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the differences between the existing site plan and the revised site plan.
Stogsdill said the specific differences were that the sidewalk south of the building was shown as 5 feet; there was not a specific notation that there was a garage door in the south wall; the revised site plan had included some additional notes that staff asked the applicant to put on the plan to clarify that that sidewalk area would not be used for exterior storage or display; and the landscaping schedule was modified on the revised site plan because the original site plan had shown a choice of four different types of shrubs and staff said if the applicant was submitting a revised plan then staff asked that the applicant show what was actually put in.
Stogsdill also said the existing site plan said “proposed use office” and staff’s recommended condition was that those specific types of office uses, medical office, financial office, and law office, all be identified because there was confusion or an issue rose about the tenant that was at that location. She said if a use that was allowed in Use Group 7, which was community facilities, was proposed the typical process was that a revised site plan was submitted when that use changed from office to daycare and that came back through the review process and then the use was then changed. She said staff did not typically approve site plans that say they could do anything in this Use Group. She said it was for a specific use which had a specific parking requirement. She said staff was just trying to clarify what those office uses were so it wasn’t quite so broad.
Vice Mayor Amyx said by placing the language of Use Group 9 in the condition, if there was ever to be a change, then technically it would need to go back through the process.
Stogsdill said staff was not saying that Use Group 9 needed to be on the plan, but what staff was saying was that the office uses that were permitted in Use Group 9 would all be listed and would say proposed office and then it would list that it could be a law office, architectural office, financial office, or loan services office so that any of those uses would be permitted if they all had the same parking requirements.
Commissioner Rundle said it seemed that the Commission regularly received planning proposals that had Use Groups broken out in that way, but Eldredge said it seemed problematic and he wanted to confirm that was a normal process.
Stogsdill said the Commission saw development plans like Planned Commercial Developments where they were specifically restricting permitted uses and those often had specific use groups listed on them. Normally the site plan stated, proposed use commercial retail, restaurant, office, or duplex and staff wasn’t suggesting that the use group be listed, only that the types of office uses in Use Group 9.
Mayor Highberger said he differed from the neighborhood on one point in that he did not think it was necessarily bad to have continued commercial use for sites like this and that was what they were moving toward when discussing denser development and new urbanism. He said this lot was zoned residential office and had a site plan that should be followed. He said he would prefer requiring compliance of the original site plan. He said he was not sure of the utility of requiring ripping out five feet of concrete at this point, but based on what he heard from other Commissioners he was not going to make that a motion at this point, but his preference was to stick with the original site plan with modifications.
Commissioner Hack said the original 2003 site plan did not have a garage door noted. She asked if that was because there was already a garage door at that location.
Polk said yes. He said there was a garage door and someone had retrofitted windows in the garage door at one time.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with the comments that Eldredge made about the name calling because she found that to be unnecessary and offensive when people were called names on either side. She said she would appreciate in the future, not having those types of situations happen at the Commission meetings.
She said she had not seen the building, but if there were rails in the interior ceiling of a building that would indicated that a garage, at one time, did exist and therefore the necessity to mark it on the first site plan would not seem reasonable.
She said she was not going to bash staff on this issue because staff was overworked and all City employees were underpaid. She said she would approve this new site plan and she appreciated the opportunity given for some compromise and time to decide which side of the compromise they were depending upon what use was found for that site.
Commissioner Schauner said staff looked at lots of plans and mistakes might happen, but he would like staff to look at internal procedures such as two sets of eyes to look at plans if that was reasonable.
He said he was more of a strict constructionist on this than some others might be, but it seemed that the site plan was reasonably clear with respect to the sidewalk and he wanted to see that final product comply with the original site plan in terms of the sidewalk.
With respect to the bollards or removal of the door, he wanted to suggest a third option because the bollards themselves were fairly unattractive addition to the facility. He said he would like to see the door made inoperable by the addition of perhaps some exterior wall that would go halfway to one-third the way up to make the opening inoperable for automobiles or trucks and at the same time preserve a better streetscape than the bollard might and it might be doable at less expense than the removal of the door or the bollards themselves.
He said he did not know whether he favored the revised site plan or the original site plan because the revised site plan did offer some things that were helpful. He said for example, he did not know the types of shrubs that were suggested in the first instance, but if spreaders were suggested as a way to provide a three foot screening, then they needed to take a botanical course. He said he would like to have some discussion with the Commission of how they might arrive at whether they insist on the original site plan or the modified site plan such a way as to get at the same improved result than either the existing site plan or even the site plan that was proposed.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the site plan met the requirements under the site planning process. One of the concerns was whether or not windows or the garage door should be allowed. He said if they were going to require that the specific types of office uses be listed for that location, then the applicant should be given the 90 days. He said the Commission owed it to the applicant and the neighborhood as to whether or not the Commission would support the revised site plan. He said he did not have a problem with the revised site plan with the types of offices listed, but that an occupancy permit should only be granted once a use was found for that site and a decision be made on that doorway by a future tenant or owner of that property.
Commissioner Rundle said he could not condone name calling, but he could understand the neighborhood frustrations. He said when he reviewed the zoning code, Chapter 20, it seemed that there was a fairly clear process. He said when there was an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the appeal should taken within ten days of the appeal being made, but that process seemed to be interrupted. He said if they were going to have that alternative course that staff followed trying to work this issue out, then there should be some codification of that so they knew ahead of time that that might occur. The request that they clarify was a valid request.
He said his interest was to enforce the original site plan and the spirit of the site plan might be met with some of the proposed suggestions by staff such as the bollards. He said it seemed that they were in limbo in deciding whether to go with the first site plan or would they accept modifications because it seemed unclear on how they negotiated those decisions.
