February 15, 2000

 

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 Hodges presiding and members Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy and Rundle present.        

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 8, 2000.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 26, 2000; and, the Arts Commission meeting minutes of December 8, 1999.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims in the amount of $596,383.28 and payroll from January 30, 2000 to February 12, 2000 in the amount of $1,045,436.60.  Motion carried unanimously.

            The City Commission reviewed the bids for a one ton flatbed truck for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Laird Noller Motors in the amount of $26,781.00.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a new closed circuit television equipment for the Sanitary Sewer Collection System Division for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Aires Industries in the amount of $79,983.00.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the purchase of Motorola Equipment for 800 MHZ radio system in the amount of $16,238.15.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a ¾ Ton Crew Cab 4x4 Pickup for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Laird Noller in the amount of $26,149.00.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for ¾ Ton Pickup for the Parks and Recreation Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Aires Industries in the amount of $79,983.00.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to set a bid date of February 29, 2000, 2:00 p.m., for the Community Drop-In Center office space renovation, located at 214, West 10th.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the site plan (SP-12-81-99) for Phase 2 renovations for Chi Omega Sorority, located at 1345 West Campus Road, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provide a Revised Site Plan depicting the following:

a.                  Provision of a note on the face of the Site Plan stating that the ADA rear door improvements must be completed by January 30, 2000;

b.                  Provision of Street Trees as agreed upon during site visit;

2.                  Completion of all HRC conditions; and,

3.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue PID (Planned Industrial Development), containing approximately 21.67 acres, property located between K-10 Highway to the north and East 25^th Street to the south, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Revise plan documents to include stormwater concerns;

2.                  Provision of a note on the plan that no individual lots will have direct access to K-10 Highway;

3.                  Additional 15’ utility easements be provided on the perimeter and centered on lot lines;

4.                  Dedication of proposed rights-of-way;

5.                  Revisions to the parking calculations; and,

6.                  Show access from Lots 1 and 2, Mt. Blue Addition.

 Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                             (2) 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry,to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7195, changing the alley between 9^th, 10^th, Kentucky, Tennessee from one-way traffic to two-way traffic. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                        (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry,to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7196, changing the name of Stone Creek Court to Castle Pine Court in Foxfire Addition No. 4.  Motion carried unanimously.                   (4)

Julie Wyatt, Environmental Inspector, presented the staff report on the unsafe structure at 904 Pennsylvania Street.  A public hearing was held by the City Commission on November 23, 1999 to review the condition of this structure.  At that time, the City Commission agreed to give the property owner sixty (60) days to make the necessary roof repairs and submit a letter of intent and a timeline for repairs to be made.

The roof repairs were made as well as some structural improvements to the porch.  No other improvements were made to the structure and no permits were requested for interior improvements.

Valentine Ramero, property owner, said he needed help in getting the work done and was not able to find contractors willing to do the work.  He requested six (6) months to finish the property.

Kennedy appreciated the improvements made and encouraged Ramero to complete the project as quickly as possible.

The City Commission concurred to direct staff to report on the status of the structure at 904 Pennsylvania in ninety (90) days.                                                                     (5)         

Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the site plan for a warehouse on the northwest corner of Oregon and 13^th Street.  The Division of Water Resources approved a Floodway/Floodway Fringe Fill Permit for the property in 1990.  A Flood Plain Development Permit for the property was also approved in 1990 by the Planning Office.  The applicant included a twenty-five foot (25’) wide drainage easement requested by the Stormwater Engineer along Oregon Street to carry stormwater flows.

Chad Voight, Stormwater Engineer, said the proposed structure, as configured on the site plan, would not interfere with future stormwater improvements and would not have any impact on existing stormwater problems in the area.  Voight thought this property would not be purchased in any future land acquisition for stormwater improvements in the area.

