December 6, 2005

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Rundle, and Schauner present.  Student Commissioner Frei was present.  Commissioner Hack was not present

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of October 19, 2005; and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of October 24, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 318 vendors in the amount of $1,022,531.62.  Motion carried unanimously.          
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Fatso’s, 1016 Massachusetts; It’s Brother’s Bar & Grill, 1105 Massachusetts; West Side Deli & Market, 4931 West 6th, Ste: 106; Wheatfield Bakery Café, 904 Vermont; Quinton’s Bar & Deli; 615 Massachusetts; Yacht Club, 530 Wisconsin; Bottleneck, 737 New Hampshire; Local  Burger, 714 Vermont; Wa Restaurant, 704 Massachusetts; the Retail Liquor License for Spirit Liquor, 600 Lawrence Avenue, Ste: 1A; and Diane’s Liquor, 1806 Massachusetts.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Bessie Walker to the Human Relations Commission, to a term which will expire September 30, 2008; appoint Emily Donaldson to the Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging to a term which will expire September 30, 2008; and reappoint Andrew Tsubaki, Gina Ross, William Keel, and Michael Kennedy to the Sister Cities Advisory Board which will expire December 31, 2008.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a Breathing Air Compressor for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc.                           $41,235.80

                        Bauer Compressor Inc.                                  $44,405.00

                        JRL MKT                                                         $48,129.00

                        Weis Fire & Safety                                          No Bid

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc., in the amount of $41,235.80.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                  (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bid for one Equipment/Fire Hose Dryer for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bid was:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Circul Air                                                         $13,760

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Circul Air, in the amount of $13,760.  Motion carried unanimously.        (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order with Landplan Engineering, P.A. for additional services for Monterey Way – Stetson Drive to Grand Vista Drive, and Peterson Road – Monterey Way to Kasold Drive projects for $15,780.16.  Motion carried unanimously.         (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the purchase of Selectron Technologies VoicePermits base system and SunGard HTE interface support for Neighborhood Resources Department for automatic inspection scheduling for $51,250.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                  (4) 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date for the 6^th and Indiana and 17^th and Massachusetts/New Hampshire Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project for January 10, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.                       (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the bid for basic bus shelter maintenance services, $10.00 per unit for as needed charges $15.00 for decal application from SS Window Cleaning for $33,743.52.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                            (6)

The City Commission reviewed the bid for 2006 Water Treatment Chemicals for the Utilities.  The bids were:

PRODUCT	VENDOR	BID
QUICK LIME – BULK, PEBBLES	Mississippi Lime Company	$94.70/ ton*
	O.N. Minerals	104.00/ ton
QUICK LIME – BULK, POWDER	O.N. Minerals	104.00/ ton*
	Mississippi Lime Company	110.70/ton
CHLORINE – 1 TON CYLINDER	DPC Industries	569.00/ ton*
	Brentag Mid South	619.00/ ton
	G.S. Robins & Co.	710.00/ton
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON – BULK	NORIT	620.00/ton*
	F2 Industries	699.00/ ton
	Calgon Carbon	900.00/ton
	G.S. Robins & Co.	960.00/ ton
CARBON DIOXIDE – BULK	Air Liquide	47.45/ ton*
	EPCO	51.50/ton
	Ethanol Products	68.00/ton
	Praxair	102.00/ton
	BOC Gases	120.00/ ton
SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE – 50# BAGS	Univar	1,300.00/ton*
	Calci Quest	1,440.00/ton
	Carus Chemical Co. Alternate	1,466.40/ton
	Summit Chemical	1,470.00/ton
	Shannon Chemical Corp.	1,654.00/ ton
	G.S. Robins & Co.	1,700.00/ton
SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE – 50# BAGS	Brentag Mid South	629.00/ton*
	Harcros Chemicals	630.00/ton
	GS Robins & Company	720.00/ton
	Univar	730.00/ton
SODA ASH – BULK	BHS Marketing	288.00/ ton*
	Univar	331.24/ton
	Harcros Chemicals	372.00/ton
AQUA AMMONIA – BULK	Harcros Chemicals	200.50/ ton*
	Univar	330.00/ton
	GS Robins & Company	380.00/ton
ALUMINUM SULFATE – BULK	Univar	290.00/ ton*
	G.S. Robins & Co.	295.00/ ton
	General Chemical Corp.	339.00/ ton
	GEO Specialty Chemicals	403.00/ton
POLYMER – BULK	Polydyne, Inc.	630.00/ton*
	NALCO Co.	978.00/ton
QUICK LIME – BULK, PEBBLES	Mississippi Lime Company	$94.70/ ton*
	O.N. Minerals	104.00/ ton
QUICK LIME –PEBBLES, 96%	Mississippi Lime Company	94.70/ton*
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE – BULK	DPC Industries	.878/gal
	Brenntag Mid-South	.884 /gal
	Vertex Chemical	.946/ gal
	G.S. Robins & Co.	1.40/gal
SODIUM BISULFITE – BULK	PVS Chemical Solutions	1.55/gal
	Harcros Chemicals	1.7685/gal*
	G.S. Robins & Co.	1.77/gal
	Univar	1.895/gal
FERRIC CHLORIDE – BULK	Kemiron Company	.9167/gal
	OFS, Inc.	.93/gal
	Harcros Chemicals	1.03/lb
	PVS Technologies	1.29/gal
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATTE – 55 lb. PAIL	Univar	1.74/lb
	G.S. Robins & Co.	1.85/lb*
	Harcros Chemicals	1.885/lb
	Altivia Corporation	2.87/lb
Alternate – bulk	Altivia Corporation, alternate	1.01/lb
POLYMER, TOTES	Polydyne, Inc.	1.08/lb*
	CIBA Specialty	1.26/lb
	CIBA Specialty, alternate	1.86/lb
FERROUS CHLORIDE, 1025 N. MN	Kemiron, alternate	.565
	OFS, Inc.	.93/gal*
	Kemiron	3.38/gal
	Harcros Chemicals	3.81/gal
FERROUS CHLORIDE, 3613 Brush Creek	OFS, Inc.	.93/gal*
	Kemiron	3.38/gal
	Harcros Chemicals	3.81/gal
FERROUS CHLORIDE, 720 Grant	OFS, Inc.	.93/gal*
	Kemiron	3.38/gal
	Harcros Chemicals	3.81/gal

