July 24, 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, Henry, Hack, and Kennedy present.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 17, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of July 9, 2001; the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 13, 2001; the Lawrence Public Library Board meeting minutes of June 20, 2001; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 13, 2001; the CVB Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 22, 2001; the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 14, 2001; and, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 12, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved to approve claims in the amount of  $1,773.902.77.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Molly McGee’s, 2429 Iowa, Suite H (Contingent Upon State License); Rick’s Place, 623 Vermont (Contingent Upon State License); La Parrilla, Inc., 814 Massachusetts; and, the Cereal Malt Beverage License (Off-Premise) for Conoco Food Mart, 955 East 23^rd (Contingent Upon Departmental Approval). Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the recommendations of the Mayor and appoint Paul Bahnmaier, Larry Paine, Keith Folkmann, Jim Martin, Jean Milstead, and Pat Kedhe to the Economic Development Board; and, the appointment of Andrew Tsubaki, and Trish Bransky, to the Sister Cities Advisory Board.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for 110 North Michigan Sanitary Sewer Improvements for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to reject the bids for 110 North Michigan sanitary sewer improvements for the Utilities Department because a bidders overestimated the scope of the excavation and disposal type work and overbid the unit cost and labor to install the “baskets.”    Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for road salt for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid for road salt for the Public Works Department to Cargill Incorporated, in the amount of $27.20 / Ton.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to place on 1st reading Ordinance No. 7381, establishing a temporary moratorium on the annexation of property located in designated floodplain areas.  Motion carried unanimously.    (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to place on 1st reading Ordinance No. 7382, establishing a temporary moratorium on the annexation of property located north of the Kansas River.    Motion carried unanimously.           (2)

Ordinance No. 7378, adopting the 2001 Standard Traffic Ordinance, was read a second time.     

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

Ordinance No. 7379, rezoning [Z-11-48-00] approximately 14.4 acres, from VC (Valley Channel District) to M-2 (General Industrial District), located north of the Kaw Water Treatment Plant, West 2^nd and Illinois Streets, was read a second time.          

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Henry, Hack, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (4)

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Site Plan (SP-06-40-01) for a parking lot expansion at Grace Evangelical Presbyterian Church, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

2.                  Execution of an Encroachment Agreement with Williams Natural Gas prior to release of the site plan to the Building Inspection Department;

3.                  Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and side walk improvements along Kasold Drive;

4.                  Submission and approval of a photometric plan prior to release of the site plan to the Building Inspection Department;

5.                  Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:

a.                  Inclusion of the landscape islands per Section 20-14A04 or provision of a landscape plan per section 40-14A04.10 to show the location of the required 3000 SF provided else where on site;

b.                  Provision of a revised Site Plan to show the dimension of the access driveways on site per section 20-1431(h); and,

c.         Provision of a complete landscape plan per section 20-1431(k).

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (5)

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for James Cooper, Jr., 1021 East Home Circle.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (6)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that Haskell Indian Nations University was having a Log Raising Ceremony to celebrate the new addition of the 24^th Cultural Center and Museum, Friday, July 27, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City has treated approximately twenty-four million gallons of water a day.  The new water pump at the dam was scheduled to be in place in August and would help add approximately two million gallons to the City’s water processing capacity.   

Stacey White,Faculty Member, Urban Planning, University of Kansas, said this summer she had taught an eight week course to her students called “Local Environmental Planning Applications” which concerned how campus life resembles municipal life focusing on the environmental aspects of campus planning.  Her students looked at issues ranging from campus waste and recycling, to energy use and food systems.  What students did for their final project was to research issues that were of current importance to the campus and develop proposals for addressing those issues.  The students worked on a project examining campus and neighborhood land use planning focusing on the Oread Neighborhood.  She said the students were investigating questions on “what happens when a University grows” and “what happens when that growth occurs in a residential neighborhood.”  The class focused on campus operations and planning and came up with an important realization.  The Oread Neighborhood issue highlighted the importance in Lawrence of the relationships between the City, neighborhoods and the University.         