Michael Almon, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, presented a history of the drainage problems in the area.  The warehouse project was in the worse possible place because the floodway was filled.  The building would extend 65 feet into the floodway.  Floodwater hitting this obstacle in the floodway would pile-up further up stream and spread wider and deeper onto adjacent Brookcreek Neighborhood properties.  The proposed structure would add difficulty in resolving flood problems in the area.  There were legal problems with the site itself including concerns with the 1990 Floodway Fill Permit and current fill being done on a separate property without a fill permit.  The property owner did not do through flood research and was indifferent to the flooding caused in the Brookcreek Neighborhood.  Almon requested the site plan be denied and the City enter into negotiations with the property owner to buy the property.  In addition, he suggested the site be re-graded so the floodplain can properly function.   He asked that the City protect or move all existing houses in the drainage corridor as necessary.  In the future, Almon requested that developers consult with the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association on a timely basis on projects they may impact flooding in the neighborhood.

Dean Penny, property owner, said all the conditions of the Fill Permit have been made.  This was a viable site for construction.  The property has been an eye sore for over twenty (20) years and he hoped to address the filling problems in the area by relocation the structure and granting a stormwater easement to the City at no cost.

A representative from LandPlan Engineering, said the 1990 Fill Permit was completed as issued.  The earth has been in place for the past seven (7) to eight (8) years.  Site work on the adjacent property consisted of demolition of an existing structure and fill of the basement.  The site plan has met all the requirements of the City.

Bo Marsh said he has worn several hats in development of this project.  He was a board member of the East Lawrence Improvement Association, architect for the project, and a property owner in the area.  The proposed development was presented to the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association over a year ago and they endorsed the concept.  The East Lawrence Improvement Association was concerned about drainage in the area and the proposed plan addressed those concerns.  He was encouraged to have the site cleaned up.  Marsh presented a schematic drawing of the proposed building.  Over one-third (1/3) of the project would be used for office space and the projected the elevation facing the proposed green-space and bike path would be of brick construction without a warehouse look.  The warehousing doors would be on the backside of the project.  The proposed site plan provided one (1) piece of the stormwater puzzle by granting a stormwater easement at no cost to the City.  The property owner has a strong sense of pride for the neighborhood and would do what was necessary to address the neighborhood concerns.  This was a sound project.

Jordana Arnold, 903 East 13^th, had a flooding problem with a rental property in the area.  She expressed a concern that the project would increase stormwater and truck traffic in the area.

Sharon Vaughn, 1242 Prairie Avenue, said the site plan might look good on paper, but water does not follow neat lines drawn on paper.  It was important that any commercial development in the area be reviewed by the Neighborhood Association for storm drainage concerns.

Tony Bacus, East Lawrence Improvement Association, said the Neighborhood Association reviewed and endorsed this proposal over a year ago.  The Neighborhood Association would continue to endorse the proposal if it did not cause problems to the Brookcreek Neighborhood.  The Neighborhood Association thought the proposal was a good use for the area.

Kirsten Roussel, 1305 Oak Hill, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said the Brookcreek Basin transported a large amount of water into neighbor’s back yards.   She asked the City Commission to prevent future flooding in the area by being proactive and not allowing additional problems.  She said being proactive was better than addressing clean up problems afterwards.

Michael Almon asked the City Commission to resolve flooding in the area by reverting this property back to floodway.  He pointed out that the adjacent structure was demolished two (2) weeks ago, not two (2) days ago, and two feet (2’) of fill over the adjacent property was more than just filling the basement.   In addition, adding this use would put an increase truck traffic on narrow streets.  The owner was illegally filling the site at the present time and did not meet the legal requirements of the Division of Water Resources.  He said all fill in the area should stop immediately,

Hodges asked if the fill was in place since 1992.

Voight said he did not know.

Dunfield said he would support this site plan because it did not appear to have an impact on addressing stormwater problems in the area.  He wanted to make sure the fill met the conditions of the Division of Water Resources.  In addition, he thought it was important the applicant work with the Stormwater Engineer to develop appropriate grades for the easement.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the site plan for Oregon Street Warehouse, to be located at the northwest corner of East 13^th and Oregon Streets, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  The 1990 fill area meet the approval of the Division of Water Resources and FEMA

2.                  The applicant work with the Stormwater Engineer on grading elevations in the easement dedicated to the City  for stormwater purposes adjacent to Oregon Street;