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the recommended bids as marked (*).  Motion carried unanimously.                        (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date of December 20, 2005 for Yale Road, West of Iowa Street, Sidewalk Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7947 rezoning (Z-09-43-04) 36.901 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District).  The property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way (extended) and north of Peterson Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                               (9)

Ordinance No. 7954, establishing/allowing parking along the south side of the Clinton Parkway Frontage Road in front of 3705 Parkway, 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                            (10)

Ordinance No. 7951, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Silicon Avenue, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                        (11)

Ordinance No. 7943, rezoning (Z-07-46-05) a tract of land approximately 10.281 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), property is generally described as being located at 515 Monterey Way, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-53-05) of approximately 0.53 acre from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RO-1A (Residence–Office District).  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of West 7^th Street and Arkansas Street (700 Arkansas & 704-704 ½ Arkansas); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-54-05) of approximately 0.34 acre from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RO-1A (Residence–Office District).  The property is generally described as being located north of West 7^th Street and east of Arkansas Street (640 Arkansas Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.           (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-55-05) of approximately 0.35 acre from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence District) to RO-1 (Residence-Office District).  The property is generally described as being located north of West 7^th and east of Arkansas (630-32 Arkansas and 634-36 Arkansas); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-56-05) of approximately 1.52 acres from RO-2 (Residence-Office District) to O-1 (Office District).  The property is generally described as being located south of West 6^th Street between Maine and Alabama Streets (1015 West 6^th Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.               (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-57-05) of approximately 2.11 acres from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District).  The property is generally described as being located south of West 6^th Street between Missouri and Illinois Streets (628 Missouri, 621, 623, 622, & 626 Maine, and 619, 623-23 ½, 622 & 624 Alabama Streets); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                         (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-61-05) of approximately 3.04 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located on the east side of Haskell Avenue, south of East 26^th Street, (2620 Haskell Avenue); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-63-05) of approximately 6.8 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between K-10 and Diamondhead Subdivision (Langston Heights); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.