Commissioner Schauner said part of his concern was that the original site plan was pretty clear at least with respect to the sidewalk width. He said to essentially now be asked to forgive rather than to permit a change in the site plan, struck him as treating this applicant better than they treated other people. He said other people file a site plan and they expected those people to follow the plan. He said this site plan was straightforward at least with respect to the sidewalk width and he was not sure why they were discussing the sidewalk and why didn’t they just take it back to five feet. He said if the sidewalk went back to five feet then that opening would become a bit less important because there would be less ability to drive in front of the building and get into the opening.
Commissioner Hack said her question was at what point was the decision made for that 10 feet of sidewalk.
Mike Polk, one of the owner’s of that property, said while they were framing the sidewalk for 5 feet, he was talking with the inspector about the red bricks and asked if they could enlarge the area so there was more room. He said he put in the red bricks and added 5 feet.
Commissioner Hack said she was having a problem with asking the applicant to remove a portion of the sidewalk when an inspector approved it for a trade off for something else.
Commissioner Rundle said if someone was driving on the grass to park in the garage, it seemed something needed to be done to make that garage less accessible.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to approve the amended site plan with conditions a, b, c, and e, as written; condition d., would be revised to state narrow the sidewalk to 5 feet; and, add condition f to state at the owners choice to add the bollards or remove the garage door within 90 days. Aye: Rundle and Schauner. Nay: Amyx, Highberger, and Hack. Motion failed.
Mayor Highberger said he was not sure what public good that removal of that 5 foot of concrete would do at this time. He said with the approved uses for that building, he was not sure a garage door served any function. Obviously if there was a garage door, no matter how wide the sidewalk was there was going to be the potential for people driving through the garage door onto the grass.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-08-61-05) for revisions to an office building at 1246 Haskell, to include approval of conditions a, b, c, and e, as written; and condition d, leave the sidewalk, but remove the garage door therefore eliminating the need for the installation of bollards. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx and Hack. Motion carried. (13)
Eldredge asked if the City Commission assigned a timeframe for to have those changes completed.
Corliss said staff would interpret the motion in that there would be no occupancy until the compliance with the site plan.
The City Commission recessed at 8:05 p.m. for 5 minutes.
Commissioner Hack requested discussion of the future occupancy plans for the Carnegie Library, 9th and Vermont Streets.
Commissioner Hack said for several months she has had concerns about the use of the Carnegie Library. One of the goals this year and last year was to get the Carnegie up and running which had not been done. She said money had been spent to stabilize that building, but the building was still unoccupied. As a result, she said she reviewed the categories used to review the RFP’s. She said she had a continued concern about the current proposal in terms of the costs to the City. She said she wanted some discussion about the possibility of opening the RFP process which certainly did not eliminate anyone from applying or reapplying, but the Commission might want to broaden their search so that criteria could be met. One of the criteria was minimizing the costs to the City and that was a big issue for her at this time.
Karl Birns, Lawrence, read his statement to the City Commission which read:
“The City Commission went though a process two years ago to solicit organizations for proposals to occupy a renovated Carnegie building. The Commission established nine proposal review criteria, and after consideration of submissions, chose that presented by the Langston Hughes Library group.
The criteria included the impact of the new facility on the downtown economic vitality, and the service it would provide to the community. Another consideration was the ability of the applicant to provide the financial means to support its proposed use without burdening the city taxpayers with additional city budgeted funding.
I recommend that the City reconsider its original decision and reopen the process for obtaining an occupant of the building that will be a viable addition to the downtown area. To that end, the review criteria might e adjusted in three ways:
1. The applicants should be pre-qualified-they should have the economic resources and demonstrated organizational history to implement any proposal submitted to the city;
2. The proposals should require the applicants to fund their activities with no requests for, or requirement of additional city funds to implement their proposal and;
3. There should be established milestones and/or performance criteria that demonstrate due diligence in meeting the obligations outlined in the applicant’s proposal. These should be embodied in a written contract of in a lease agreement between the city and the applicant. Abridgement by the applicant may be used by the city as grounds for revoking the lease agreement.
This approach will provide clear guidance to the applicants of what is expected of them and also give the city the opportunity to ensure that an applicant has the ability to follow through with their proposal or else lose the city’s participation.”
Thom Alexander, Executive Director of the Americana Music Academy read his statement to the City Commission which read:
“We are Kansas’ only non-profit American Roots Music School.
We have a mission to;
Teach, promote, and support the advancement of all forms of American music…and its influences (and) to pass on the grand traditions of American based roots music to future generations.
I am here as the official representative of the Academy to ask you to re-open the proposal process for the use of the Carnegie Building.
Historically, the Carnegie has been a lightening rod for cultural and community growth in Lawrence since it’s inception over 100 years ago. We at Americana believe that it can be again – and sooner than later.
The Carnegie had been empty since the Lawrence Arts Center outgrew and moved to its new facility over three years ago. We feel that a culturally sound and financial viable tenant is out in the community waiting to occupy it.
We believe that it is important to re-open the process so that any viable non-profit organization has an opportunity to apply to use of the site.
The Carnegie can again have a great impact on the downtown community, both culturally and economically if the right organization is allowed to take over the building. That organization needs to be able to;
1. Bring different groups together;
2. Pay its own bills and staff without the help of the City;
3. Have a direct, positive and lasting impact on the quality of life in this town.
Lawrence has been known as the “City of the Arts” for sometime now. The Lawrence Arts Center focuses primarily on the visual arts and dramatic performance. One puzzle piece remains missing. A community based Music and performing arts center for the citizenship at large. An organization like Americana at the Carnegie building would complete a synergy of the downtown area in that there would be a Visual Arts, Literary, Historic and Musical component that would make Lawrence a major cultural destination point for the Mid-west.”
