June 12, 2001

 

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 Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Henry, and Kennedy present

Mayor Rundle asked the City Commission to table the June 5, 2001, City Commission Meeting Minutes, to allow for review and revisions of concerns raised during the discussion with the Plumbing Board.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 5, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of May 7, 2001 and June 4, 2001; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 24, 2001; the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 22, 2001; and, the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of May 3, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims in the amount of $3,260,185.40.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Sports Page Brewery, 3512 Clinton Parkway; Quinton’s Bar & Deli, 1730 West 234d (Contingent Upon State License); Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 2520 S Iowa; and, Duffy’s at the Ramada Inn, 2222 West 6th.  Motion carried unanimously.

Kennedy said the City Commission was to approve the following recommendations by Mayor Rundle.  The recommendations were to appoint David Burress and Myles Schachter to the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission; reappoint Dan Hughes and Thomas Waechter to the Bicycle Advisory Board; Steve Blackwell, Caroljean Brune and John J. Ziegelmeyer to the Traffic Safety Commission; reappoint Bill Parish to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals; and, Julie Borchardt to the Library Board.  In regards to the appointments to the Planning Commission, there were political issues brought to the City Commission.  Kennedy said he hoped the two new candidates would leave this political faction out of their desire to serve on the Planning Commission and be able to represent our entire community and the Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission. 

Henry said he had served on different committees with David Burress and Myles Schachter and new both of them to be quality, dedicated and sincere individuals.

Dunfield said both the appointments of Burress and Schachter would be great additions to the Planning Commission.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the appointments and reappointments by the Mayor.  Motion carried unanimously.    

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a Digital Imager, Service and Supplies for Information Systems.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid to IKON Office Solutions in the amount of $18,672.00 because the bid was based on comparing the imager purchase price along with service and supply costs over a five year period.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to set a bid date of June 26, 2001, 2:00 p.m., for the Ballard Community Center roofing project.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to set a bid date of June 19, 2001, 2:00 p.m., for the 23^rd, Iowa to Kentucky court and Iowa, 31^st to 33^rd, milling overlay and pavement marking project.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7363, amending City Ordinances concerning traffic, parking and other fines and penalties to reflect amendments to State Laws made by the 2001 Kansas Legislature.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                          (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7364, allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages by the Lawrence Jaycees in Burcham Park, on July 4, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.         (2)

Ordinance No. 7359, granting WorldNet LLC a Franchise Agreement for telephone services was read a third time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6317, declaring 1725 Ohio environmentally blighted, requiring the property owner to clear violations within twenty days or the City will abate violations.  Motion carried unanimously.                     (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6318, declaring 1720 Louisiana environmentally blighted, requiring the property owner to clear violations within twenty days or the City will abate violations.  Motion carried unanimously.                   (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the site plan (SP-5-21-01) for JDS Kansas Addition, to be located at 23^rd and Harper Streets, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

2.                  Provision of document to show the extension of the sanitary sewer main touches each lot;

3.                  Provision of a revised Site Plan to include the following charges per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer:

a.                  Correct the listed Grate Inlet Specifications.  R-4999-L6 with Type L grate. Dimensions listed do not match the catalog;

b.                  Structure B correction: City Std minimum is 5’ length;

c.                  Show the DE entering Lot 3 from the south as drawn per the recorded instrument; and,

4.                  Recording of the Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office, prior to the release of the Site Plan for issuance of a building permit.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the site plan (SP-5-24-01) for Central National Bank, to be located at 3110 Neider Road, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provision of a revised Site Plan indicating the following:

a.                  Label the detention outlet structure per the approved study.  Include structure make and model.  Include orifice plate size and attachment specification;

b.                  Raise the overflow weir elevation to 868.8 and point the leader to the grass area intended for overflow.  The back of curb is not the low point;

c.                  Revise legal description to match platted description;

2.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

3.                  Provision and approval of a photometric plan; and,

4.                  Provide agreements not-to-protest a benefit district for improvements to 31^st and Neider and 33^rd and Neider.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Capital Improvement Plan for years 2002-2007.  Motion carried unanimously.       (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-17-01) of approximately 5 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to RM-1 (Multi-Family Residence District), property commonly known as Heritage Baptist Church; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.    (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-18-01) of approximately 0.52 acres, from RO-2 (Residence-Office District) to O-1 (Office District), property located on the northwest corner of East 19^th Street and Haskell Avenue; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-19-01) of approximately 1.1 acres, from B-2 ( General Business-County-District) to C-5 (Limited Commercial-City-District), using the Lesser Change Table recommended rezoning to PCD-2,  property located at 3301 Iowa, the site of Wright’s Wallcovering; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                          (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the text amendment (CPA-2001-03) to Horizon 2020 revising the population contained in Chapter Two – summary of Background Studies of Horizon 2020.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to allow parking along the west side of Inverness Drive between Anthony Michael Drive and Cedar Ridge Court; and, along the east/north side of Inverness Drive between Oak Tree Drive and Williamsburg Place.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish an adult crossing guard at 28^th and Kensington during the morning crossing period, and at 27^th and Mayfair during the afternoon crossing period.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to recommend construction of a permanent partial diverter at the intersection of 6^th and Schwarz Road and the permanent partial diverter be constructed at not cost to the neighborhood.  Motion carried unanimously.              (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to allow “no parking” along the north side of Freedom Creek Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.                                              (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the agreement with USD No. 497, Lawrence Public Schools for maintenance and administration of the Carl Knox Natatorium.   Motion carried unanimously.                                (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a release of Mortgage for Gerald McCormick and Katheryn Sloan, 2000 Barker.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                  (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to declare a surplus property and authorize the sale at public auction on June 23, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to execute a certification of real property acquisition procedures for the improvement of 23^rd and Barker.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                   (20)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the staff report on a grant application (U.S. Department of Justice COPS in Schools Grant Program) for police officers in public schools.   This grant would provide funds for a three-year period for a School Resource Officer (SRO) in each of the four junior high school in Lawrence.  There was currently an officer at each of our High Schools which was funded by the Special Alcohol Tax, but starting in the year 2002, would be funded by the City's General Fund.  The grant would provide $125,000 over a three year period beginning January 2002.       

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the grant application for police officers in public schools with the Police Department and School District to sign a Memorandum of Understanding.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                              (21)

Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the proposed vacation of a utility easement at 850 Maple Street.

George Williams, Public Works Director, presented the staff report on the proposed vacation of a utility easement at 850 Maple Street.  The property owner had requested the easement be vacated and a utility easement be dedicated along the east line of this lot to serve the adjacent lot directly to the east.   There were currently no utilities located in the easement and staff recommended vacation of the utility easement.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.                                         

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the vacation order for a utility easement at 850 Maple Street and authorize the Mayor to sign the Vacation Order.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                   (22)

Terese Gorman, City Engineer, presented the report for 27^th and Iowa Street Geometric and Traffic Signal Improvements.  Staff and neighborhood representatives met to discuss concerns for the design of the project.   Staff agreed to conduct traffic counts on 27^th Street before the project was started and follow-up counts after the improvements were completed to determine the effect of traffic volume.

Kennedy asked if the project would be delayed because of traffic counts.

Gorman said “no.”  They had time to take traffic counts because the construction phase of the project would not start until approximately September.  They had submitted the application for funding by KDOT in June 1998.  Gorman said this project has been brought to the City Commission on three separate occasions which were for submittal of the application, acceptance of the money and proceed with the design, and hiring the design contractor.    