Lori Kruger, graduate student, Kansas University, working on her Masters Degree in Urban Planning, said the University of Kansas and the Oread neighborhood, historically, has been connected physically and emotionally.  The Oread Neighborhood was originally designed to provide housing for Kansas University faculty staff.  Long-time Oread neighborhood residents had described Kansas University and Oread interactions, in the past, as more cooperative with a sense of familiar ties among the community.  Over the years and partially in response to gradual encroachment of K.U. into the neighborhood, Oread developed its own identity, goals and objectives separate from the University.  In 1977, the Oread Neighborhood was formed and a neighborhood plan was adopted by the City Commission in 1978.  Oread neighborhood remained one of the most active and vocal neighborhood associations in Lawrence.  Oread neighborhood maintained a strong sense of community from current residents and property owners, however, the Oread Neighborhood was quite vulnerable to property encroachment from the University for a number of reasons.  In 1990 the United State Census identified eighty-nine percent of these properties as rental property and only eleven percent were owner/occupied.  This fact alone did not indicate vulnerability to encroachment.  A number of neighborhoods throughout the country had an even higher rental to owner/occupied ratio and had maintained a strong sense of community.  However, a large portion of the renters included temporary student tenants that generally had little or no interest in community affairs.  Kruger said other neighborhoods might have a higher ratio of K.U. faculty and staff that provide more political pressure on K.U. to avoid development in their area.  Another vulnerability of Oread  was its  lack of private covenants.  The West Hills Neighborhood to the northwest of campus has strict land use and parking regulations that discourage high density residential uses.  Furthermore, most of the Oread neighborhood was zoned RD (Residential Dormitory) per the City of Lawrence Zoning Ordinance which allowed the highest density residential uses in the City.  Other neighborhoods were predominately zoned RS-2, a designation that only allowed single-family uses.  Oread was one of the closest neighborhoods to the academic core, thereby, incurring growth pressure of student residences.  Although a growing University and a growing City was positive in many ways, there were special concerns for the Oread Neighborhood and Kansas University’s acquisition of property and its construction of school facilities where neighborhood homes formerly existed.  A primarily concern of the Oread Neighborhood Association was Kansas University’s encroachment into the neighborhood which might cause the neighborhood fabric to be altered. This term had multiple meanings that could be generally described as the physical characteristics that create a community.  When older single-family homes were replaced with University Scholarship or Residence Halls, the sense of community was eroded.  In a case of Oread and K.U., a piece of the neighborhood was effectively removed when a small structure was replaced with a towering Scholarship Hall.  The height, design and mass of the existing Amini Scholarship Halls on the east side of Louisiana Street overshadow the remaining neighborhood.  A six or seven story brick building appears to be a towering fortress when placed on a hill above the two story residences.  Furthermore, inhabitants of the Scholarship Halls were not likely to be involved in community affairs.  Another primary concern of the Oread Neighborhood Association was the parking problem resulting from dense residential development.  There were many first year students with vehicles which resulted in an inadequate number of parking spaces throughout the area.  The Amini Scholarship Halls, built in the early 1990’s, were constructed with insufficient parking and had contributed to the already over crowded parking situation on Oread Neighborhood streets and alleyways.  In some cases, when residence halls were built that met the City of Lawrence’s parking requirements, these requirements were outdated and did not reflect the percentage of vehicle ownership of residence hall students.  The property in Oread neighborhood had few driveways and garages, therefore, relied on on-street parking and alleys.  The Oread Neighborhood Association has a number of other concerns which included the University’s affect on the historic value of the neighborhood.  There were several properties in the immediate area that were listed on the National Register of Historic Places, both on campus and in the neighborhood itself.  Additionally, noise and lighting from several electric generators in the football stadium had been sited as occasional nuisances for the neighborhood as well as litter and disorderly conduct of students due to the presence of neighborhood bars.  Other impacts such as daily student and faculty peak traffic from school events were considered less intrusive and were generally seen as a necessary nuisance of living adjacent to a major University.  The vulnerability of Oread Neighborhood to K.U. growth had been tested in recent months by the purchase of properties on Ohio Street by the K.U. Endowment Association and the subsequent announcement by K.U. of plans to construct additional Scholarship Halls on the property.  Oread Neighborhood Association relied on the 1997 K.U. Campus Plan as a solid document that provided a clear limit to the University’s growth.  As indicated by recent plans, K.U. considered the campus plan a more flexible document that could easily be altered without consulting the Oread Neighborhood Association or the City of Lawrence.  Furthermore, the neighborhood relied heavily on City codes due to its lack of private covenants and to large student population.  Unfortunately, some of the codes for parking, height and massing of buildings were inadequate to address these concerns.  K.U. would continue to grow and therefore, its need for housing would increase.  It was necessary for the University of Kansas to have a rational application of its growth management practices.  The 1997 Campus Plan stated that neighborhoods adjacent to central campus had experienced both benefit of being next to a stable high quality campus and on the downside, was the high volume of traffic and parking problems.  The Oread Neighborhood had also experienced the destabilization that resulted from a high demand of housing.  It was in the best interest of both the University and the neighborhood organizations to define plans clearly and address shared potential concerns for the future.  Cooperation between these groups needed to be ongoing because if cooperation were practiced, it would undoubtedly yield different results then those seen thus far in K.U.’s growth process.  The absent of a clear definition of K.U.’s physical growth boundaries were an inherent part of the problem.  The Campus Plan stated the implied boundary for the University growth on the east was midway down the hill; an alleyway that runs parallel to Ohio and Louisiana Streets and half way between those streets marks the boundary.  Kruger said there should be clear and consistent definition of terms in order to achieve goals in a manner that was fair to all concerned parties.   There was no mention of implied boundaries or growth that would infringe upon any of the other two adjacent neighborhoods, West Hills or University Place.  A certain amount of revamping of University policy, clearly defining goals, objectives and growth management practices would help resolve the conflict of boundary issues.  The growing pains may become far less noticeable if both clarity and a stronger sense of mutual respect move to the forefront of this situation. 