Sean Williams, Hedges Real Estate, said he used the Carnegie Building as a child when it was the Lawrence Public Library and was a frequent guest at the building as it became the Lawrence Arts Center and witnessed numerous performances, practices, events, shows, and watched people out onto the streets. He said it was a magnificent building and he watched with great interest as it was abandoned, stabilized and rebuilt. He said he was pleased to see the Langston Hughes group take control of the building and have a vision for that building, but he was a bit dismayed at the fact that that had not occurred over two years. He said he wanted to state strongly that he appreciated Langston Hughes’ legacy in Lawrence, Kansas and the reasons Hughes’ family came to Lawrence, Kansas because of his writings, fame, international prominence and the significance that led to Lawrence. At the same time, the rumors of having Langston Hughes integrated into the City Library might be appropriate at this time and he would endorse opening up the process to have all parties reconsider the use for the Carnegie Building.
Freda Gipp, Lawrence, read an email that she had sent to Commissioner Rundle expressing her thoughts which read:
“I’m saddened by the recent turn of events related to the Carnegie Center proposal for the Langston Hughes Literacy Group. As you recall in November 2002, I was asked to be part of a study circle entitled “Envisioning a Future for the Carnegie Building” led by Rod Bremby, Karen Davis, and Rich Minder and Barbara Watkins. This group had over 30 individuals, including yourself, Mr. Rundle, representing various groups, constituencies, and organizations. I attended on behalf of Haskell Indian Nations University. These meetings were held in the library and facilitated by Ms. Davis. As you recall, we were given specific instructions as a group to develop by the fourth session a vision for a life long learning center to be located in the Carnegie Building. In fact, the sole reason I stayed with this project was the fact that I truly felt the City of Lawrence was moving into area which could be fully supported by all facets of the community. Literacy, hard to define for most, was one component that as a community Lawrence would rally and support.
Now after almost three years, I read in the Lawrence Journal World that a shift of purpose had occurred. I find it disheartening that many individuals spent a great deal of time and effort to develop a plan based on what the initial conveners imagined a literacy center for Lawrence.
I know the core group that remains will continue to promote and develop the activity related to mission of the group. However, I for one do not wish it to be perceived that these individuals were planning for their own perspective. I say this because it appears in articles that I have read or discussion with the individuals that the group formed and developed this on their own accord. In fact, when I read about the Library’s stand and hear the issue “duplication of services” I’m reminded of the four sessions and work undertaken to ensure the Library and other services would not be impacted, but complimented. I know you’re a reasonable person and have continued to support the work as it progressed and would like to have someone who recalls the initial purpose to state this on behalf of the working group. I for one not have been the best at attending meetings lately as I have sensed the lack of support from the City Commission and retreat from the original plan developed by the study circle, had been abandoned. I do commend the few faithful who have continued to meet and work also in my opinion one of the primary reasons it is difficult for the group to obtain funding is based on the fact that no decision was made or preliminary support offered to assist in the transition. In closing, I appreciate your time and support. “
She said her only purpose in being present was to remind everyone of what happened in November 2002 when she was asked by Haskell Indian Nations to come and spend time. She said when she heard people talk about the Langston Hughes Center in town and they talk about other groups, she said she was not saying she was against the Music Academy, but she wanted everyone to remember that core group of people who developed the proposal did not develop the proposal because it was their idea, but because the City Commission invited them to develop a proposal. She hoped in the future as the Commission laid plans out that they received the follow through and the commitment and support that were given to groups.
Mike Caron, member of the study group, said he was not able to attend all of the meetings, but he had been involved ever since some of the former Commissioners were at their meeting. He said as Gipp indicated, this was something that came from many different groups in the City coming together and deciding what the priorities were for trying to utilize that building in the ways that were most needed by this community. He said he personally did not care whether they talked about a room at the library or the Carnegie Building, but he did care very much that this community had expressed that there really was a shadow in this community that was not being served. There was illiteracy in this community and it was not all reading illiteracy. There were several different kinds of illiteracy that truly needed to be addressed and that was the vision of what would be in that Hughes Carnegie Center was a place that would truly address the fundamental needs of this community.
He said he was not opposed to other people putting in their bids on the Center, but he truly believed that this community had spoken and also the past Commission that this was truly something of interest and he hoped the City Commission would not back out on their idea because the major issue was that the group got caught in the squeeze between the economy wiping out virtually all of the monies that were available for literacy at the same time as the Commission pulled the chair out from under them so they could not approach anyone to let them know that they had commitments on the building.
Jim Baggett said it seemed that opening the discussion about the use of the building was more of matter of letting the City move to the next level of how to deal with this issue. He said the City was the landlord and very few landlords could let a building sit for years and years. He said he hoped they could move forward with this issue and see something happen to a really good building that they all had their own memories of and was a great building in town.
Rebecca Phipps, Historian, said her only concern was that the building be used for the common good. She said as Director of the Watkins Community Museum, she has worked with various groups within the community and she knew there were additional groups that could also utilize that building. She agreed with Birns in that more stipulations might be necessary. She said she was not speaking for the museum, but as citizen of Lawrence. She said she would be interested in seeing that proposal be reopened with more guidance.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to correct a misconception about the Langston Hughes Center taking control of the building. He said the building was still in a state of renovation and it recently had been reopened for renting. He said the length of time that building had been vacant had nothing to do with the Langston Hughes Center. The building had not been habitable and they still needed to replace the heating and air conditioning system, the building had to be made ADA accessible. If they were going to expect the occupant to pay all of those costs anyone who put in a proposal was going to have a tough financial challenge.