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said it took approximately five months to acquire traffic signal equipment for the project which gave City staff time to implement traffic counts.    

Jean Ellermeier, 2529 Arkansas, thanked the City Commission and staff for working with neighborhood representatives in making this project acceptable.  She said the neighborhood representatives concurred this was not a good design and would produce additional traffic on 27^th, but realized staff had addressed all their concern and appreciated the willingness of staff to do traffic counts before and after the project to determine the effects of the traffic volume.  She said they were discouraged because the neighborhood new nothing of the project when it was first discussed which resulted in less input on the project from the neighborhood.   She asked staff if they could be better informed about project in their area area.        

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the Construction Engineering Contract with TranSystems for 27^th and Iowa, Geometric and Traffic Signal Improvements, in the amount of $98,790.05 with the State funding the project which would be bid by July 2001 with the State paying 90% of the cost, and the City paying the additional 10% of the cost.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (23)

Peter Curran, representing Weaver’s Inc., presented the request to remove the Public Transit System bus stopping area along 9^th Street, between Massachusetts and Vermont.  He said Weaver’s was supportive of the Transit System which provided a great public service.  Weaver’s prided itself on having long been an outstanding corporate citizen of the City of Lawrence.  In December of last year, when the Transfer Station was north of the Weaver’s store, they were apprehensive about what effect it might have and chose not to voice opposition in order to see how the Transfer Station would work.  After 6 months, Weaver’s firmly believed the Transfer Station has adversely impacted its business.  While taking six parking spaces out of play might not seem like a big deal, accessibility to retail business was extremely important.  He was surprised Weaver’s was still in business because of the enormous competitive market.  It was short sigjted to allow the Transfer Station to hurt Weaver's because others viewed them as an anchor retailer of the Downtown area.  For many years it has been public policy of the City Commission to promote the viability of the Downtown area.  Weaver’s was operating in a “fragile” business environment.  Curran said the easiest course of action would be to do nothing because of the effort, expenditures and change.  The center of town was not necessarily the optimum location for the Transfer Station.  The City has identified as a permanent station, the Santa Fe Depot at 7^th and New York which was fairly far removed from the center of downtown.   He asked the City Commission to direct the Transfer Station be relocated within sixty days.  Other possibilities for relocation were the Community Building, 11^th & Vermont, 800 Block of New Hampshire, Ninth Street Between Rhode Island and New Hampshire and Massachusetts in front of South Park.

Pat Slick, 1406 East 15^th Street, member of the Public Transit Advisory Committee, said the Public Transit Advisory Committee has been working hard and has volunteered time checking out transfer points from the beginning of the Transit System to ensure which point would be viable for a transfer site.  He thought with a traffic light at an intersection it would be safer then a three way stop.  He said Weaver’s had mentioned they had lost six parking spaces and believed the Transit Buses had the capacity to bring more customers to Weaver’s.  The Public Transit Advisory Committee has asked Weaver’s to work with them and the City in regard to this issue.  Weaver’s also claimed their business has tapered off.  He asked everyone to consider the general downturn in the economic situation in the United States and whether or not the general downturn in the economy had something to do with Weaver’s loosing business.  There were alternative transfer points which would involve expense and confusion on the part of the public.  The Public Transit System was ready to go with the new bus schedules and needed to know the outcome of the transit site soon because they were ready to make the routes more convenient for people.  Transferring from one route to another has been difficult and with the strong work of the volunteers on the Public Transit Advisory Committee transfers have been corrected and approved by the City Commission.  The City needed to decide whether they were committed to a public transportation system.  He urged the City Commission to consider the work the Public Transit Advisory Committee has done on their own time and their willingness to negotiate parking problems with Weaver’s.                                               

Joe Flannery, President, Weaver’s, said they never intended this issue to become a Weaver’s versus the Transportation Department.  They supported public transportation and would continue to do so.  The transfer station should be Downtown, but not at the busiest intersection in the heart of Downtown.  Their request was for the City Commission to move the transfer station to a place that was less disruptive because it has affected their business.  The transfer station should be adjacent to City property where it would not interfere with any other business.  It was not their intent to push this transfer station to another area where their business would be disrupted.  He asked the City Commission to look at other solutions for a transfer site and reinstall the six metered parking spaces.        

Melodie Christal, President, Downtown Lawrence Inc., said they encouraged the City Commission to move the transfer station to another location.  They were pleased to have a City Transfer System and had been working with City staff on promoting the Transit System.  They had a concern about the six parking spaces in addition to three parking spaces on the 900 Block of Vermont that were removed to allow parking for disabled persons.  This was a total of nine  parking spaces that was eliminated from the 900 Block.  Also, parking spaces had been removed because of the new parking garage.  Another concern was increased congestion at 9^th and Massachusetts due to the bus transfer.  They would like to propose an alternative transfer point which would be the 800 Block of New Hampshire.  She said this was the proposed Farmer’s Market location and there would be shelter and public restrooms, both which were needed in the Downtown area.

Bob Schumm, Downtown property owner, said he has maintained a business in Downtown Lawrence for over 30 years.  He spent a significant part of his day Downtown.  The 9^th and Massachusetts intersection was by far the busiest intersection and would get busier when Project 2000 opens up bringing more traffic from the west across Massachusetts into the east.  He was in full support of Public Transportation and believed it was a wonderful opportunity for a number of citizens to get around.  There was a safety issue at 9^th and Massachusetts.  In addition to safety, the City planned to acquire larger buses and assumed they would take up more parking spaces.  Schumm said there were a number of adequate places to serve a transfer site which would not interfere with the Downtown activities.                  

Robert Casad suggested the parking lot next to the library as an ideal place for a transfer station.   

Earl Reinerman, Weaver’s, said he never perceived it was difficult to find a parking space Downtown, but there were a number of people living in this community that had that perception. Because they had that perception, they tended to avoid Downtown.  He said the loss of six parking places might not sound like a lot, but it created a perception.  It was unfortunate this has become a Weaver’s against Public Transportation issue because nothing could be further from the truth.  He wanted to emphasis to the City Commission that a vote to move the transfer point was not in any way a vote against Public Transportation.    

Pat Kehde, The Raven Book Store, said the whole issue of parking downtown was to get people Downtown without having to drive their automobiles.  She said lets get people to come down on the Transit System.  The mind adjustment would never take place if we keep pushing the buses away in favor the automobiles.  

Rundle asked about the grant the City was awarded for building shelters.

Karin Rexroad, Public Transit Administrator, said they had done all the paper work necessary for the Federal Earmark.  They were waiting on the FTA to finish their review and make a decision.  The grant was for approximately $500,000.00 because of an adjustment and the City contributed approximately $125,000.00 which could be used for any type of amenities throughout the system. 

Kennedy asked what the status was of creating a bus terminal at the Santa Fe Depot.

Rexroad said they were waiting on the Great American Station Foundation for a planning grant to look at feasibility and environmental issues.  Also, they had applied for a Federal Earmark and were not sure whether they would receive that grant or not.  The creation of the bus terminal depended upon those grants.

Rundle said he has been contacted about problems caused by the transfer station located at 9^th and Massachusetts.  The City was looking for a more permanent location and recognized this site was not the perfect location.  He thought an alternate location was appropriate.   

Hack said she believed that a person could be a supporter of public transportation and at the same time, be concerned about parking spaces.  Weaver’s was a tremendous community supporter and has supported public transportation.  She said the City Commission needed to help Weaver’s and their customers solve this problem.  Hack was in favor of exploring other options.