Casey Shook, graduate student, Kansas University, working on his Masters Degree in Urban Planning, said he wanted to address the existing physical relationships the City has between the adjoining neighborhoods and campus.  These transitions from a residential scale to an academic scale needed to be resolved and be sensitive to each individual environment.  The conditions shown were not necessarily an urban design or design solution to these problems.  These conditions showed the recognition of a specific boundary or edge which was a strength that informed responsible future decisions by fostering a cooperative process for each given space.  The issue of scale had been addressed in a successful manner through the use of elements of a human or pedestrian scale, steps, walkways, railings and landscaping elements which these elements served to aid in this transition.  The areas might dissect the site which might be taken negatively, but in fact, could be a way to emphasis a pedestrian path and serve as a transitional element.  The Amini Scholarship Hall, for example, has many of these basic designs considerations absent in relationship to the neighborhood they exist in or were adjacent too.  While Amini Hall complied with City requirements, it was not a successful design solution for the neighborhood as a whole.  One consistent factor all these examples shared up to this point, outside Amini Hall, was that everyone existed in an area adjacent to campus which had a well defined boundary or transition between the given neighborhood and campus.  Both the University Place Neighborhood and the West Hills Neighborhood had traditionally co-existed in different ways with K.U. than Oread Neighborhood.  The difference was due to the definitive boundaries of these neighborhoods and the successful transition that had evolved from this condition.  Shook said these conditions have the ability to mature, in contrast to implied boundaries which were obviously unpredictable, detrimental to the adjoining neighborhood and ultimately the fabric of the City.  The lack of these conditions had  the potential to devastate the inner relationships that should exist much as they did traditionally between the University and the City. 

Jason Kobylarek, working on his Bachelor’s degree in Architect, said K.U. was compared to the University of Colorado for reasons of density, size, growth and particularly their expansion problems.  Colorado University had a similar dilemma as the City of Lawrence when planning for community relationships and outside district around the University.  In 1998, the University of Colorado got together with their City and formed a task group of eighteen members drawing up guiding principles for relations between the Community and the University.  Some of the sources involved were the Chamber of Commerce, Historic Preservation Interest Groups, University, City Planners, Neighborhood representatives and the business community.  The Task Force established that the University of Colorado and the City would not always agree therefore, discussions about issues and decisions must be an on-going process.  The University’s land acquisition involved the Task Force when making decisions. The University of Colorado has a neighborhood that closely resembled Oread.  In this area, student housing was deteriorating from un-kept property due to poor landlord maintenance.  The University of Colorado was an area of Historic Resources.  The Master Plan at this University envisioned retention of older buildings.  In the University’s Master Plan, entitled “Sensitivity to Neighborhood Contacts in Historical Resources” the plan’s main concern was the development of properties infringing on the community. However, the community was aware they could infringe on the University and so the solution was to provide local transitions.  Some of these transitions involved use, density, scale, massing of building, preservation of historical buildings, transportation and parking access.  Overall, the University of Colorado success seemed to come from the City and local business providing public outreach stations and meeting places for these discussions to occur.    