3.                  A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed; (Per Section 20-1433);

4.                  Approval of an Agreement to Plat and filing of the plat with the Register of Deeds within 120 days of issuance of a building permit;

5.                  Provide a photometric plan for all exterior lighting prior to release of the site plan;

6.                  Revise the site plan to include the following items:

a.                  Provide on the note on the plan that no signs are approved with this permit; 

b.                  Show the existing sanitary sewer line along 13^th Street and the proposed service connection line;

c.                  Label pipe flowlines and show existing topography and all required grading of roadside ditch along Oregon Street; and,

d.                  Show location of trash enclosure to be reviewed and approved by the City Sanitation Department.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (6)

 Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to sign an Agreement to Plat for the Oregon Street Warehouse Property, located at the northwest corner of East 13^th and Oregon Streets.  Motion carried unanimously.     

Bill Newsome, Lawrence Riverfront Plaza, requested the City of Lawrence assist in the redevelopment of the Riverfront Plaza into SpringHill Suites by Marriott.  He asked the City to dedicate one-hundred ten (110) parking spaces and an addition twenty-eight (28) for the addition of a portico and bridge connection to the hotel.  To compensate the City for any lost revenue, the Riverfront would offer to purchase long-term parking permits for the one-hundred and thirty-eight (138) lost spaced.  Newsome asked the City to restructure the existing ground lease into two (2) separate agreements one with Riverfront LLC and the other with Lawrence Lodging.  Riverfront LLC would be responsible for approximately sixty percent (60%) of the revised ground lease or approximately $21,600.00 annually.  The hotel site, would have no ground lease cost which would be compensated by the projected increase in property taxes with the addition of the hotel.  In order to make the meeting space possible, Lawrence Lodging was asking to receive two-thirds 2/3 of any increase in the guest tax above $24,000.00 for the next eight (8) years. The financial request was minimal in nature.  The direct financial  impact on the  City would be positive.  Newsome asked the City Commission to make a decision at this time so they could move forward.

Hodges read a letter from the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau stating the Bureau would conduct a special meeting on March 1, 2000 to review the request associated with the guest tax.  He said their recommendation could be back to the City Commission by March 7, 2000.  Hodges suggested Downtown Lawrence have an opportunity to review the request.

Newsome said they would like to have the City’s position as quickly as possible.  He would attempt to meet with the Visitor’s Bureau as quickly as possible.

The City Commission concurred to direct staff to prepare an analysis of the report, refer the request to Downtown Lawrence Association for a recommendation and a recommendation from the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.                                    (7)

Dunfield informed the City Commission that he would not participate in the discussion or vote of the request of 9-10 LC for shared participation in design cost of the parking structure in the 900 Block of New Hampshire because of a potential conflict of interest.

Jeff Smalberg, representing 9-10 LC, requested the City’s participation in the cost for the parking structure architectural and engineering design for the 900 Block New Hampshire Project.  He said for the project to continue to meet timelines, it was essential to proceed with the design of the parking garage.  He estimated the City share to be approximately $75,000.00.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said in addition to the $75,000.00 for the architectural and engineering design, there would be an additional $26,500.00 with Walker Consultants for assistance in review and design of this parking structure.  That brings a total cost to the City of approximately $102,000.00.  There was no funding in place for the project.  Wildgen suggested using General Obligation Temporary Notes to pay for these costs which would be rolled over into General Obligation Bonds for the project.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hodges, to direct staff to prepare an agreement with 9-10 LC for shared participation in the costs of architectural and engineering design for the proposed parking structure in the 900 Block of New Hampshire, enter into an agreement with Walker Consultants for the project and prepare the appropriate funding Resolutions.  Aye:  Hodges, Henry, Kennedy and Rundle.  Nay:  None.  Abstain:  Dunfield.                                                                                                    (8)

Mayor Hodges informed the City Commission that he would not participate in the discussion and vote on the placement of the Memorial of Honor in the circle drive at the Union Pacific Depot.  After reviewing the status of a potential conflict of interest, it was determined he had no conflict of interest.  However, he thought it was in the best interest of the memorial, not to participate in the discussion.