Henry concurred with Hack and said the City Commission had a duty and responsibility to protect the Downtown merchants and would like to look at the additional options for the transfer site.  He thanked the Public Transportation Advisory Committee and volunteers for all their hard work and energy expended on this effort.  He said the 800 Block of New Hampshire would be a possible viable option and would like it taken to PTAC for additional study.   

Dunfield said his original thought was that South Park site seemed like a good location because of the visibility and the closeness of the shelter.   In looking at this site in more depth, it was a long way from the center of Downtown and there were certain difficulties in getting back and forth across Massachusetts as it was at the current site at 9^th and Massachusetts.  The stretch of 9^th Street from New Hampshire to Tennessee was a tremendously busy environment.  A transfer point that was visible from that area would be appropriate.  Dunfield said it seemed the Public Transit Authority Committee came to a decision between 9^th Street between Massachusetts and Vermont; and, 9^th Street between New Hampshire and Rhode Island Streets and it was the New Hampshire to Rhode Island variation of the 9^th Street transfer point that he was leaning towards.

Kennedy said the transfer point needed to be close to Downtown.   He concurred with Dunfield’s idea of a transfer point.  The idea of moving the transfer point to South Park gave accessibility to restrooms and shelter facilities, but it delivered everyone away from our Downtown.  The City Commission should keep the transfer point in close proximity to the heart of Downtown.  The area between New Hampshire and Rhode Island on 9^th Street seemed like an alternative that could be workable with our transit system without any major changes in their routing that would occur.            

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to give the Public Transit Authority Committee the flexibility to study multiple sites in the Downtown area and bring the alternatives back to the City Commission.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                          (24)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager presented the draft Ordinance allowing for the towing of vehicles illegally parked in tow away zones.  The City’s current code only allowed a citation to be issued and the vehicle could not be towed until forty-eight hours after the vehicle was cited.

Moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7365, allowing for the towing of vehicles illegally parked in tow away zones.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (25)

Chris Stewart, Assistant Director, Utilities Department, presented the report concerning Bowersock Dam Improvements.  He said they were requesting approval from the City Commission on the following items:

1.               Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with L.G. Barcus & Sons for the construction improvements;

2.                  Authorize the City Manager to sign a Supplemental Agreement to the existing contract with Black & Veatch for a maximum not-to-exceed $35,000.00 for additional engineering inspection services that were related to the dam project; and,

3.               Authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Penny’s Concrete Inc. in      the amount of $51,166.25 for the improvements.   

           Michael Orth, Project Manager, Black & Veatch, presented pictures to the City Commission on the deterioration and structure failure of the Bowersock Dam.  In October of last year, Black & Veatch had a study session with the City Commission.  At that time, they were directed to prepare contract documents for competitive bidding.  They had received three bids with L.G. Barcus as the low bidder.  They contracted L.G. Barcus concerning questions and issues related to the project.  He said Black & Veatch conducted a visual observation of the dam structure and was concerned about the unknown elements.   They had been working with Bowersock Mills and had been cooperative because they were benefiting from this project.  One concern was the proposed work schedule and when they could get in the river to do repairs.   He said L.G. Barcus was proposing to be in the river approximately July 15, 2001 through October.  Because of the unknown elements and work items was the reason the contract was put together on a time and material basis.  Black & Veatch was asking they be allowed to go into the project with a 20% contingency to cover those unknown elements and work items.  The 20% contingency would allow them to complete the project in a timely manner.

           Dunfield asked about the nature of the contract.  He said the contract was described as a Unit Price Proposal with a total cost of $1,000,000.00.  He asked if that was based on the assumption of the number of units of concrete.

           Orth said they had made a conservative effort of the actual units whether it was concrete or whatever the project was based on.

           Dunfield asked if the 20% contingency was based on each of those unit cost and would it be applied.  If they had an access of work in any of those areas, would they apply that unit cost that Black & Veatch established until the 20% maximum was reached

           Orth said in the contract documents, they allowed for a 25% plus or minus for that unit cost to be applicable.  If they were off by more or less than 25%, Black & Veatch might need to renegotiate that unit cost with the contractor.  If that situation occurred that would be when the 20% contingency would apply.  There could be other items that Black & Veatch were not aware of or not physically visible to them when they do their inspections.  At that point in time, they would need to renegotiate additional unit cost that was specific to that repair.

           Dunfield asked Orth what would happen if Black & Veatch overshot in their estimate of how much work there was to be done; and, does the unit cost apply in taking away from the contract.

           Orth said “yes.”  If it was under 25%, they might need to renegotiate that unit with the contractor and if it were within that margin, it would be a credit to the City.

           Kennedy asked Orth if he had a conceptual design of the dam.

           Orth said visually the repairs would not be seen from the surface.  The funds would not be going toward the esthetics of the project because the Corp of Engineers Permit restricted them to maintenance of the structure.  

           Kennedy asked if the sheet piling on the dam would disappear.  He said the sheet piling should be covered or in a location to where they were not causing additional failure to the dam and should be a supportive feature.   

           Orth said the portion of the sheet piling that had stayed in place over time had a concrete lip that extended over the sheet piling.  That lip caused flow to come over to discharge down away from the sheet piling.  Their design intent was to have a concrete lip over the north portion which raps that sheet piling in the concrete mass and does not expose that edge to debris and trees that could potentially come down catching the edge and folding it over.    

           Rundle said this process was critical to our water intake.

           Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with L.G. Barcus & Sons for the construction improvements; to authorize the City Manager to sign a Supplemental Agreement to the existing contract with Black & Veatch for a maximum not-to-exceed $35,000.00 for additional engineering inspection services that were related to the dam project; and, authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Penny’s Concrete Inc. in the amount of $51,166.25 for the improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                       (26)

Moved by Hack, seconded by Kennedy, to recess for five minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.

Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report on the Wakarusa Place Development Issues.  The original request was to rezone (Z-02-10-01B) from A (Agriculture) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) property generally located at the northwest corner of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  The applicant requested the Planning Commission use the Lesser Change Table to recommend approximately 5.5 acres this rezoning request be from A (Agriculture) to POD-1.  This rezoning was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.    

Z-02-10-01A was the request to rezone approximately 25.8 from A (Agriculture) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District), property generally located at the northwest corner of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  Staff had not generated new staff reports for these items because they had only received an application for the original thirty-two acres.  Staff recommended denial of this request based on the findings of fact in the staff report.  Those findings of fact centered on the size of the development and the overall size of the commercial development at the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa.  Horizon 2020 was based on a “nodal” concept of commercial development.  He said it was important to know the term “nodal” referred to an intersection.  If this development were built out to its fullest extent, and in conjunction with the existing commercial development at the intersection, there would be approximately 447,000 square feet of commercial under roof with approximately 59.8 acres of commercial zoning.  Dyer said this was important to note because Horizon 2020 defined commercial development into three categories which were neighborhood, community and regional.  In each category it suggested acreage and square footage.  Horizon 2020 does specifically call out the Regional Commercial Center (largest commercial center) and stated that within the planning period, a Regional Commercial Center was not expected unless there was a review of the population figures, land uses and an amendment made.  A Community Commercial Center was suggested to be ten to thirty acres and between 100,000 to 450,000 square feet of leasable area.  Typically, a Community Commercial Center was a 150,000 square feet of gross leasable square footage.  Horizon 2020 designated 6^th and Wakarusa to be a Community Commercial Center.  The Planning Department has received a Preliminary Development Plan for the northeast corner which was the area in front of Free State High School.   This Preliminary Development Plan showed 18.9 acres of commercial zoning and gross square footage of 178,000 square feet.  If all the proposed development were to be fully built out and in conjunction with the existing amount of commercial space for the intersection, there would be approximately 78.7 acres of commercial zoning and a gross square footage of 626,000 square feet at this intersection.  This would put the plan over the Regional Commercial Center designation.  The Planning Commission recommended 6-4 to approve this rezoning, but staff recommended denial.           