(Conclusion of Student Presentation)                                                                

Candy Davis, member of the Oread Neighborhood Association, said the association believed the purchase of the Ohio Street properties violated the 1997 Campus Plan. This plan was formulated with input from K.U., the community and the City over a period of five years.  There were twenty-five public meetings from 1995 to 1996 to fine-tune the document.  The document was completed in 1997 and officially released in 1998.  The campus plan was intended to be a twenty-year guidepost for K.U. goals, planning and working relationships with the community.  Neighborhood relationships were an important part of  this document.  She read excerpts from the Campus Plan.  On page B19, the implied boundary for University growth on the East was midway down the hill an alleyway that runs parallel to Ohio and Louisiana Streets and half way between those streets marks the boundary.  Page B6, nearly all issues involving University land use affect the City and neighborhoods around the University.  Continual cooperation and communication with City Planners and Representatives of Neighborhood Groups should be the rule.  The protection and preservation of surrounding neighborhoods was in KU’s interest.  Page B21, Kansas University and City Planning ventures must include concerns of neighborhoods, it was in the best interest of both University and the Neighborhood Organizations to define plans clearly and address shared potential concerns for the future.  Cooperation between these groups needed to be ongoing.  Page B21, all private properties adjacent to campus should be respected and protected as much as possible.  It was in the best interest of both KU and adjacent neighborhood to establish well-defined boundaries and buffers.  She outlined the efforts as a neighborhood board to bring their concern to KU’s attentions.  The Oread Neighborhood Association wrote a letter to the Chancellor in February of this year requesting a meeting with him after learning about KU’s planned expansion of at least two scholarship halls into Oread.  The Chancellor directed us to meet with his special assistant and University Architect, Warren Corman.  In April the Oread Neighborhood Association met with Mr. Corman.  At that time, he informed the ONA the Campus Plan was not a legal document and could be ignored if it conflicted with KU’s educational mission.  KU’s violation of the Ohio street boundary was therefore justified.  Mr. Corman did agree the ONA could submit a written document with alternative suggestions regarding the development of scholarship halls on Ohio Street.  The ONA later submitted such a written document that included ideas about adaptive reuse of historic properties such as housing for visiting professors or gathering places for various student events.  Alternative building sites for scholarship halls was also another possibility.  Mr. Corman suggested that the ONA meet with Darrel Beene since KU Endowment purchased the land.  The ONA met with Beene at the Endowment Center in May.  Beene was sympathetic, but stated the Endowment only purchase land at the request of the Chancellor.  His hands were essentially tied in helping us with our concerns and explained the Endowment had no authority in the decision making of KU acquisition or expansion planning.  He directed us back to KU for further discussion.  In June the Oread Neighborhood Association met for a second time with Mr. Corman, James Long, Assistant KU Provost, was present as an observer.  The meeting confirmed that Mr. Corman was not interested in a shared dialogue with our neighborhood.  Our written proposal with alternative suggestions seemed to fall on deaf ears.  Our last K.U. meeting was in July with Ken Stoner, Director of Student Housing.  The meeting was cordial, but also unproductive.  At no time, during the past four months, did it appear that anyone the ONA met with had the authority to influence or impact decisions related to their concerns.  K.U.’s intention was to move forward with their plans and demolish structures once the Campus Historic Preservation Board passed their proposal.  There seemed little doubt that there would be any kind of problem getting approval from the Preservation Board.  The only point of agreement that they had in all the meetings was that the Stewart Avenue property, southeast of 19^th and Iowa, approximately ten acres of land was a viable site for a scholarship hall community and Stouffer Place, marriage student housing site, was a poor use of thirty-two acres of land.  The ONA came to no other agreements with regard to establishing an on-going dialogue or creating well-defined boundaries with K.U.  The ONA found this jigsaw puzzle approach to communication with K.U. frustrating and unproductive and felt their interests were ignored and their voice unheard.   She said they would like to see K.U. honor and support the principles and guidelines of the Campus Plan.  It was the honorable thing to do.  K.U. has the opportunity to be a role model to students and others in the community by building bridges and finding solutions through a cooperative process.  The ONA would like to be good neighbors with K.U. and believed in ongoing and mutual respectful dialogue would assure that possibility.