He said he questioned whether it was also realistic to be critical of the Hughes Center for not having a bank role for this proposal. He said there was a feeling with some of the people in the group that without some type of definite partnership with the City it was very difficult to move forward and apply for funds. One of the goals was to try and get access to actual dollars for brick and mortar which were out there but until someone has control of occupancy of the building, one cannot apply for those grants.
He said in a study session he had presented a history of the Arts Center beginnings and if going back to the City’s contribution at that point and multiply that up into current dollars, it might had represented a more substantial contribution than people realized. That venture did not start off with a clear idea that it was going to be absolutely successful nor did they have all the finances worked out. They had a very modest beginning and anybody who started something new in that center was going unnecessarily have a history that began with small steps and grew.
If the majority of the City Commission wanted to reopen this issue, he thought that was the will of the majority, but he did think that this proposal had not been allowed to completely move forward in a way that anyone could be critical of.
He said he sat in on those meetings and there was broad representation of the community representing many different ethnic and historical interests and they were all inspired by the proposal. When they put that all down into a two page summary, to turn in at the end, somehow they were not able to inspire the Commission the way that the group was inspired and he suggested that they kept working on that proposal. He said he felt that a new venture would add something different to the community and he did think they needed two Arts Centers in the community and this proposal was oriented more towards humanities which remained a great strength.
Commissioner Schauner said he concurred with much of what Commissioner Rundle stated. He said as one of the previous speakers said, he thought there was a shadow of un-served need in the community and there was a literacy divide in this community around different types of literacy abilities. He said it was not so much a matter of whether the literacy activity was a worthwhile activity or not, but rather where the literacy activity took place.
He said he could remember a study session they had a few months ago in which the Commission received a budget and some other details of a business plan related to the Langston Hughes Literacy Center. At that point, he thought he sensed a lot of frustration on the part of the Literacy group. He said he knew he was frustrated about the lack of concrete progress toward them putting together a business plan that the Commission could embrace and move forward.
In the final analysis, he was convinced that even a well written on-target business plan for this activity would ultimately require on-going city support for its operation in that facility. He said for that reason he believed that they should re-open this matter for other uses. He said he liked that building to be self supporting at least operationally. He said it had not been this Commission or the prior Commission’s interest in asking any tenant to pay for the bricks and mortar renovation, ADA compliance matters, roof, windows and all the rest of those improvements. He said that was something the City would probably undertake to pay for out of City funds.
He said he would very much like to see the City, and in particular the Library, as they moved forward with the library project, not only invite, but encourage the literacy group to become part of that library development process. He said he would like to see the library embrace the literacy activity. The details of that would need to be worked out by other people, but as one Commissioner he was very supportive of the literacy activity, but he was not convinced that the literacy activity could be self supporting in a way that would make its operation in that building operating without on-going city support and he preferred that they reopen the building use for additional applications.
Vice Mayor Amyx said after going to the meeting on the planning of the new library, he thought it might be appropriate to integrate the Langston Hughes group into the library which would be an important part of the new library complex.
He said when looking at the criteria for ratings for those various groups, minimizing the City’s costs was important. He said that facility would require many improvements which would be costly. He said they were going to make money on that facility, but there would probably be a way to minimize the cost to the City. He said he would continue to support the City’s participation in upgrading improvements to that facility. He was in favor of opening the RFP process to other organizations for the Carnegie Building.
He said he liked the information that was provided by Birns concerning the Langston Hughes Center proposal and if that RFP process was opened again, he would like staff to review the criteria that Birns had proposed.
Commissioner Schauner said perhaps this Commission or the previous Commission owed the Langston Hughes Center an apology. He said he thought there was some fault by one of the Commission’s by not being specific enough in when that building would be available for occupancy. He said that probably led to some of the confusion and frustration on the part of the Langston Hughes Group. He said with that being said, not only did he think the Commission should be looking at some of the suggestions that Birns made, but the Commission should be willing to create their own set of benchmarks for when that building would be available for occupancy so that a prospective tenant could build a business plan around those expectations. What was good for one side was good for the other and the City should be transparent with respect to its plan for renovating that facility and when it would be available for whomever.
Commissioner Hack said she liked Birns’ comments in terms of the financial issues. She agreed with Commissioner Schauner that there had been a gap in terms of where they thought they were going and where they needed to be going in terms of finances.
She said she appreciated a comment in an article that the ideas that the Hughes group came up with and embraced were inspired by more than a building. She said this was in no way abandoning the wonderful inspiration and the wonderful conversations that they had when they brought people together for those meetings because they were tremendous and opened people’s eyes and she believed that it was in communication of the situation of the shadow that they became a better community. .
She said they needed to look at the parameters of what the building could be in terms of the facility, the timeline, and how much it still needed.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that was why they had an architect working on those plans.
Commissioner Hack said she knew plans were being worked on but that kind of information would be helpful along with some of the financial aspects of the RFP would be helpful to the applicants.
Mayor Highberger said there was a reason the Langston Hughes proposal rose to the top of the list of applicants in the last RFP process. He said one reason was because the Commissioners recognized the real importance of the work that the Langston Hughes group was proposing. He said they did have an unmet need in this community and this was a way to address that need. However, he had some concerns about how that need interacted with the use of that building. He said he had been very supportive of the Hughes group and it did not matter what this Commission did, he thought they needed to communicate strongly to the Library board and the New Direction Task Force that in the event that they did reopen the RFP and the Langston Hughes Group was not the recipient, that the Commission strongly desired that there be a place in the new library for this program.
He said when Commissioner Schauner talked about self sufficiency, he said this program would never be self sufficient and would require some community support. He said he had come to a conclusion that there might be a more cost effective way to do that. He said if they reopened the RFP, it needed to be clear that preference would be given to someone who could cover a large portion or all of the costs of the remaining renovation.