Z-02-05-01 was the rezoning of approximately 2.004 acres, from A (Agriculture) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) property generally located east of Congressional Drive (extended north) and south of Overland Drive (extended west) was recommended by staff and unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission for approval condition upon the successful transfer of property from the City to the developer.                                                   

Z-02-11-01 was the rezoning of approximately 14.8 acres, from A (Agriculture) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) property generally located at the southeast corners of Congressional Drive (extended) and Overland Drive (extended) which included the detention area.  Staff recommended approval and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission based on the conditions in staff’ report.                                                                  

Z-02-08-01 was the rezoning  of approximately 5.538 acres, from A (Agriculture) to RO-1A (Residence-Office District), property generally located at the northwest corner of West 6^th Street and Congressional Drive (extended).  Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission, using the Lesser Change Table, unanimously recommended this be rezoned from A (Agriculture) to O-1 (Office).

Z-02-09-01 was the rezoning of approximately 1.75 acres A (Agriculture) to RS-1(Single-Family Residence District), property generally located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive (extended) and Overland Drive.  Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. 

A-12-31-00 was the annexation request of approximately 49.536 acres located northwest of the intersection of West 6^th and Wakarusa Drive.  Staff recommend approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the rezoning request was approved.                                                                                                                                                 (27)

Kyle Mieras, Planner presented the Preliminary Development Plan for the commercial portion of Wakarusa Place, a proposed mixed use development, to be located northwest of the intersection of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  The development plan included 198,769 square feet of retail commercial area which was 4.56 acres under roof.  The applicant  proposed to purchase 1.3 acres of park property from the City of Lawrence.  The property would be utilized for the south half of Overland Drive and stormwater detention for the proposed development.  There was a small possibility that part of the property could be used for residential development.  In addition to the park property, the applicant requested the northern portion of the right-of-way for the extension of Overland Drive come from the City Property.  If the City Commission did not approve the transfer of sale of the parkland, the Preliminary Development Plan needed to be altered which would be significant.  The timing of the infrastructure improvements was key to this development.  KDOT has forwarded the following comment regarding the development plan which stated: “The density proposed would likely overwhelm the 6^th and Wakarusa intersection.  A traffic impact study was underway which provided some answers.”  They recommended holding further action until that time.  KDOT was concerned about the overall size and intensity of the development on this site coupled with the surrounding land uses.  This supported staff’s position that this much commercial development should not occur at this site.   The Planning Department received preliminary comments from KDOT regarding the traffic study they were working on for the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa which stated:  “Even with full intersection improvements, the 6^th and Wakarusa Intersection would be over capacity in the design year given the current land use patterns.  This pattern was set to repeat itself all the way to the K-10 Interchange.  The "demand" was being allowed to outstrip the "supply" and failure of the arterial corridor would result.  This could be viewed as substantially similar to the patterns seen on 23^rd Street and Iowa Street.  As a condition of approval on the Preliminary Development Plan, the phasing plan needed to clearly stated that improvements to Wakarusa Drive would be installed with the Phase 1 improvements of this development.  Wakarusa Drive needed to be completed to its ultimate design prior to the occupancy of the site.  The current road and the intersections could not handle the anticipated traffic volumes from this development and the existing high school traffic.  This condition should be read to include the intersections of 6^th and Wakarusa and 6^th and Overland Drive.  Pursuant to the City’s Development Policy the developer was responsible for sewer and waterline extensions and improvements.  The developer was aware this site was dependent upon sewer improvements to be constructed by the Baldwin Creek No. 2 and Westwood Hills sanitary sewer benefit districts which were in the process of being created when the plan was done.  The Preliminary Development Plan as conditioned, met the minimum code requirements for approval.  However, the amount of commercial acreage shown on the plan was not supported by Horizon 2020 or the Northwest Plan.  The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation for approval of the Preliminary Development Plan subject to the following conditions:”

1.         Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan depicting the following:

a.                  Provide MEBO for all lots located next to or containing a drainage easement, Section 21-301.5(b);

b.                  No access is allowed within 350’ of the centerline of 6^th Street.  Please provide note indicating access restrictions;

c.                  Provide a note indicating no direct access will be provided to West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  Provide note for every lot with street frontage;

d.                  Remove notes stating “Project developer agrees to 50% of traffic signal improvements.”  Cost shares are spread when benefit district is formed, if approved by City Commission;

e.                  Provide utility easements along 6^th Street that are closer to the edge of the parking lots in order for utility boxes and cabinets to be setback from the 6^th Street right-of-way;

f.                    Phasing plan needs to clearly state that Wakarusa Drive south of and including the intersection of Overland Drive will be installed with Phase 1;

g.                  Label setback line along north property line of Lot 2, Block 3;

h.                  A perimeter setback variance request needs to be identified where the PCD area and POD area share a common property line.  The current language is not correct and needs to correctly identify the variance request;

i.                      The applicant will provide necessary right-of-way for the KDOT Improvements to 6^th Street;

j.                     Show private Southwestern Bell easement along southern property line;

k.                   The northwest storm system is not drawn correctly on Sheet 1;

l.                     Extend storm sewer to Lot 1, Block 1.  Do not discharge this lot directly to the park;

m.                Drainage easements are incorrect.  Provide contiguous DE’s whenever the storm system is outside public right-of-way.  Extend DE’s to right-of-way lines.  All DE’s must be complete polygons.  DE’s crossing UE’s must be shown to coexist.

n.                  Provide a 50’ wide DE at the future connection from 6^th Street;

o.                  Provision of agreements not-to-protest geometric and signalization improvements on West 6^th Street and Congressional Drive and Wakarusa Drive and Overland Drive;

2.         Provision of agreements not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for Overland Drive, west of Congressional Drive and Overland Drive;

3.         Provision of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for Overland Drive, west of Congressional Drive and Overland Drive;

5.                  Provision of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection improvements at Congressional Drive and Overland Drive; and,

6.                  Completion of the land sale with City of Lawrence.   

            Rundle asked Mieras if some of the conditions from the staff report had been taken care of before the Planning Commission’s vote.

            Mieras said “yes.”  The reports went out before staff had revised plans.

            Dunfield asked if the nineteen acres on the northeast corner of the proposed development was retail development.

            Mieras said “yes.”  There was 178,000 square feet of retail on nineteen acres.

            Dunfield asked if the zoning was in place for the nineteen acres.

            Mieras said “yes.”  It was conditionally zoned.  Much like the PRD, the zoning was conditioned upon approval of the Preliminary Development Plan.  The applicant submitted the Preliminary Development Plan to ensure their zoning.

            Dunfield said by the applicant submitting the Preliminary Development Plan, they could start negotiating and resolving any issues with staff and the Planning Commission.

            Kennedy asked about the gross square footage of the northwest corner of West 6^th

            Mieras said 198,769 which was under roof on 25.8 acres.

            Kennedy said they were under roof by 4.56 acres, so there must be some parking and lots of greenspace. 

            Mieras said “yes.”  The detention area in the back was open space and greenspace.

            Kennedy asked Mieras if the area was approximately three acres.