Dan Jaimes, Memorial of Honor Committee, presented the request to place a memorial honoring those who served their country and community at the Union Pacific Depot.  The memorial would recognize those that have served their community especially those that have given their lives.  The period of the memorial would cover the Civil War to the present.  Jaimes said the placement of the memorial at the depot was approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Historical Resources Commission.  The Arts Commission on a four (4) to six (6) vote did not approve the site.  The memorial would be a sculpture by Jim Brothers and called “From the Ashes.”  The site would consist of a twenty-five foot brick base surrounded by flower gardens.  There would be six (6) small benches placed near the sculpture with an insignia of the Armed Forces, Police and Fire Services.  It was the intent of the committee that the memorial would be entirely funded by private donations and would be a gift to the citizens of Lawrence, Douglas County and future generations.  The Committee has attempted to address all the concerns raised by people in review of this project.  In the final analysis, it was decided that the design was a complement to the architecture of the depot.  He presented sketches and photographs of the proposed memorial in relation to the depot.

Scottie Lingelbach, 3202 Taylor, supported the location of the sculpture at the Union Pacific Depot because of the importance of trains transporting military staff during World War II.  The location was the most appropriate location in Lawrence.

Cathy Correll, representing Jim Brothers, the sculpture, explained the sculpture was a citizen’s memorial.  She reviewed the interpretation of the sculpture and the placement in the circular drive.  Correll said the sculpture was a representative piece of history and our community.

Dennis Brown, Depot Management Committee, Board Member, spoke against the sculpture at the proposed location.  He suggested the City Commission establish parameters for a sculpture to meet concerning height, mass and lighting. Once parameters were set, sculptures could be reviewed meeting that criteria.  He recommended  a sculpture of no more than eight feet (8’) in height.

The current sculpture would deter from the beauty of the depot.  Brown said the City needed only one piece of art at the site and that was the depot.

Virginia Harris supported the sculpture at the depot.  It would be positive for both the depot and the memorial to have the sculpture located at that site.

Doug Green, Lawrence-Douglas County Medical Staff and IIAFF Local 5096 supported the memorial at the depot.  The Memorial would include recognition of the death of a Lawrence Fire Fighter, Mark Blair. 

Alan Webster supported the sculpture and the depot location.

Dick Grough said a person could not take the emotion out of this decision.  The Depot was as much as a memorial as the sculpture itself.  He encouraged honoring both the Depot and Memorial at this location.

Jo Abbott supported the sculpture and memorial at the Depot.  She suggested public art should be art supported by the public.  This art piece received a lot of public supported.  Abbott said she could not think of any better place for this special gift to the City.  She said it was  inconceivable that the City would pass up a gift of $200,000.00.

Arthur Anderson, 1040 New Hampshire, said a lot of people spent a great deal of time talking about the renovation of the Depot.  It was decided through these discussions that the Depot would be the focal point of the area.  In considering art for this location, certain criteria was developed to judge the proposed pieces.  That included scale, safety and finish of the piece.  A sculpture should not detract from the building itself.  The Depot should be the focal point of the area and not a sculpture in the center of the driveway.  It was important something placed in the circle be of the right proportion so that it would not detract from the Depot.

Betty Alderson, 1920 Maine, expressed concern about the lack of process followed by the Memorial Committee.  The City Commission should be careful about use of the City’s open space.  The proposed sculpture would fit into other locations better.  She encouraged the City Commission not to spoil the Depot with this statute.

Bill Carlswell, Chair, Lawrence Arts Commission, said in absence of a protocol to review donated art, the Arts Commission came up with a process and review that was appropriate.  The Arts Commission consisted of a diverse group of people and they spent a great deal of time and effort in the decision.

Burdett Loomis, Depot Management Board, recognized the Depot Site would continue to evolve and change.  The scale of the proposed sculpture was too great.   He suggested reducing the sculpture in height.  The site selection process was dismal.  No independent body looked at the proposal prior to a decision.  That roll was played by the Arts Commission and they made the appropriate recommendation.  He recommended the City develop a protocol for donated Art and site selection.

Kurt Van Husen suggested the Union Pacific Depot was not the only place where military people left for duty.  There were other train stations, bus stations and airports.  He suggested the City Commission find an alternate site for the sculpture.