He said he understood that the fundraising efforts by Langston Hughes had been difficult because they had been caught by dwindling funds and the City was in the same position. He very reluctantly supported re-opening the RFP process.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to voice his concern about the lack of any kind of background materials ahead of the meeting. He said the Commission would be shooting from the hip if they made very detailed decisions at this time. He said the Commission needed to think over this information and be thoughtful in whatever was done. He said in laying out this expectation, there would be little costs to the City and the Commission needed to evaluate that as a general policy. He said they continued to support the Arts Center and had since they began their building. He said if that was a criteria that community groups had to be self sufficient then they had a large policy discussion to undertake. There were certain things that were community services and community resources that could not be accomplished without, at least a partnership, if not some support from the City.
He said this cost consciousness has not been something that they had applied as a general rule. He said they had never insisted that staff be looking internally for cost efficiencies and that was part of that whole discussion of financial resources. He said the City needed to do better at applying those things consistently.
Commissioner Hack said she would like to clarify the opportunity to open up the RFP process. She said she was not asking that they create an RFP at this time and the actual content of the RFP and the requirements would be on a future agenda and she requested that her request take place as soon as possible. The materials that she had asked Wildgen to provide to the Commission were the same material they had in terms of what they used to make decisions the last time. She said the idea behind this agenda item first was to have a discussion and second, to see how the rest of the Commission felt about opening up the RFP process. If the majority of the Commission decided that they wanted to open up that RFP process, then the Commission should turn it over to staff with the suggestions the Commission received to help draft an RFP for City Commission approval.
Commissioner Rundle said making hard decisions at this point was something he would rather not do at this time.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to prepare a draft RFP for the Carnegie Building and incorporating comments regarding financial backing, a timetable for the building, and other comments heard this evening for City Commission approval. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (13)
Receive a Public Works Department report on stormwater management, including information on the stormwater utility, capital improvement projects, engineering standards, review of land development, system maintenance and pollution prevention. Receive a Public Works Department memo on EPA compliance related to car washing and cleaning of pavement.
Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, presented a power point presentation to the City Commission regarding stormwater management. He said when looking at stormwater management, engineers looked at hydrology versus hydraulics in determining run-off versus capacity in the City’s system.
He said hydrology was the science of water on the earth and how it moved around. He said the section that engineers were worried about in stormwater management was what generated run-off which was land area. He said land area meant watershed which was a buzz word that was heard often and watershed was a tributary area and was defined by topography. He said it was all of the land area that drained to a point, but that point was arbitrary because a person could be standing at one curb or standing at the bottom of the river but at either point, watershed could be defined.
The second piece of hydrology was land cover which was the surface of an area in which engineers would look at what types of soils or land use was in the area.
He said the final piece of the hydrology in the run-off equation was the rainfall which was not neatly packaged. He said when you look at actual rainstorms plotted on a graph they were not something an engineer wanted to enter into a computer program so engineers had simplified rainfall with a hyetograph which was graph of rainfall over time and those were idealized for use in computer models.
He said land area, land cover, and rainfall generated run-off which was plotted in the engineering studies as a hydrograph.
He said to try and match run-off engineers had to look at hydraulics in our system. He said sizes and material went together and then slope. In engineering plans they were always dealing with slope which needed to be identified and the most important issue was to make sure it was built to the proper slope. He said with size, material, and slope, there was capacity which engineers then had to compare back to run-off.
He said that was a simple stormwater management picture. If capacity was greater than run-off then there was a nice picture, but if run-off was greater then capacity then there were problems.
He said back in 1890 they had basically size and material. He presented a picture of the bridge in Watson Park where that watershed developed from that impervious surface which happened in the span of 60 years and that was the storm system that was built during that time period.
He said in 1950 to 1970, there was more land area therefore more run-off in which engineers started to get a handle on. Engineers also had a handle on the slope versus material and size in the hydraulics equation so they could start sizing pipes a little more accurately. He said when they developed that area they actually placed storm sewers in the ground that started to reflect what the engineers expected. The problem was the unknown such as the upstream areas that developed later and were heavily paved which generated conditions.
In current standards, engineers had all the pieces of the picture at their disposal so that when engineers developed today, they looked at something like a cornfield turning into a neighborhood and they know that for instance that an old county box culvert needed to come out to be placed with a different box culvert.
He said when engineers were ready to design a system the only thing they could deal with was size and material. The land area was predetermined by topography, land cover was predetermined by the planning process before engineers looked at it and rainfall and slope were also predetermined. He said if engineers were dealing only with size and material that might sound fairly simple, but then if you look at the systems there were curb inlets that were new and old and many other types of materials that they were dealing with. He said size and material were a lot of interesting things to deal with, but engineers were able to come up with another way to find someway to control the world, so engineers looked at run-off. He said the engineers stepped back and thought about the idea of controlling run-off before they had to deal with the run-off and thus, invented detention basins. He said the way detention worked was that it modified the hydrograph by carving the peak off, extended the outflow time and reshaped the volume of that hydrograph which helped the downstream system.
He presented pictures of a bare boned detention basin for a big development which pointed to the issue that detention was not always the prettiest thing and most people were not fans of detention. He said that led to the question of what else engineers could look at besides detention. He said that led engineers to look back further and land cover was a big piece of the puzzle, but engineers did not have a lot of control over land cover, but planners did which led to watershed planning. He said with watershed planning, if you could change that land cover part of the equation then the run-off could be affected and on down stream system requirements could be reduced.
He said watershed planning was conservation of resources essentially upstream to try and save areas that were going to help cut down on run-off and reduce stormwater pollution. Watershed planning was also trying to figure out how to prevent that detention basin which was an eyesore and make it more of an amenity to the community.