            Mieras said “yes.”  He said that was why this was part of this development plan. It detained the water from the front.

            Sheila Stogsdill said the detention area was not part of the PCD Zoning.

            Rundle asked if the detention area was part of the greenspace.

            Mieras said there was greenspace along the perimeter.  In a Planned Unit Development, there was a required peripheral setback so there was 35’ of peripheral greenspace around that PCD.  

            Kennedy asked if the 35’ setback occured on the northeast corner.

            Mieras said “yes.”  He said there was also a 50’ setback along 6^th Street.

            Hack asked about KDOT’s comments on the design year and what that meant. 

            Mieras said it meant they built the intersection to meet the demands in the future, once they met those demands, the design year would be over.  The demand on that intersection would be above the capacity they were building into.

            Wildgen said the design year was 2016 for that intersection.

            Jane Eldredge, representing the applicant for 6^th and Wakarusa, said she would like to reserve comment at the end of the public discussion because there might be some issues they would like to address at that time and respond.  Eldridge said a previous Commission had approved a 52 acre PCD for this location dependent on approval of a Preliminary Development Plan within a two year period.  That requirement was not met because the owner made other arrangements for the plans to expand an existing business.   The applicant in this case initially came to the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission in January with a fifty-two 52 acre PCD request and with a development proposal.  It was at the suggestion of Planning Staff and the Planning Commission that it was then broken down into discrete zoning areas.  They met with Planning Staff and the Planning Commission in March and again, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission made more suggestions.  This was further refined and commercial was reduced substantially at that point.  The final set of presentations was given in April to the Planning Commission.  She said it seemed anomalous to have a 6-4 vote on a rezoning and then a 10-0 vote on a Preliminary Development Plan unless you look at the fact they had a negative staff recommendation on the rezoning, but a positive staff recommendation on the plan.  Planning Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously felt it was a good plan.  There was a difference of opinion about some of the interpretation for zoning. 

            Jim Harpool, Dial Realty of Kansas City, presented the recommendations from the Planning Commission for the proposed annexation, zoning and preliminary development plan for 6^th and Wakarusa.   There were three parcels involved and it has taken Bill Newsome and Doug Compton over a year to assemble these parcels.  Dial Realty has been involved with this project for approximately ten months.  The site has been planned for retail/office/residential development on both Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Plan.  He said their goal was to develop a high quality, pedestrian friendly, retail/office, restaurant, multi-family and financial institution development that would be a good gateway for northwest Lawrence.  He presented pictures and aerial maps of the plan to the City Commission.   The property in the proposed plan contained approximately 35.7 acres which was Rock Chalk property, 14.2 acres was the World Co., and approximately 2 acres of City property.  The right-of-way to be dedicated was 8.55 acres that included right-of-way on 6^th Street, Wakarusa, Congressional and Overland Drive.  Out of the approximately 54 acres there were 8.5 acres that went to right-of-way, greenspace with no development (detention area) north and 3.2 acres which was reserved for greenspace which was a no buildings zone.  All these zonings were gross acreages which starting at the center line of the street and included the 8.55 acres of right-of-way.  The 25 acres of PCD came to approximately 22.3 acres inside the property line.  The right-of-way would be dedicated to the City and would not have buildings on it.  Working through this process, they had been through a variety of plans and had scaled it down a number of occasions, but the key to this site was the infrastructure requirements that was worked on with City Staff.   He said 6^th Street needed widened and the State wanted to acquire the four existing access points.  Wakarusa Drive needed to be widened up to Overland and eventually to Queens Road.  Access restrictions on Wakarusa go approximately 350 feet north.  Dial agreed to take all those access restrictions all the way up to Overland so there would be no curb cuts directly into the project from Wakarusa or from 6^th Street.  Wakarusa Drive extension to the north needed to be provided for and the right-of-way donated.  Overland Drive extension west of Wakarusa wanted to align with Overland Drive on the east side.  He said the Wang property which was to the west would loose access at some point.  The State contemplated condemning a piece of this 55 acres at Congressional.  By going north and then going west, Dial has provided access to the Wang property.  What they had proposed when building Overland and Congressional Drive, they would provide access off of Overland to the Wang property so that access was taken care of in terms of the State.  Congressional extension, north of 6^th to Overland.  City staff wanted these to align evenly with both properties on the north.  Harpool gave a thirty-minute presentation to the City Commission concerning the project and their zoning and development goals and marketing and traffic study. 

            John Bush, 4321 West 6^th, said he had a partnership that was developing ground to the north of the 6^th and Wakarusa development, approximately 132 acres and another partnership that would be involved in 53 acres that came all the way down to the northern part of this property.  He said they were not opposed to this development.  They thought it was a positive project because it was a large development.  With a large development you could stay away from some of the piecemeal developing that could deteriorate an area.  He had spoken with a number of people concerning this development and said a vast majority are for the development.      

            Robert Casad, 811 New Jersey, had a concern about conflict of interest in City development.  He sited an excerpt from the Lawrence Journal World dated April 26, 2001, concerning 6^th Street rezoning.  Casad had concerns about the proposed development.

            Jonathan Becker, 412 Vine, said Harpool did not reference their property.  In the preliminary designs they submitted to the City, he noticed his road or house was not even on the plat even though he lived less than one mile from this property. He said they had a healthy tension problem.  They knew there would be growth in northwest Lawrence and this was the first big step along the way.  The question the City Commission needed to deal with as a matter of social policy and future development in this community, was what kind of growth were they going to have west of Wakarusa on 6^th Street.  If you listen to what was being said, this project was too big.  The size of the project was 204,679 square feet of commercial operation in this 49 acre lot.  They were going from a neighborhood to a Regional Commercial Development with the additions in the other communities.  Another concern was Harpool contended there was a 35' setback on the property and on his plat it stated 15' – 8”.  In Harpool’s slide show he contended that there were 2,510 people living within the one mile radius.  As elected officials, they were aware there were four precincts in that area.  As being a past election judge for that area, he knew there were approximately a total of 2,110 registered voters in those four precincts.  He could not believe within this one mile radius they had all those people who were registered voters and did not show up in Harpool’s survey.  He spoke of the Free State High School that was to the northeast of that area, if the other elected School Board were to suggest placing one of our schools near this kind of commercial development they would be “railroaded out of town and would look forward to the trip.”  For someone to suggest this kind of commercial development with a single stop light at the corner of Overland and Wakarusa to handle the 700 plus cars was inadequate. This type of development would have continued accidents.  The development was to big, the numbers did not add up and the safety of our children was at risk.  Becker said this project should be rejected.

            Jeff Moran, 4513 Harvard, concurred with Becker and said it was important to talk about this development as a whole.  The developers had told us about all the good things this development would bring which was greenspace and residential areas.  He said that was not a gift to the City, but was needed for flood control.  It was important to note that a parking lot was not the same thing as a park.  He had a concern about crossing over to one greenspace from one side of Overland Drive to the other.  The developer said this was going to be a nice pedestrian area and was curious how this did not compete with the downtown.  This issue should never had come before the City Commission nor the Planning Commission stage for these reasons:

1.                  The Planning Commission had no public input because no one was notified;

2.                  The Planning Commission had no traffic study; and,

3.                  The City planners opposed this project because of the size of the development.

Other problems were traffic, aesthetic and allowing big box stores in Lawrence.