     (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-64-05) of approximately 20.77 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between K-10 and Diamondhead Subdivision (Langston Heights); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-65-05) of approximately 1.53 acres from PCD-2(with restrictions) to PCD-2 (with expanded allowable uses).  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of North Iowa Street and Riverridge Road (Riverridge PCD); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.   (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-09-07-05) for a revision to the Use Permitted Upon Review for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Master Plan, property is located north of West 4^th Street and west of Main Street, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (22)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Revised Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-09-09-05) for Riverridge PCD to add a package liquor store in a portion of the existing building which previously was used for office space, containing approximately 1.53 acres and is located at the southeast corner of North Iowa and Riverridge Road, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide corrected and updated site summary notes as applicable to the current conditions of the site per staff approval;

2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development to list the approved use restrictions for Lot 2, Chip’s Addition.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                       (23)

At the request of a member of the public, second reading of Ordinance No. 7939 was deferred, the rezoning (Z-08-50-05) a tract of land approximately 4.50 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development District), property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive.                                                                                      (24)

At the request of the applicant, second reading of Ordinance No. 7940, was deferred for rezoning (Z-08-51-05) a tract of land approximately 3.880 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to M-1 (Research Industrial District), property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive                                                                                                                              (25)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider Traffic Safety Commission recommendation concerning crossing guard and/or flashing beacon on West 27^th Street near Inverness Drive.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report.  He said at the November 7^th Traffic Safety Commission meeting there was a request to take a look at the crossing on 27^th Street, south of Sunflower Elementary School.  Staff performed a gap study and found that the number of gaps available for crossing the street safely was less than what the City‘s policy recommended. 

At the November 29^th City Commission meeting the neighbors specifically requested that both the beacons and crossing guard be approved.  The Traffic Commission’s recommendation was that the City Commission consider; both the beacon and the crossing guard.  As this was a “mid-block” crossing staff did agree that both the advance warning beacon and the crossing guard were warranted.  The beacons flash alerting drivers of an upcoming 20 mph speed zone, both 45 minutes prior to the start of school and 30 minutes after school.  The beacons were currently being ordered and would cost approximately $7,000 which would be taken from the Traffic Division’s budget.  A crossing guard was a $5,500 a year expense and that expense was not included in the 2005 or 2006 budget, but it was an expense that would need to be budgeted in the future.

If the City Commission desired, staff could start the process to receive applications for a crossing guard.  He said applications were received for a crossing guard at another location and if there were suitable applicants, then they might have a crossing guard after the winter break for that location.

One issue that the neighborhood needed to remember was that both the beacons and the crossing guards only work during that period of time, before and after school, and children or other individuals crossing that location, at any other time, must proceed with appropriate caution. 

Staff had also been in contact with neighbors about further review of the speeds and traffic volumes on 27^th Street.  He said he and David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, would be in contact with those neighbors after the first of the year setting up meetings and discussing other issues.  He said staff was looking for City Commission direction regarding the crossing guard and beacons.

Vice Mayor Amyx said one of the issues that was discussed last week was the difference between pedestrian and school crossings.  He asked if there were any other locations where there was a pedestrian crossing controlled with some type flashing beacon.

Soules said there were a number of school crossings that were controlled that way, but he did not know about pedestrian crossings.  

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said there was a pedestrian crossing at 5^th and Maine and 13^th and Kentucky.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if those locations were controlled with flashing beacons 24 hours a day.

Wildgen said no, not at those school zones.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there were any places where there were controlled pedestrian crossings, not school crossings.  He said one concern was that they might be giving children a false sense of security.  He asked if it was appropriate to have those flashing beacons 24 hours a day. 

Soules said he did not know of any flashing beacons 24 hours a day in Lawrence, but he knew that they had 24 hour a day beacons in other communities.  He said there were pedestrian crossings that were signed, but that was just a sign and not a flashing beacon.          

Commissioner Schauner asked if the beacon that was going to be ordered was programmable for 24/7 and not just the school hours.

Soules said the beacon would be programmable.

Commissioner Schauner suggested that staff could perform some traffic speed analysis at that location to see whether it was warranted to move that from a school only program to a 24/7 program.

Soules said staff could review that idea, but right now Woosley did not have the traffic counts or speed information available.

Vice Mayor Amyx said that area was designated as a school crossing, he asked what type of process they would need to go though to make that area a 24/7 program and could it be done.

Soules said he was sure that could be accomplished, but he assumed that issue would need to go through the Traffic Safety Commission. The one question would be if the City Commission wanted that reduction in speed all the time in that zone.  He said he thought it would depend on how much that crossing was used all the other times.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked Soules in his opinion was it a safer situation in the beginning to make this a school crossing location.