He said Lenexa, Kansas had good examples of watershed planning at work with their Rain to Recreation Program. He said Lenexa produced a Master Plan for the community that was based on watershed planning and it provided stormwater management for future development, recreational opportunities, habitat, and conservation and natural resources. Obviously when discussing implementing a program like that, it was no longer just public works or engineering, but planning and other departments.
He said stream buffers and stream corridors were another piece of watershed planning and Lenexa also had an ordinance that dealt with good stream management. Stream buffers were a newer concept and could have a lot of different components, but in the case of Lenexa, they had three zones that they had defined and with each zone they increase the restrictions on uses that were allowable so that down by the stream someone could not modify the ground or build structure. He said higher up stream someone could use that for other uses which provided a buffer strip for run-off and also stabilized the stream. A lot of money spent in Lawrence and any town had spent involved stream bank degradation, stream erosion, and loss of property, but this type of buffer would help prevent that.
He said they did not have a lot of watershed management milestones in Lawrence that could be shown, but they had the pieces in place and what they had done recently was develop a watershed map which was a powerful tool in review of development. He said one of the powerful things about having watersheds mapped was that an engineer could answer a question of where an area drained to.
He said in 1996 the City completed the Stormwater Management Master Plan which was a turning point for the program. The Master Plan provided an engineering analysis of our citywide storm system and with that it made recommendations about what to do about the problems that were recognized. Those recommendations were:
• Prioritized list of system improvement projects;
• Update engineering standards for development;
• Add a field crew to City staff for stormwater maintenance;
• Add staff for engineering and program administration; and,
• Form a stormwater utility to fund the program.
He said a stormwater utility was structure was capital improvements, storm sewer maintenance, and reviewing developments, were the three key pieces of what they did.
He presented the Stormwater Utility Timeline to the City Commission from 1996 to the current year.
He said looking ahead staff would work under the model of capital improvements, stormwater system maintenance, and review of development and staff would forge ahead with that model because this City had plenty of capital improvements on the list.
Commissioner Rundle asked how much longer before the floodplain regulations that were adopted would be effective over the currently developed area. He said there was a delay period before those regulations went into effect for newly developed areas.
Voigt said he thought all of those grandfather clause types statements were past that point.
Commissioner Rundle said concerning the stream buffering, that buffering allowed for savings and water treatment cost which in turn made development more affordable and freed up resources for other needs in the community. He said stream buffering sold itself by looking at Voigt’s presentation.
Commissioner Schauner said when remodeling an open stream renovation, he asked how long it would take before that would need to be redone.
Voigt said the idea was not to go back. It was graded so the channel capacity would not want to grow larger. The materials that were put down had a life expectancy of 20 years, but by the time those materials were gone, the trees that were planted and the trees that volunteer would have generated root system and there would be a natural stream that had grown up on its own within a cross section that was defined.
Commissioner Schauner said there was a growing concern that the City’s not only water quality, but water supply would be damaged if something wasn’t done sooner than later with respect to siltation at Lake Clinton and other places. He asked how the City’s regulations moved in the direction of slowing the siltation of Clinton Lake.
Voigt said siltation was a natural process and it would happen no matter what and lakes were not natural in Kansas so siltation was a particular problem even if the ground was not touched. Once the ground was touched, that was where the problem came. The City’s regulations on construction site controls were intended to reduce siltation downstream. He said they were trying to stop sediment from leaving the site which was a failing effort all the time. Over time, the hope was that a dent would be made in this issue. Aside from that, if wanting to look more into a watershed planning approach those in closed systems, the traditional storm sewers funnel everything downstream and they did not retain anything. If placing sediment in the system and pipe it through a lot of concrete pipe it was going to stop where it was dropped. If there was a system with more open channels and stream buffers that sediment was being naturally transported and it would keep moving downstream, but the pace had been dramatically changed. He said there was a code that disallowed that, but if wanting to look at a long term answer there were some land use issues that could change that. It was all hypothetical, because the City was not upstream from Clinton Lake.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this City should be working with Topeka and other communities that direction as related to siltation questions to Clinton.
Voigt said there were minimum EPA standards that Lawrence and Topeka needed to follow and at this point, as much as anybody intended to do. The Kansas Water Office also had a lot of good programs started like looking at watersheds like Clinton to try and improve water quality, but that was more of a decade’s long planning process.
Commissioner Rundle said he had been out in a heavy rain in the area that was east of the rail bed near Haskell. He said between 19th and 15th Street the water backed up on the east side in such a way that it looked that it would be to the City’s advantage to open up the rail bed. He asked if the rail bed had been opened up in the Oregon Street project.
Voigt said no. He said the reason why it was not opened was because the flooding was so bad at Parnell Park on the other side of the tracks that it actually flowed backward. He said if it was opened up it would create more of a problem for those people in the area. He said now that they had the system downstream at 13th and Oregon reconstructed there might be a possibility to do that and staff took that into account when they did the planning for the Hanscom/Tappan Development and they were actually going to open up through the rail bed in two places.
Voigt said regarding the staff memo on EPA stormwater compliance related to car washes. Voigt read a section of the memo.
“The Kansas Department of Health and Environment issued a permit to the City of Lawrence on September 24, 2004, regulating stormwater discharges from the city. This permit is required by the EPA, through amendments to the federal Clean Water Act.