            Jack Davidson, 6 Colonial Court, was opposed to this development for many of the reason that had already been stated.  One major concern was KDOT’s comments about the traffic being overwhelming at this intersection and the location of the High School.   The proposed development did not meet the standards of Horizon 2020 because of the size of the development.  He wanted to remind the City Commission concerning the Market Study and pointed out there were two areas of commercial development, one opposite the east turnpike entrance, formerly Tanger Mall which remained empty and the Riverfront Mall that was being converted into another use.   He opposed the project because of the size and location of the development.  

            Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Henry, to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

            Melodie Christal, representing Downtown Lawrence Inc., said their committee met and discussed the proposal at 6^th and Wakarusa.  As independent business owners they did not want to antagonize their existing or potential customers.  Yet, they had concerns about the proposed development and the impact on the Downtown businesses.  She read a letter written to the City Commission which stated that the Board of Directors encouraged them to send the request for the development of the northwest intersection of Wakarusa and West 6^th Street back to the Planning Commission for further study.  Christal reminded the commission that Horizon 2020 called for continued managed growth in Lawrence with careful balancing of development and existing neighborhood and the environment.  Horizon 2020 identifies potential areas for new commercial opportunities and includes standards and guidelines, but also emphasizes that these commercial area be appropriately sized and located.  It was their belief  the proposed plan did not conform to Horizon 2020 for the following reasons:

1.                  The proposed acreage for commercial use grossly exceeded what was recommended in Horizon 2020.  This proposal would make this area a regional shopping center and Horizon 2020 does not recommend such a center until the population was around 120,000;      

2.                  The proposed plan would have a detrimental effect on Downtown Lawrence. If all the commercial development was approved the acreage at the intersection would exceed the size of Downtown Lawrence and square footage for leasable space would rival Downtown.  The new parking garage which was funded with a TIF Bond was slated to open this fall.  Any decrease in sales revenue Downtown could put this Bond repayment in jeopardy

3.                  The recommended site for a regional shopping center was at the intersection of 6^th and the South Lawrence Trafficway, not at 6^th and Wakarusa.  If that site were to be developed along with this proposed development, there would be a lot of pressure to zone for strip malls between those two regional shopping centers.

4.                  Last week a plan was submitted to the City for eighteen acres of commercial development on the northeast corner which included two box stores, this plan had not been presented prior to the Planning Commission’s approval of the northwest corner.  Forty percent of the Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission voted against this project.  It was clear there were some unresolved issues.

            For these reasons stated above Downtown Lawrence Inc., believed the current proposal needed to be revisited and encouraged the City Commission to send the current proposal back to the Planning Commission.

            Johannes Feddema, 4600 Grove Drive, said he had no idea about this project until recently.  A project of this size would not only impact the traffic on 6^th Street and Wakarusa, it would impact the entire region.  He had concerns about the environmental impact because of our natural systems in terms of water flow and water control.  The amount of traffic that would come to this area in terms of air quality and other issues had not been addressed.   He had concerns about traffic and bicycle safety because of the amount of traffic.

            David Schauner, 5002 Jeffries Court, said he had previously lived in Topeka and moved to Lawrence because even though he did not have a great nostalgia about what Lawrence was, he did have a respect of what Lawrence has tried to become.  Lawrence was a town that intended to balance, in a long-range way, the competing interest of economic and residential development and quality of life.  His experience in Topeka tells him that Lawrence could quickly become the new home of Wanamaker Drive.    He asked the City Commission to consider the twenty year impact of a development of this size at 6^th and Wakarusa.   A development of this size would throw out of balance the good thoughts and hard work of those who developed Horizon 2020.  If the City allowed for this development on the west side of the bypass there would be no stopping the retail creep, small office creep and detention pond creep.  Schauner asked the City Commission to reject the recommendations of this project and consider it outside the scope of Horizon 2020.

            Stewart Nowlin, 4609 Harvard Road, had lived in Lawrence since 1957.  They had previously lived in Madison, Wisconsin and had a similar situation concerning big box developments.  As soon as the development opened up, the area was entirely overwhelmed due to traffic congestion.  He said they did not want to see that kind of development occur in Lawrence.  They felt that Lawrence did not need another South Iowa.  He asked the City Commission that notification be sent to the surrounding residents when the Planning Commission met concerning this development.

            Larry Kipp, 1029 N 1750 Road, said he was opposed to this project because of Horizon 2020 was amended in a defacto way by the Planning Commission rather than being properly amended through a public notice and public hearings stipulated by Kansas Law and every developer would know of this situation.  He said if the City Commission wanted to adopt this project they needed to amend Horizon 2020 first, then adopt the project.   Kipp was also concerned about KDOT’s comments about residential creep.  He said at one time 23^rd Street was zoned all residential and eventually converted into commercial.  The only difference between 23^rd Street and 6^th Street was that 23^rd Street was on a grid system.  It was possible to go down other streets and get around 23^rd without going out of your way.  In the 6^th Street area, developers had gone away from the grid system to a cul-de-sac system by only using major arterials as a way of getting around.  If the 6^th Street from Wakarusa to the SLT project failed, there would be no way that it could be fixed because there was no grid system in place.                       

            John Kriss, 4504 Harvard Road, said he has driven by the Free State High School and observed several kids running around and on bicycles in the area and had a concern about safety near the school and pool. 

            Bob Schumm said he was at the meeting when the same type of rezoning issue was brought to the City Commission concerning 31^st and Iowa Street.  The project was too big and people did not want this type of project for Lawrence Kansas.  He commented on the lack of people who were for the project and why they were not here to speak on behalf of the project.  He said Downtown Lawrence Merchants recently received a letter from Downtown Topeka Inc., stating that they wanted to reestablish Downtown Topeka as a family oriented, economically sound and culturally vital and visual attractive regional destination. Unfortunately, many years of unmanaged growth and disassociated development had compromised the vitality of Downtown Topeka.  With the completion and adoption of the Downtown Topeka redevelopment plan, they were prepared to unify the efforts of developers, investors, stakeholders and government.  On March 27, 2001 the City Council of Topeka allocated $350,000.00 to be used as incentives to recruit dining, entertainment and retail establishments to Downtown Topeka.  Schumm said Downtown Topeka was so bad the City Council was going to pay three establishments to locate Downtown by the end of the year.   He asked the City Commission to return this issue back to the Planning Commission to restudy.  He said there were a lot of people against the project such as, KDOT, Downtown Lawrence, Inc., City Planners, School Officials and a number of citizens.            

            David Clemente, 4512 Goldfield Court, said he had a vested interest in the residential development north of this proposed project and did not see this development as a hindrance to residential development.  The developers had not strayed from Horizon 2020 and stated that this area should be commercial.  Traveling down 6^th Street from the 6^th and Wakarusa intersection to City Hall, he saw endless curb cuts and no buildings that had been designed.  He said what these developers had proposed was how development should be laid out.  It was an overall master plan of that area.  If the City Commission rejects this project it could potentially go into piecemeal development and have a continuation of 6^th Street.  He has seen box stores that were architecturally interesting.  The roads the developer was planning to build were designed to calm traffic.  The City Commission and residents needed to look at the overall scope of what the developer was proposing.  He was in favor of the development.

            Scott Gates, 2021 Eldridge, agreed traffic on Harvard Drive was driving unreasonably, but did not think the proposed project would impact Harvard Drive.  He frequented Downtown Lawrence, but Downtown Lawrence could not meet some of his needs.  Gates traveled out of town to purchase remodeling materials.  He was in favor of the development because it was a mixed-use proposal.