Soules said yes.  He said overall people were aware of the school crossings and knew those speed limits were enforced.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

A member of the public thanked the Commission for the school crossing and the flashing beacon.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think the City Commission had any interest in putting budget over safety and clearly, they were unanimously in favor of moving forward with this issue.  The thing he would like the City Commission to keep an open mind about was when the flashing beacon was installed and staff received additional information about speeds and traffic counts on that street and if they needed to change the designation at some point in the future, it might be worth doing, if and when they had better and more detailed information.   

Vice Mayor Amyx agreed.  He said his concern was the safety of children crossing that street.  He said his main concern was when school was not in session and the beacons were not flashing, he did not want those children to think that vehicles would stop, even when school was not in session.

Commissioner Rundle said the comment made about the crossing guard and beacons not being budgeted, he asked if that was being construed as that it could not be funded.

Soules said no.

Mayor Highberger concurred with the comments of his fellow Commissioners.  He said hopefully they could do more to make that street safe.  He supported moving ahead with the crossing guard.   

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to approve the installation of a flashing beacon; and approve the crossing guard position.  Motion carried unanimously.                           (26)

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff would be waiting on a wait time before the beacon could be delivered.

Soules said the beacon had a 3 to 5 month lead time and should take a couple of days to install, but the beacon had been ordered. 

Consider approving the following CPA-2004-2: An amendment to Horizon 2020 to update the Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use Element (Chapter 7).  This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at its October 27, 2004 regular meeting at the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC).  The CPC reviewed this chapter as part of the annual update process to Horizon 2020, the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County.

Brad Ellis, Planner, presented the staff report.  He said based on the work of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff the following changes were proposed:

1. That Douglas County and City of Lawrence should take into consideration the environment, a diversified economy and a fiscally stable government, when making decisions about industrial and employment related land use;

2. That Industrial and employment related land used be separated into two distinct categories;

3. That a Work-live Campus Center be added to both the industrial and employment related land uses. This will be a mixed use area combining industry, business retail and residential. These areas will be held to a higher standard of design that accents and complements the natural environment and provides a comfortable environment for a live-work relationship where pedestrian activity is planned for and encouraged;

4. Summary of proposed changes in Goals and Objectives:

a.         Goal 2 Criteria for Location of Industrial and Employment-Related Development, was Goal 3 in the old Chapter 7;

b.         Goal 3 Compatible Transition from Industrial and Employment-Related Development to Less Intensive Uses was the old Goal 2 in the old Chapter 7;

c.         Policy3.1.c provides a more detailed description of less compatible uses then in the old chapter 7;

d.         Policy 3.1.d.2.c provides a more detailed description then in the old Chapter 7;

e.         Policy3.1.d.4.c has been changed from “promote” to “encouraged”;

f.          Policy3.2 combines old policies 2.2, 2.4 through 2.6 together;

g.         Policy3.3 replaces old policy 2.7;

h.         Policy4.3 combines old policies 4.3 through 4.5;

i.          Policy 4.4 combines old policies 4.4 and 4.8; and,

j. Policy 4.5 combines old policies 4.9 through 4.11.

Mayor Highberger said two of the items the League of Women Voters raised were allocation of warehouses on South Iowa and the proposed industrial use at the intersection of US 59 and US 56 for a future business park.  He asked how those two items were reflected in the draft that was before the City Commission.

Ellis said those items were identified as potential industrial sites and the Planning Commission did not raise any objections to those items. 

Mayor Highberger asked if the draft proposal recommended warehousing on South Iowa. 

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the warehousing that the Planning Commission discussed was mini warehousing types of structures under commercial uses and C-4 Districts.  The Planning Commission did not want to see large scale housing at that location.  As far as the proposed industrial use at the intersection of US 59 and US 56, the League of Women Voter’s concern was that they wanted to see an area plan before that use occurred.  There had been discussion about areas that were outlined from any of the incorporated City limits.  The direction that the County Commission had given the Planning Commission, approximately 4 years ago, discussed the home occupation types 1, 2 and 3, was that they wanted some identification of areas where there could be services that allowed things such as contractors offices that did not have a need for wastewater or for a lot of on-site visits by customers.  She said in an area such as US 59 or US 56, there was probably a need for that land to be annexed first, but there might be some other areas that were limited intensity and industrial in the County.  The discussion evolved in that they did not want to say that everything that was industrial needed to be within the City limits because that was part of the reason why there was the type 3 home occupations that were in the County today, because they could not afford the land costs just to have property to store machinery.              

Commissioner Schauner said that was different than what he understood for the intersection of 56/59 highway.  He thought that area was going to be something more than just open ground storage for construction equipment, but more of a built up industrial area.    