As a permitted storm sewer operator, we’re required to implement codes and practices to reduce pollution discharged from our storm sewers into the Kansas and Wakarusa Rivers. The program places emphasis on (1) public education about the impacts of stormwater pollution (2) enforcement of local laws to prohibit stormwater pollutants.“
Commissioner Schauner said a couple of issue had been discussed this last year, one issue was washing down sidewalks downtown and the other issue was car washes. He said he would like some conversation about whether EPA rules, as they currently existed or this City’s ordinance as it was currently written, prohibited sidewalk washing downtown if the debris was first cleared away. He also asked if fund raising car washes were specifically prohibited by EPA rules.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in the memo it discussed pavement cleaning. He said his business was at 9th and Massachusetts and if he cleaned that area and someone dropped a drink, he asked if he could spray the area off if there was no other debris.
Voigt said the EPA stated that pollution needed to be prevented and specifically that wherever pollution was found, it needed to be stopped. Obviously, there were priorities and a drink spilled on a sidewalk was lower priority than a motor oil spill. He said they were trying to reduce the pollutants continuously. The reasonable and realistic expectation was that an owner of a downtown business could hose off their own property if it did not involve hazardous material, but if a power washing company was cleaning the front of the building in preparation for repainting and there was lead paint being washed in the storm sewer those were two different issues. He said that was where it became a little bit difficult from enforcement standpoint to explain to people what was exactly in the water. The EPA had this discussion 10 years ago on how to implement this program and their discussions centered on whether they looked at each city and told each city that they needed to find the pollutants, list those pollutants and then make those cities go get them or should they just use the general guidelines. He said in some cases they were moving toward identifying pollutants, but the cost would be very high.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there was a way, by ordinance, to make known to business owners, the idea of sweeping up debris before rinsing their sidewalks. He also asked, if by ordinance, if the Commission could provide a way for fundraising car washes.
Voigt said there were ways to provide those ideas and all those steps were opportunities to implement the intention of the program which was public education. If you could tell someone the right way to do something then you have gotten the message across.
He said no one had received notices for washing sidewalks downtown, but they had stopped some power washes that were washing off the sides of building that were contracted to do that and that was the distinction that was made. If someone was in the business of power washing, then they should be following EPA regulations. He said he had stopped an owner from using a power washer on their property at 23rd and Iowa who was creating a huge mess in a concrete parking lot. He said each individual situation needed to be looked at uniquely.
He said the reason that the sidewalk issue came up was because of the smoking ban which led to the sidewalk dining boom. Therefore, uses were being taken to the sidewalks that generated waste and he wondered if those businesses could keep the area clean cost effectively. He said if the City Commission allowed sidewalk dining and three months later staff informed those businesses with sidewalk dining that it was going to cost $3,000 to clean up each year then the business owners might question why the Commission stated that everything was fine.
Commissioner Schauner asked if he discharged water into a sanitary sewer there was a different standard for what he could put into a sanitary sewer versus a storm sewer. He asked Voigt if that was accurate.
Voigt said that thinking was accurate. He said the sanitary sewer went to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and went through several processes and then it was discharged into the Kansas River. He said storm sewers went directly to the Kansas River.
Commissioner Schauner said theoretically, he could power wash a sidewalk if all that water went into the sanitary sewer, whereas that might not be a permitted activity if all the water ran into the storm sewer.
Voigt said correct.
Commissioner Schauner said on the car wash side if there were a way to cause all that water to go into a sanitary sewer that would not be an EPA issue or concern under the City’s ordinance.
Voigt said all commercial car washed went directly to the sanitary sewer and a fundraiser car wash could and would solve that problem. He said it could also go into a grassy area and that would satisfy the concern. The problem was that those fundraisers usually happen at a corner of a major intersection where there was nothing but concrete.
Commissioner Schauner said in Voigt’s memo that some cities provided kits to fundraising car washes that could deal with the issue of run-off.
Voigt said they had some local car wash owners and auto dealers who had offered their facilities where it was draining into the sanitary sewer which took care of the problem and staff was hopeful that would be a solution.
Commissioner Rundle said a website mentioned that a gallon of motor oil could make a million gallons of water undrinkable and he asked if that was a gallon released all at one time. He said it seemed there was easily a gallon of oil swept into the City’s streets whenever there was rainfall. He asked if there was less of an impact whenever it was disbursed all over the community and diluted into the storm sewers.
He said that was a gallon of oil dropped in a large water body. He said there was probably a gallon of oil everyday that came out of the City of Lawrence into the water bodies, which was in a defused manner, but that was bad. He said that was whole point of this program was the non-point nature of the pollution.
Commissioner Schauner said he regularly saw concrete trucks perform washouts at the end of a delivery. He asked what the proper procedure was for washing out those trucks.
Voigt said concrete trucks needed to either dig a hole, wash the concrete in that hole which would solidify, bury the concrete, or haul it off as solid waste. He said 5 years ago that concrete was going into the storm sewer inlets plugging those inlets up.
Commissioner Schauner said a few months ago there was discussion about a homeowners association at the corner of 31st and Kasold. He said they were downstream from a lot of water-run off and had a concern that that particular homeowners association was handed a liability. He said he did not know that they, as an association ever understood the liability that they were assuming. He said he wondered if the Stormwater Management Office along with Planning could come to the City Commission with a recommendation about limiting the obligations that developments impose upon prospective homeowners or members of the homeowners association. He said it seemed if the City was more proactive upfront that the City could have avoided handing off to that relatively small number homeowners, a very significant cost.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said he, the Mayor, and Voigt had met with the homeowners association and they had a plan.
Commissioner Schauner said that issue would be fixed, but in the longer view of this issue, he asked how they could keep that from happening again.