            David Geyer, 2647 Arkansas, said Salina, Kansas had a viable Downtown and was the regional shopping area until they allowed a project similar to this proposed development.  He said a Chamber speaker suggested quality development over quantity. He asked the City Commission to send this project back to the Planning Commission. 

            Adam Mansfield, 1429 West 22^nd Terrace, had a concern about the process followed for Horizon 2020.  The developers had spent too much money, time and effort in to doing something that was against the Comprehensive Plan.   He said the developers needed to follow the process to amend the plan.  He believed the City should lead development through Comprehensive Plan Amendment discussions.

            Bill Sepic, Chamber of Commerce, said what scared him most was a headline that read: “Lawrence admits it’s a bedroom community” or “Lawrence official suburb of Kansas City.”  He said Lawrence had needs that had not been met.  If the City Commission did not approve the project, the residents of Lawrence would pay through the City, County and School District taxes.  Lawrence needed more jobs to sustain the community.

            Melinda Henderson, a Lawrence resident, said most of her concerns had already been addressed.  She knew the history of this particular area and appreciated the amount of time it took to come up with a plan for this area.  She concurred with Sepic in that Lawrence could possibly become a residential bedroom community.  The City’s residential growth totally outweighed commercial and industrial growth.  One of her biggest fears was Lawrence’s growth.  In this particular location for the development, she did not believe bringing in more commercial growth was the way to address the problem.  People had referenced the process and commented that they supported Planning Staff’s recommendation that this entire project did not conform to Horizon 2020.    People were worried about the plan continuingly being in the position of being compromised.  She presented the City Commission with a Kansas Statute that listed the procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan.  Henderson asked the City Commission to deny the rezoning; make sure they reviewed the proposed updates to the commercial section of Horizon 2020; and, if the plan needed to be amended, follow the procedures from the Kansas State Statute. 

            Lisa Day, a Lawrence resident, had a concern with the project being close to Free Sate High School and asked the City Commission to talk with the Lawrence Fire/Medical Department concerning the safety factor. 

            Rundle asked if it was unusual the greenspace in the PRD-2 was supporting the PCD.

            Mieras said “yes” some of this area was providing greenspace for the overall development.

            Rundle asked if the PRD could be conditioned so it could not be developed in the future.

            Mieras said the plan and the plat showed 75% of that area as being a drainage easement and the most western part adjacent to Congressional Drive was not shown as detention area or drainage easement.  That area could potentially have building or buildings on the land which would require another Preliminary Development Plan and further study.         Rundle asked about how the area was site planned and if the Preliminary Development Plan was approved, does that fix those site plan features so they could not be altered.

            Mieras said the areas within the Preliminary Development Plan could be altered somewhat at the Final Development Plan stage, but not substantially.

            Rundle asked about the “Market Study.”

            Dyer said there were staff comments regarding the “Market Study” and there seemed to be a high vacancy rate in this area.

            Mieras said they had worked with the applicant regarding the “Traffic Study.”  It was submitted and revised.  The improvements to 6^th Street and Wakarusa were definitely part of that “Traffic Study.” KDOT was recreating the traffic Study at 6^th and Wakarusa because they know more about what was being proposed and had information on the northwest and northeast corner.

            Rundle asked Mieras to explain the discrepancy of the setbacks from 15’ as opposed to 35’.

            Mieras said on the Preliminary Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat, the applicant had asked for two variances.  The variances were behind the big box because it was between two different zoning districts.  It was not all PCD, it was a PRD abutting a PCD.  There were sections in the Zoning Ordinance that permitted the reduction in setback on the Development Plan if there were two Planned Unit Developments together.

            Kennedy asked Mieras if the big box could be seen from the Aquatic Center.

            Mieras said it was possible, but without the building there, he did not know.

            Hack had a concern about lack of notification to the residents in the area.

            Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Director, Planning Department, said they notified the public by legal notice was published three weeks before the meeting.  The office mailed or e-mailed agendas to a general mailing list which included all the organized neighborhood associations.  The City has worked with the print media.  When television or radio called for interviews, staff was available The Planning Department, before the Planning Commission met, tried to alert the print media about the big issues that were on the Planning Commission’s agenda so they could get a featured article a day or two before that meeting.  In addition, signs were posted on the property regarding the public hearing

            Mieras wanted to clarify that on the development plan, Lot 1, Block 2, which was the larger retail area, the plan provided the required 20% open space in the retail area and 20% in the greenspace.  The PRD was not being counted toward greenspace to the south end of the PCD area.

            Jane Eldredge, representing the applicant, said the City Commission was to look specifically at the requirements for Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Plan and whether those projects conformed to those requirements.  By City Code, it was required to look at eight factors and the only one that was debated was the issue of conformity with Horizon 2020.  It was important in the area to view the history of the development of Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Plan.  Horizon 2020 was in progress for a long time, adopted by the City Commission in May 1996.  At the end of the time that Horizon 2020 was being worked on, Free State High School site was selected and there was a lot of interest in development on the north side of 6^th Street.  Prior to this time, everyone had assumed that we could not have development north of 6^th Street  because of the sewer limitations.  With the guidance of City Staff, the Northwest was initiated which was adopted by the Planning Commission after Horizon 2020 had been adopted.  Both plans went to the City Commission and both plans were adopted in January 1997.  This was important because the Northwest Plan had a generalized proposed land use area map and showed the major roads to be built.   There was already a planning procedure in place on where and how it was to end which included office and multi-family.  The second concern was no acreage requirement for any commercial development was identified in the Northwest Plan.  So this plan conformed exactly to the Northwest Development Plan.  When you look at Horizon 2020 Comprehensive Plan, it expressed a community’s desire about the future image of the community that provided the foundation and framework for making physical development and policy decisions.  Horizon 2020 provided the foundation and framework for the Northwest Plan.  The comprehensive plan told us that it was a policy guide which described the community’s vision.  It included a policy and physical plan component to evaluate development proposals and provide the foundation for specific area plans to project future service and facilities needed.  In defining the Commercial Center categories, Horizon 2020 cautioned us that the definitions of Commercial Centers should not be used solely to categorized development proposals, but should be considered in conjunction with the criteria established in the goals and policies.  Prior to Horizon 2020, we knew what neighborhood commercial shopping and the central business district were.  The City did not have a definition of Community Commercial or Regional Commercial, but our central business district referred to it as the CBD, was the equivalent of Regional Commercial.  This new concept of Community Commercial provided goods and services to several different neighborhoods.  It required a site of the 10 to thirty 30 acres.  Eldredge suggested a site referred to a development area.  She noted that when Horizon 2020 was adopted the two commercial areas on the south side of 6^th Street were already approved.  Each one of those commercial areas met this definition of being a site ten to thirty acres.  Had that not been the case, 6^th and Wakarusa could not had been identified as Community Commercial.  Community Commercial included a range of retail and other uses typically contained gross leasable area of 150, 000 and should be located at the intersection of arterial streets.  She said 6^th and Wakarusa were major arterial streets in the Northwest Plan and in Transportation 2020.  It should be accessible from our surrounding communities.  Nothing could be more accessible than two arterials.  Eldredge said there was discussion about a node.  Horizon 2020 defined a node which was new commercial, retail and related uses clustered in small groupings or nodes with shared parking areas.  Horizon 2020 states not to use the definition of the categories, but to read the definition with the criteria established in the goals and policies.  There were three of the goals that applied to new commercial which were compatible and provide a compatible transition from commercial development to less intensive uses.  She said the whole master plan does that.  The criteria for location of commercial provided regional community and neighborhood shopping to meet the commercial and retail needs of the community.  The developer proposed to meet those needs and transportation considerations.  If this project did not go through, KDOT needed to acquire approximately 60’ right-of-way along 6^th Street and needed to acquire the access restrictions along 6^th and Wakarusa.  The City of Lawrence needed to do the building of the roads on Congressional, Overland and Wakarusa.  What the developer was proposing was more than our Development Policy required.              