Finger said Commission Schauner was correct.  She said the discussion was whether or not 56/59 highway needed services, but the Planning Commission felt that it did need those services.  The Planning Commission then looked more globally at whether or not all industrial needed services and it was determined that all industrial sites did not need those services because there were some sites that were not centrally located.   

Commissioner Schauner asked how the League of Women Voter’s concerns about the 59/56 Highway industrial park development were reflected in this document.  

Finger said the actual development at that intersection was reflected in Chapter 6 under commercial because it was encompassed in a commercial node and a type of plan would be required.  She said staff did not add additional language in the Industrial Chapter because the Commission believed it was already covered under a separate chapter.  The industrial would not be developed separate from the commercial, but it would be types of commercial.        

Vice Mayor Amyx said as construction was underway on 59 Highway, would there be an upgrade of utilities and services at that point to cause more development to happen at a quicker rate.

Finger said what would be seen was that the intersection would shift to the east closer to Baldwin.  She said as they had commercial requests, at that location, the intensity of development should not be significant or intense commercial until it had facilities or services that reached out from Baldwin.   

Commissioner Schauner asked how far east the intersection would move.

Finger said approximately 300 feet. 

Commissioner Schauner said 300 feet was not much of a significant change in distance from the City of Baldwin.

Finger said no, but when taking the ramps, it was ½ mile closer.  

Vice Mayor Amyx said with the extension of those utilities there would be a 3 mile distance from Baldwin.

Finger said it was less than 3 miles, but the water was already there and was in the expansion for Rural Water District No. 4.  Basically, it was wastewater for any significant size of development.  There was a low spot as far as telecommunications and staff had received tower request to pick up emergency facilities and services.    

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about internal and external access for industrial business parks.  He asked “where” and “how” that was addressed specifically along K-10 going east.  He asked if there were additional plans that would be required.  

Finger said she did not remember that there was a lot of discussion about that issue as far as internal and external access. The discussion was basically the roads and spacing that was at that location was what should serve the existing industrial and anything internal.  She said she did not recall a discussion with the Planning Commission about that issue.

Commissioner Schauner said regarding the 59/56 Highway interchange issue along with the warehousing on South Iowa, he asked if the Planning Commission received a proposal for doing either of those things, what was the criteria that had been adopted for evaluating the appropriateness of requests to either do warehousing on South Iowa or locating an industrial business park near that highway interchange.  He asked if there was a benchmark against which those proposals were gauged in that chapter.    

Finger said there was no specific warehousing proposal in that chapter to supersede commercial on South Iowa.

Commissioner Schauner said what he was getting at was the League of Women Voters memo, and that memo stated that there were two proposals they suggested should be eliminated.  The proposal for locating warehousing on South Iowa and the proposal for locating an industrial business park near Highway 59/56 Interchange. It was his understanding that those had not been eliminated from the draft, but his question was against what benchmark proposals to accomplish either of those developments would be measured.

Finger said those developments would be measured against Chapter 6, the Commercial Chapter because both of those areas were covered under that chapter and the type of plan that would be required because there was a plan required in Chapter 6 for any new developments and that applied to 59/56 Highway more that it would to South Iowa.  She said South Iowa would come under the design standards section in Chapter 6 and looking at how it would be compatible.  She said they had not actually adopted design standards, but there was language in Chapter 6 that had standards for gateways and major intersections. 

Commission Schauner asked how they were developing standards for those gateways. 

Finger said the Planning Commission had a 3 member committee and they were no where near having standards for all of the gateways.  They actually focused on 6^th and Wakarusa area, that mile and half from Folks Road west where the extraordinary 50 foot setback was, but the intent of the Planning Commission was to develop gateway standards for each of the major arterial streets.  She said there was also reference in Transportation 2025 to gateway and design standards as well.  There were also standards recommended in this Chapter as far as industrial design.  She said those were policy document and there might not be all of the regulatory tools in place, but those documents set the framework for developing those regulator tools.      

Commissioner Schauner said if they had a proposal for either the warehousing or the interchange development, without the regulatory tools, the policy document would not really help much.  

Finger said it made it more difficult.  She said the proposal still needed to meet the intent of Horizon 2020 it was just that there was no clarity as far as regulatory tools.    