Kenneth Armitage said the Memorial of Honor deserved a better location.  A citizen’s memorial should be at a location where a person could reflect on the importance of the memorial.  This location was not the appropriate place.

Ron Durflinger supported accepting this special donation as a gift to the community.  The question of art was in the eye of the beholder.  He thought the Memorial Committee did follow procedures in determining the Depot as the best location.

Dunfield said being recognized as a City of Arts means having disagreements like this one.  He supported the proposed sculpture at the location.  He did not think it would significantly alter, destroy or damage the beauty of the Depot.  Dunfield thought it  would add to the site.  There would be more visitors and activity at the site because of the memorial.                      

Rundle said this is one of those times when a politician needs the wisdom of Solomon.  Some of my friends wish to see the art we are considering placed at the Depot. Some of my friends wish for us to take more time and make sure that we know this is indeed the best place for that memorial. I have to say I stand firmly with my friends.

That moment of shared laughter may be the shortest distance between two people that is a quote stolen from Victor Borge many years ago. I’ve pondered this issue many hours and what has troubled me most is the divisiveness and name calling that has taken place, and some of the emotional non-issues that have come up.

Taking up an example of the latter first, I read from a letter written by Orvel Criqui, with whom I am acquainted and with whom I share an interest in things historical.  He was kind enough to mention his own awareness of my efforts to promote music and art, and to preserve history. He says, “It is hard to understand why there are some in Lawrence who do not want to honor those who gave their lives for our county and country . . . or why Lawrence . . . would not pounce on the chance to enhance this city . . .” with this Jim Brothers’ sculpture.

Those are both non issues. Others have said it better than I can.  There is no one who wants to turn down this piece of art; everyone wishes to honor our veterans and others who serve in the interest of public safety. There are veterans on either side of this issue and there is no one who has not been touched by the loss of a veteran in time of war or by the passage of time when the veterans among us pass on. I have gathered my uncles around my heart in the course of this public debate because, unfortunately they are all gone. So, please accept that we are all one community and without question honorable in our intent with regard to recognizing veterans and their sacrifices no matter which side of this issue one is on.

I refuse to accept the various dichotomies that have been thrown about whether it is the one I mentioned already of veterans vs. non-veteran, or art snobs vs.  the common people. I feel that the various groups who have been debating this issue are a mirror for each other. There are veterans and common people on both sides of this fence; and there are probably some closet art snobs lurking among the group that has been using that unfortunate language in the last few weeks.

Let me comment generally on historic preservation issues in our community.

In times of war we as people across the world lose a great deal more than seems humanly possible to bear. We are most fortunate in the United States to be spared much of the wartime loss of physical structures, art treasures and so on. Other countries have lost countless buildings such as our wonderful depot and much grander buildings as well as treasures or art, music and culture.

In the United States it is often indifference, neglect and outright hostility to preservation that has caused us to lose our heritage. This has been the order of the day in Lawrence and Douglas County. The editorial page of our local paper and those who speak for the business community often ridicule efforts at preservation. You will find the public record of those sentiments included the Watkins Bank Building that is now our historical museum Saving structures that we all enjoy and cherish today are often the result of herculean efforts of time and money by individuals and groups with the least resources to bring to the effort.

As we have heard from the accounts of area veterans and their families, the Union Pacific Depot is a vessel that holds the memories and stories of going off to war and, at for the fortunate, of returning home safely to family and friends. Everyone is in agreement that we are very fortunate to have this building still with us. A major change such as the placement of this sculpture requires some thought and consideration.  Otherwise there isn’t much of an argument for saving these old buildings in the first place. We have to listen, understand and validate the viewpoints of preservation concerns along with other voices in the community.

Given the range of possible impacts on the Depot, the proposed memorial is probably relatively small. I have a sense that the majority of this commission supports it and I am simply taking this opportunity to say some things that I feel need to be said. I do so in the hope that we can move beyond this decision together as a community. I have just a few more reactions to some of the arguments that have been raised.

1.    “That veterans should get to do whatever they want.”