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.          

            Dunfield said Eldredge’s definition of a nodal development was in opposition to the definition of the City Planning Staff’s interpretation of Horizon 2020.  Using her interpretation, would contain four nodal developments, each which were Community Commercial Centers which would lead to a total of 450,000 square feet at each one of those four intersections for a total of 1,800,000 square feet of potential retail development and that was to be considered four  Community Commercial Centers at the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa.

            Eldredge said that amount would be possible only if all of that space was available for development.  The Community Commercial Centers on the south side had already been built in with development surrounding them with the exception of the parking lot behind the Hereford House.  The proposed zoning was consistent with Horizon 2020 and the application looked at was also consistent with the Northwest Development Plan.

            Jeff Moran, 4513 Harvard Road, said Eldredge believed Horizon 2020 was a policy guide and could simply be ignored.  He said Eldredge alleged there was no acreage requirement stated in the Northwest Plan.  The Northwest Plan stated: “It was the intent of this plan that the policies of Horizon 2020 govern urban land use of development of the Northwest Plan area.”  In absence of any other acreage requirements, we follow the Horizon 2020 Plan.  Moran said Eldredge disputed the meaning of a “node” versus a “site.”   He said she was confused with the difference between an intersection and a corner.  Horizon 2020 clearly spelled out that a “node” was all of the development around an individual intersection and when they called for a Community Commercial Development at a “node”, Horizon 2020 meant at all four corners. 

            Rundle asked how they were to approach these zoning requests.

            Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Director of Planning, said the City Commission needed to take these zonings separately.  The applicant asked that they consider the commercial request.   

            Rundle said he found it hard to support this proposal because of the size issues and KDOT’s concerns and wanted to backup staff’s interpretation of the City’s policy guidelines.  He would not support this proposal.  

            Dunfield had a concern about how it related to Horizon 2020 and also what it might do to traffic issues in the City.   He said a door was opened that needed to be shut quickly and firmly which had to do with the nature of a “node” versus an “intersection.”  Planning staff’s position on this issue was extremely clear, the “node” included all four segments of the intersection.  The definition of a “node” has never been challenged until now.  He said one of the Planning Commissioners had already indicated the plan had been compromised by the zoning which has been granted for three of the four intersections because those developments without this northwest corner had already taken us up to 53 acres which was beyond the maximum that Horizon 2020 allowed for a Community Commercial Center.  Horizon 2020 stated clearly that Community Commercial Centers limit total nodal developments to not more than ten 10 to thirty acres at an individual intersection.   He said it needed to be clear if the City Commission approved this development, they approved a Regional Commercial Center and Horizon 2020  did not recommend a Regional Commercial Center at this location.   Dunfield had a concern about KDOT’s letter predicting the proposed development to be another 23^rd Street.  He said the whole notion of planning had to do with the relationship of the different parts and how the neighboring elements relate to one another in transition.  He said it was incumbent for the City Commission to protect the integrity of Horizon 2020 and reject this rezoning. 

            Hack said it has been a difficult decision.  She said the applicant has worked hard with staff to comply with their requests.  The concept of the master plan by one developer has benefit and she appreciated the efforts to expand the City‘s tax base.  However, her major concern was size and concurred with Dunfield concerning KDOT’s information.  She was also sensitive to the proximity of the school and with the compliance of Horizon 2020.  She was not supportive of the request.

            Henry concurred with Hack regarding this being a difficult decision.  He had many friends and supporters that supported for or opposed this development and they had all raised good points. He said there were many pluses and minuses to this project and he had spent hours studying this plan.  He had concerns about the size of the development, KDOT’s concerns raised about 6^th Street becoming another 23^rd Street and endangering the TIF Project.  He could not support the project. 

            Kennedy was in favor of this development.  He had a concern about KDOT dictating to the City what would happen down our 6^th Street Corridor.  Kennedy moved to support the project.   

            Motion died for lack of a second.

            Moved by Dunfield, second Rundle, to deny rezoning (Z-02-10-01A), of approximately 25.8 acres, a portion of 32 acres, from A (Agricultural) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) located on the northwest corner of 6^th and Wakarusa.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry and Rundle.  Nay:  Kennedy.  Motion carried.                                                 

Eldredge said the applicants had withdrawn all the remaining items on the agenda.              (28)

            Rundle has received a letter from the Sister City Advisory Board who was hosting events for the Japanese walkers who were coming to Lawrence.   There would be limited City financial support for receptions for the walkers

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 11:25 p.m.   Motion carried unanimously.                                                           

 

APPROVED:

                                                                        _____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Diane Trybom, Deputy City Clerk

COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 12, 2001

1.                  Ordinance No. 7363 – 1^st Reading, Traffic, parking & other fines and penalties, 2001 Legislature.

2.                  Ordinance No. 7364 – 1^st Reading, temporary sales of alcohol, Burcham Park, July 2, 4 to 9

3.                  Ordinance No. 7359 – 3rd Reading, Franchise Agreement with WorldNet for phone svc.

4.                  Resolution No. 6317 – Blight, 1725 Ohio

5.                  Resolution No. 6317 – Blight, 1729 Louisiana

6.                   Site Plan – (SP-5-21-01), JDS KS Addition, 23^rd & Harper.

7.                  Site Plan – (SP-5-24-01), Central National Bank, 3110 Neider Rd.

8.                  Capitol Improvement Plan –  2002-2007

9.                  Rezoning – (Z-04-17-01) 5 acres, from A to RM-1, Heritage Baptist Church.

10.              Rezoning – (Z-04-18-01) .52 acres, from RO-2 to O-1, NW corner of E 19^th & Haskell.

11.              Rezoning – (Z-04-19-01) 1.1 acre, from B-2 to C-5, Lesser Change Table PCD-2, 3301 Iowa.

12.              Text Amendment – (CPA-2001-03), Horizon 2020, population

13.              TSC – park along W side of Inverness between Anthony Michael Dr & Cedar Ridge Ct; along E/N side of Inverness between Oak Tree Dr & Williamsburg Pl. 

14.              TSC – Adult crossing guard, 28^th & Kensington & 27^th & Mayfair.

15.              TSC – permanent partial diverter, intersection of 6^th & Schwarz.

16.              TSC – “No parking”, N side of Freedom Creek Dr.

17.              USD 497 – Carl Knox Natatorium.

18.              Mortgage Release – 2000 Barker, McCormick & Sloan

19.              Public Auction – Surplus property, June 23, 2001

20.              Real Property Acquisition – 23^rd & Barker.

21.              Grant Application – Police Officer’s in public schools.

22.              Vacation Order – Utility Easement, 850 Maple St., Public Hearing

23.              Construction Engineering Contract – 27^th & Iowa, Geometric & Traffic Signals to Transystems for $98,790.05.

24.              Transportation – Public Transit Authority Committee to look at multiple sites downtown.

25.              Ordinance No. 07364 – Towing illegally parked in tow away zones.

26.              Bowersock Dam – Contract approval for dam project.

27.              Wakarusa Place Development discussion.

28.              NW Corner 6^th & Wakarusa – Denied rezoning (Z-02-10-01A), 25.8 acres, (Discussion)