Commissioner Schauner said his experience suggested that it would make it more difficult to defend a decision not to approve, if in fact, they were talking about a general sense of what it ought to be.  He said it left open a lot of ground for dissent and discussion that without any regulatory guidance

Finger said the intent was to have the regulatory guidance, but a policy document needed to be in place before developing the regulatory guidance.  She said those document did not come hand and hand.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like for the lag time not to be so great as to permit much of the development that they would like to regulate, already be in the pipeline, before they had any regulatory document with which to evaluate or regulate the proposals.  It was probably unfair to ask how long it would take, assuming this was approved, before the regulatory piece would be available for review and approval.

Finger said she could not answer that question, but there was a long-range planner who was working on the database development for industrial which was the first step in identifying what they had and where it was and then begin to evaluate the different standards.  The individual business parks, East Hills and Santa Fe, have covenants and staff would begin looking at what those parks had and how they fit with design standards.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked under the City’s current chapter, a number of issues that had been brought up, the City Commission could not defend because they did not have any new information.  He asked if it was safe to say that adoption of a new chapter gave the City Commission the opportunity to make additions to those new plans as those chapters were completed.

Finger said yes, those additions could be included in the new development code or the City Commission could place more specificity in that chapter if the City Commission desired. The whole purpose of creating new zoning codes was because when Horizon 2020 was adopted, the City became out of sync with Ordinance 3500 which was the current zoning ordinance.  She said they were trying to come into consistency with policies and regulatory tools.  Once they get over the large hurdle of getting the new development code in place, then being able to establish those standards would come much more readily for the City Commission because the framework would be in place that would match Horizon 2020 intent.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the strengths would be in the development code or Horizon 2020.

Finger said policies should be set in Horizon 2020, but implementation tools were in the regulatory document in the City Code. 

Commissioner Rundle said he did not see specific discussion about the change of removing the warehousing from South Iowa, but it did say that no change was made.  He asked if the Planning Commissioner’s comment on that change.

Finger said there was not a lot of discussion about that change.  In the last 3 regular meetings the Planning Commission had, they were interviewing 3 new minute takers and their minutes were sketchier than normal.

She said she recollected that there was discussion about mini warehouses in Use Group 14 and 17 which allowed uses in either the PCD or in the C-4 and C-5 zonings, all which made that large commercial area. 

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said he was not particularly comfortable approving this amendment at this time.  He said it was unclear whether this document was accomplishing some of the things that he thought it should accomplish.  He said he agreed with the League that the 59/56 Interchange as a proposed place for a business park struck him as an opportunity to create some accelerated development at that location which was perhaps not in the best interest of the City, long-term.  He said in terms of the City of Lawrence he was not sure that when the League discussed performing an impact assessment, in terms of how those development outside the core might affect downtown Lawrence, and went on to mention major businesses and industrial research parks, he suspected would end up with other growth around that both residential and retail.  He said he was not sure that this draft did much to address that concern.

He said he would rather not act on this issue and at least have another week to let this issue percolate.

Commissioner Rundle said it would not be something that would incrementally have commercial or industrial businesses coming in one at a time, but it would be a particular type of area with integration.  He said he understood that this was looking out far into the future.  He was curious and asked if that type of concept was reflected in the City’s regulations when they say “Business Park”, and was it clear from other parts of the Comprehensive Plan that that was what they were envisioning.

Finger said Chapter 7 did try to distinguish between the different types of industrial uses so there was a distinction as to what a business park was and to what a work/live center was.  She said this development would probably not meet the City of Lawrence zoning regulations, it would either be consistent with Douglas County’s which did not define a business park or with Baldwin’s zoning codes, but she was not familiar with those codes.  The intent was, in that document, to identify those areas far enough out in the future so that individuals who wanted to locate near those areas were aware that the future use could be industrial.  She said there were probably more sites identified when they received the ECO² report to provide variety and choice than actually could be developed to support industrial and economic development in the community.    

Mayor Highberger said he shared some of Commissioner Schauner’s concerns, but after reviewing the document again, he said it pointed out that as far as 56/59 Junction, the plan stated that the area should not be developed until such time as the City was able to provide utilities and was annexed by the City of Baldwin and that took care of some of his concerns.

He said he was not sure about the suggestion of future warehousing on South Iowa, but based on the explanation, the plan seemed to limit that somewhat on future completion of the eastern parkway.  Given the fact that it had a 10-0 Planning Commission vote, he would sit on his reservations and be ready to move forward with the amendment at this time.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed with the Mayor.  He said it was written in such a way that changes could be made.  Any additions or deletions, the City Commission had the opportunity to make those changes, but they needed a basis for development.  One of the comments made was the ECO2 Report and how once that was approved how that could be adopted back into Chapter 7.