I have clearly stated that I feel we need to honor veterans among us and the memory of those who are gone. But no group has the right in our democracy to do as they wish. We can point to many examples of that principle being implemented. In this and all decisions we have to weigh each matter carefully and balance the competing values and impacts.

2.    “This is the only sensible place for a veterans’ memorial.”

I feel there are any number of viable options including Veterans Park and I would hope that veterans will move to re-occupy this park and honor the decision made by people who came before us to set aside that ground. If it is not to remain an active veteran’s memorial then perhaps we should rename it.

3.   More than one individual pointed out that we have veterans to thank for the preservation of our democracy, and I do not contest that point. However, it is a direct assault on that sacrifice to treat the public processes that we put in place to implement our democracy with disrespect, or to quote one individual, to call it B.S. We have to work every day to make democracy alive and real. It is not perfect and neither are the people who serve in local affairs. They are human beings no more perfect than any of the people who have come forward to participate in this discussion.

4    We will live with the decision that is made here for the indefinite future. If the memorial is placed at the depot it will have positive affects. We have to recognize that it is part of a community center which is the site of many types of events and activities. I think it would be appropriate to spend some time considering alternatives and I may therefore vote against this. Somehow I think the vote is going to go the other way. And I do believe that once the decision is made if the vote is to proceed I think everyone is ready to move on.

Kennedy supported the memorial as a gift to the community at the Depot.  He thanked the Arts Commission for their deliberations in review of this piece.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the placement of the sculpture entitled “From the Ashes” at the Union Pacific Depot.  Aye:  Dunfield, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Rundle.  Abstain:  Hodges.  Motion carried.                                  (9)

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the report on the purchase of 38.4 acres along North 1750 Road in Douglas County for future park and greenspace.  This tract was in the Baldwin Creek Watershed and had no improvements on it.  The cost of this purchase was $345,000.00.  The financing for the purchase would come from the sales tax.

A person spoke in support of the acquisition.  It was important to provide public open space for people. 

An adjoining property owner to this tract asked what comparison sales were used for the purchase.  She had a concern about controls placed on the property since people were already using the tract for parties and other activities.  She asked about law enforcement and who was responsible for responding to emergencies.

Wildgen said he would give a copy of the appraisal to the landowner.  The current plans were to gate off access to the property.  This would not preclude people from using it for legal purposes.  Wildgen said he would make sure the appropriate law enforcement was provided at the site.

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Rundle, to approve the purchase of 38.4 acres along North 1750 Road for future/greenspace at the purchase price of $345,000.00 plus title, legal and survey work.   Motion carried unanimously.             (10)

Mayor Hodges asked staff to ask Board’s and Commission’s making recommendations for Board appointments to include a biography of the person and or resume.

The City Commission concurred to set a study session on April 5, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. for review of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Design; and, July 3, 2000, 9:00 a.m. for a budget review session.   

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.          

 

 

APPROVED:

 

_____________________________Ervin E. Hodges, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                        

Raymond J. Hummert, City Clerk

COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2000

1.                  Site Plan – (SP-12-81-99)  Chi Omega Sorority, 1345 W Campus Rd.

2.                  Prelim Dev Plan – Mt. Blue, 21.67 acres, located between K-10 Hwy to N & E 25^th to S.

3.                  Ordinance No. 7195 – 1^st Reading, change alley between 9^th 10^th, Kentucky, Tennessee from 1 way to 2 way traffic.

4.                  Ordinance No. 7196 – 1^st Reading, street name change from Stone Creek Ct to Castle Pine Ct in Foxfire Add #4.

5.                  Unsafe Structure – 904 Pennsylvania

6.                  Site Plan – Oregon St Warehouse, NW corner of E 13^th & Oregon St.

7.                  Agreement to Plat – Oregon St Warehouse, NW corner of E 13^th & Oregon St.

8.                  Agreement – 9-10 LLC, shared participation in costs of architectural & engineering design, 900 Blk New Hampshire.

9.                  Sculpture – entitled “From the Ashes” located at Union Pacific Depot.

10.              Land Purchase – along N 1750 Road for future/greenspace for $345,000.