Voigt said the biggest problem in that location was the fact that the stream required maintenance as a condition of the hydraulics and they were not allowing that anymore. He said there were systems that were designed for a 100 year storm, plus some free board where no one could live there and it had to be able to pass that water without maintenance. He said if they wanted to make it a soccer field, great, but they were not going to plan it that way. He said the hydraulics these days would prevent the issue that occurred. The question of whether a homeowners association should own that stream, detention basin, swimming pool, or a frontage landscaping, those discussions happen every time they had a meeting for plan review among various departments that had an interest and it was a common discussion. He said code language could be done, but looking at it with staff, on a case by case basis, as part of their review to see what was realistic, seemed to be working fairly well.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said there was a continuing struggle with the issue of maintenance of some of those drainage facilities where those facilities were not large enough under the criteria that had been developed for the Public Works Department, Voigt’s division, to handle. He said it was still a requirement to do that improvement. He said an example was the Oregon Trail Addition where staff was not going to accept that detention area and it would be a homeowners association that would be responsible for maintaining it. Hopefully it would be designed in a way that it would not be a major maintenance issue.
Commissioner Schauner said it sounded as though there had been improvements in that area, but the City was still passing off to the unknown future buyers, some responsibility that might or might not be fundable by them. He said he was concerned about creating an unknown liability for future owners of property whether it was a detention basin or whatever, at some point those things would need work.
Corliss said concerning the Creekwood drainage channel, their development requirements for at least half of the property indicated in their restrictive covenants that they would participate in a benefit district for those improvements. That was essentially what the City did, was that a benefit district was created where the property owners participated on both sides of the creek and the public large participated. That was a possible solution for future storm water improvements, but it was not geared toward the annual maintenance that might be required. He said what Voigt was getting at was that they would want to design things that would not require that type of maintenance.
Voigt said and if they default on that maintenance that it was not going to become a hydraulic issue and a flood issue. He said this issue was more important when discussion private streets and when discussion getting around zoning by calling it a PRD versus a subdivision and what were those homeowners winding up with. He said the homeowners were winding up with streets that would not be plowed or streets that probably would not last as long. He said staff forced their hand and made them design storm sewers per City standards and those storm sewers were being inspected. He said there was a boom in PRD development that created a lot of future work and expense for those homeowners. (15)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Receive 2006 City Employee Health Plan Contract Renewal Report.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, said the memo the Commission received contained five major recommendations which were:
• We recommend continuing with BCBSKS for administration of comprehensive major medical and dental benefits and MedTrak Pharmacy Services for administration of prescription drug benefits.
• We recommend increasing employee contributions for dependent coverage by $1.00 per pay period, to $82.50, beginning with the first full pay period in 2006 (pay date 01/27/06).
• We recommend that retirees continue to pay 80% of the monthly premium equivalent for their coverage. Therefore, the monthly rate for single coverage, including dental, would increase $12 to $221. The monthly rate for family coverage, including dental, would increase $36 to $661.
• We recommend increasing the specific (individual) reinsurance coverage from $75,000 to $100,000 and removing dental from both the aggregate and specific reinsurance coverage.
• We recommend continuing to negotiate with BCBSKS the following three points:
a) New preventive benefits;
b) A more comprehensive reporting package to be included in the BCBSKS renewal contract; and
c) The processing of run-out claims in the renewal contract with BCBSKS.
Commissioner Schauner asked if retirees were rated against the entire plan or where those retirees rated separately.
Reeb said he believed a retiree was covered under the entire plan, but he said he would check on that answer and report back if he was mistaken.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the recommendations for the City’s health plan mirrored the discussions they had during the budget process. He said it was discussed that retirees were rated and covered under the same plan.
Commissioner Schauner said concerning changing the individual attachment point on reinsurance from $75, 000 to $100,000, he asked if that was an $85,000 possible savings.
Reeb said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked Reeb if that was fair gamble.
Reeb said he failed to mention that when they marketed the City’s health plan, they received assistance from R.J. Dutton out of Kansas City, Missouri, and that was their recommendation. R.J. Dutton had performed that analysis and recommended that it was appropriate based on their review of the City’s past history that it was worth the gamble. He said there would need to be more than four employees to exceed $75,000 and with the exception of one year that had not happened in the past few years and staff thought it was worth the gamble.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to proceed with the recommendations as presented in the staff report. (16)
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Vice Mayor Amyx, said concerning the sewer study and capacity problems in the northwest area, he asked staff for a list of all the projects that the City had that would be affected that they would either put on hold or recommend for denial.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid – Tree & brush chipper to Vegetation Mgmt Supply for $14,895.
2. Bid – Kaw Water Treatment Plant Laboratory remodel to BA Green Construction for $57,450.
3. Bid Date – 3rd, Alabama to Illinois on Oct 4.
4. Bid Date – Hanscom Tappan Add No. 2, Oct 18.
5. Agreement (3 yrs) – Synergistic Online Solution for disaster recovery services for $14,800 per year
6. Ordinance No. 7924 – 2nd Read, Max assess for Anna Tappan Way.
7. Ordinance No. 7927 – 2nd Read, (amend) smoking in enclosed spaces.
8. Resolution No. 6609 – GOB main traffic-way to Harper & 23rd.
9. Final Plat – (PF-05-18-05) Hutton Farms W No. 1, 99-lot residential, 21.117 acres, SE corner of Monterey Way & Peterson.
10. Final Plat – (PF-05-19-05) Hutton Farms W No. 2, 1 lot, 17.306 acres, SE corner of Monterey Way & Peterson.
11. Modify building permit requirements for the Final Plat of Stonegate #4.
12. Approve as a temporary sign of community interest the directional sign at the northwest corner of Harper and 23rd streets for the Pilot Club Antique Show sign on October 28-30, 2005.
13. Site Plan – (SP-08-61-05) office bldg, 1246 Haskell.
14. Carnegie Library – Future occupancy plans, 9th & Vermont.
15. Storm Water Management report including compliance related to car washing.
16. 2006 City Employee Health Plan