Finger said the appendix section was set aside for specific recommendations for ECO2 to incorporate that document, but also the discussion at the subcommittee level before the Planning Commissioners brought it forward from the Comprehensive Plan Committee to the City Commission was that there might be specific text amendments that were needed to change policies and goal policies strategies in the body of Chapter 7 once staff knew the full context of what ECO2 was bringing back for recommendations.    

Finger said it was like the chicken and the egg, did a person need to wait until it was done or move forward and there were so many interests today about moving forward on different types of industrial that the Planning Commission chose to move this forward knowing they could always amend it with the Governing Body’s consensus.

Commissioner Rundle said if they came to some consensus on some of those concerns could they also ask the Planning Commission to specifically revisit the chapter and address those concerns. 

Finger said certainly.  She said tomorrow night it was on the County Commission’s agenda.  Staff could take the concerns that the City Commission had and raise those concerns with the County Commission to see if they had similar concerns or other concerns and then bring those concerns and ideas back to the City Commission in memo form.

Commissioner Amyx asked Schauner if he would feel comfortable in approving this document tonight if the Planning Commission was asked to make a specific change to this document that addressed the concern about US 56/59 and the information that was needed for downtown.

Commissioner Schauner said he appreciated that this document was trying to look forward approximately ten years.  He said he had some concern about not just the interchange and the impact on downtown.  He said for Lawrence’s issue making certain that staff continued to track impact on downtown of whatever they developed around the outskirts was critical.  He said he wished there was more language in the draft that addressed that concern and also some tools with which they would measure that impact.  He said it was so broad now that he was not sure how any policy making body was going to know how to assess that impact.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if it was appropriate to adopt this policy and then bring the text changes that the City Commission wanted to consider to make specific changes happen.

Commissioner Schauner said he was willing to do that, but his concern was that Planning Staff and the Planning Commission had it significantly detailed on their agenda in the near term to bring back some specific text amendments that could address those concerns.  In other words, he asked how would they give this concern a high enough profile to keep it on the stove top, if not on the front burner.

Finger suggested that if the City Commission desired, they could defer this item and let staff receive comment from the County Commission.  Then staff could draft a memo that addressed the City Commission’s concerns and take it as old business before the Planning Commission next week to see if they could receive some clarity from the Planning Commission and bring the issue back to the City Commission.    

Commissioner Schauner said that might be his preference at this point.  He said he was not opposed to this document in a broad way, but he had a couple of nagging concerns that he was not sure how those concerns would be resolved.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Finger knows of any County Commission concerns. 

Finger said she had not heard, but staff would know after the County Commission meeting.

Mayor Highberger said with regard to the concern about the downtown impact, they could get as detailed as they wanted in this document about their policy, but nothing would happen until they went through the step of implementing a procedure to deal with it on the regulatory side.  He said to meet that concern, he was not sure that the best way to do that was to delay this amendment further and refine the concept further at the City Commission level and they should initiate the process to look at implementing the mechanism.    

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was to put together the regulatory framework as quickly as reasonable to flush out this chapter.  He said he was not as concerned about the broad brushes as he was having the regulatory tools with which to implement it as they moved down the road.  He said he was not going to stand pat and say that this item needed to be deferred because he was willing to let this issue move forward.  What he would like to make clear on the record was that he was interested in as fast a track as they could put that regulatory work on to give the City Commission the right tools to implement as they moved forward. 

Commissioner Rundle said he would not want to put the Planning Commission on the spot of having to try to address those concerns without careful thought.  He said making sure that issue stayed high up in their work was a good idea.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to approve the amendment to Chapter 7 of CPA-2004-2 and requested the Planning Commission act as quickly as reasonably possible on the related regulatory pieces.  Motion carried unanimously.                                          (27)

Consider adoption of Hierarchy of Land Use Plans Policy Statement as recommended by the Planning Commission. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to defer for one week the Hierarchy Policy Statement as requested by the League of Women Voters.  Motion carried unanimously.      (28)

Provide direction to staff regarding the selection of a consultant to facilitate the City Commission’s annual goal setting session. Authorize the City Manager, as appropriate, to enter into a contract with the selected firm.  

Jonathan Douglas, City Manager’s Intern, said they received proposals from four consultants.  Those proposals essentially outlined the same process which would be a pre-retreat interview process with the City Commission and City Manager in order to plan and submit an agenda for approval.  After facilitating the retreat, the consultant would draft a set of goals. 

He said staff reviewed the proposal and would recommend Julia Novak, Management Partners Inc., because of Novak’s extensive experience in local government both as a consultant and as an employee.   Management Partners Inc. also focused on high level strategic planning to a greater degree than some of the other proposals and also performance management and measurement which would be beneficial.       

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to proceed as requested in the staff memo. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (29)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (CONT’D)

Consider motion to recess into executive session for 45 minutes for:  1) consultation with attorneys for the City on matters deemed privileged under the attorney-client privilege; and 2) discussion of personnel matters. The justification for the executive session is to keep attorney client matters and personnel matters confidential at this time.  The regular meeting will resume in the Commission meeting room.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess into executive session for 45 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                               (30)

The City Commission reconvened in regular session approximately 45 minutes later. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                               

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2005

1. Bid – Breathing Air Compressor for Fire/Med to Conrad Fire Equipment for $41,235.80.

2. Bid –  Equipment/Fire Hose Dryer for  Fire/Med to Circul Air for $13,760.

3. Purchase Order – Monterey Way-Stetson to Grand Vista, Peterson – Monterey Ay to Kasold to Landplan for $15,780.16

4. Purchase automatic scheduling – from Selectron Technologies VoicePermits base system fro $51,250.

5. Bid Date – 6^th & Indiana & 17 & Mass/New Hamp Sanitary Sewer, Jan 10.

6. Bid – Basic Bus Shelter Maintenance to SS Window Cleaning for $33,743.52.

7. Bid – Various 2006 Water Treatment Chemicals.

8. Bid Date – Yale, W of Iowa, Sidewalk Improvements, Dec 20. 

9. Rezone (Z-09-43-04) 36.901 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, E of Monterey Way & N of Peterson.

10. Ordinance No. 7954 –  2^nd Read, allow parking along the S side of Clinton Pkwy Frontage in front of 3705 Pkwy from 8 to 12:30 pm.

11. Ordinance No. 7951, 2^nd Read, “No parking” E side of Silicon Ave.

12. Ordinance No. 7939 -  2^nd Read, rezone (Z-08-50-05) 4.50 acres, from PRD-2 to PID-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.

13. Ordinance No. 7940, 2^nd Read, rezone (Z-08-51-05) 3880 acres, from PRD-2 to M-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.

14. Ordinance No. 7943, 2^nd Read, rezone (Z-07-46-05) 10.281 acres from A to RS-2, 515 Monterey Way.

15. Rezone – (Z-09-53-05) .53 acre from C-5 to RO-1A, SE corner of W 7^th & Arkansas.

16. Rezone – (Z-09-54-05) .34 acre from C-5 to RO-1A, N of W 7^th & E of Arkansas.

17. Rezone – (Z-09-55-05) .35 acre from RM-1 to RO-1, W 7^th & E of Arkansas.

18. Rezone – (Z-09-56-05) 1.52 acres from RO-2 to O-1, S of W 6^th between Maine & Alabama.

19. Rezone – (Z-09-57-05) 2.11 acres from RM-1 to RS-2, S of W 6^th between Missouri & Illinois.

20. Rezone – (Z-09-61-05) 3.04 acres from RS-1 to RM-D, E side of Haskell, S of E 26^th.

21. Rezone – (Z-09-63-05) 6.8 acres from A to RM-D, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between K-10 & Diamondhead Sub.

22. Rezone – (Z-09-64-05) 20.77 acres, from A to RS-2, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between K-10 & Diamondhead Sub.

23. Rezone – (Z-09-65-05) 1.53 acres, from PCD-2 to PCD-2, SE corner of N Iowa & Riverridge Rd.

24. UPR – (UPR-09-07-05) Lawrence Memorial Hospital Master Plan, N of W 4^th & W of Maine.

25. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-09-09-05) Riverridge PCD to add a package liquor store, 1.53 acres, SE corner of N Iowa & Riverridge.

26. TSC – crossing guard and/or flashing beacons at W 27^th near Inverness Dr.

27. Amendment – (CPA-2004-2) Horizon 2020 Industrial & Employment Related Land Use Element.

28. Land Use Plans Policy Statement.

29. Goal Setting Sessions – Direction to selection of consultant.  

30. Executive Session.