            Janet Gerstner, Secretary, Oread Neighborhood Association, said the Amini Scholarship Halls were the most recently built halls.  She gave the City Commission packets of information regarding the time period when the discussion was underway for design and building of those scholarship halls.    She said things were a lot different then, K.U. actually approached the Oread Neighborhood Association on their own and let them know they were planning this project and wanted to discuss concerns.  In a letter from the ONA to K.U., reflected some of the interactions with K.U.  She said the ONA was excited about the overall plan because of the aesthetics and design of the project, but had a concern about student parking.  The ONA’s concern was that although the plan was for 100 off-street parking spaces in the final stage, in the first stage, the plan only required 30 parking spaces which were inadequate.  The scholarship halls were underserved by current parking facilities.  She presented an excerpt from the Lawrence Journal World concerning a City Commission meeting where the Commission acknowledged receipt of the letter from K.U. asking the City to vacate Louisiana Street and mentioned the 100-car parking garage.   A memo from the Director from Public Works noted the problems about the setback and the steep terrain which would be a challenge to build on.  The memo also mentioned the off-street parking including a garage.  She said K.U.’s focus switched over time to building a parking garage at the student union.  The parking garage went by the way side at Amini Hall site. She presented diagrams to the City Commission concerning the inadequate parking at K.U.                 

            Leslie Tuttle, speaking on behalf of the K.U. Neighbors Coalition, said the coalition was formed by residents of University Place, Indian Hills, Centennial and Oread Neighborhoods.  Since then, the coalition had become a standing committee of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods.  They formed the coalition because life in the neighborhoods near campus was profoundly affected by the University decision on land use.  The discussion of the fate of Oread homes and the way the University would build and expand had implications for local residents well beyond the question of these properties.  In addition to parking, traffic patterns, lighting, noise and questions about boundaries, there were also stormwater drainage concerns which could affect neighborhoods where the water drains.  She said many members of their coalition were members of the K.U. community that understood and supported the University’s educational mission.  At the same time, the coalition believed in the uniqueness and often historic character of the neighborhoods and quality of life enjoyed by Lawrence residents.  She said the K.U. Neighborhood Coalition requested the City Commission to sponsor an ongoing forum for discussion of these issues.  In order for this dialogue to be successful, it should include representatives from the City Planning Commission, the University and the neighborhoods around campus as well as residents from other neighborhoods.        

   Arly Allen, Centennial Neighborhood, said Centennial Neighborhood was south of the University and was a recipient of water running off the hill causing storm drainage problems and that the City has built new storm drainage systems in his neighborhood.  He said the Centennial Neighborhood has talked to K.U. about a variety of issues that concerned their neighborhood.  The Centennial Neighborhood was there to support Oread Neighborhood’s concerns in talking to the University and supported their plea that a permanent group be established that would serve as a liaison between the City, the neighborhoods and the University.   He said the surrounding neighborhood had recently been concerned about students living in single-family neighborhoods, stormwater, parking and a whole range of issues that involve the University. 

Pat Kehde, President, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said the alliance opposed the demolition of the 100-year old houses and the building of inappropriate large institutional buildings along residential streets.  The Preservation Alliance hoped the demolition request would be withdrawn and new plans for adaptive reuse of the existing building would be brought forward.  Another issue was the preservation review as it stood on the law books and legal agreement.  The Lawrence Preservation Alliance asked the City Commission to request the University of Kansas and Campus Historic Preservation Board form a joint Commission with the City’s Historic Resources Commission to review this project and other projects where there were overlapping jurisdictions.  They asked that K.U. follow the “Agreement between the Kansas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHIPO) and the State Educational Institutional.”  She read a report to the City Commission concerning environs review from the Attorney General.  

Alan Black, speaking on behalf of the Land Use Committee of the Lawrence-Douglas County League of Women Voters, said “We have been apprised of the situation facing the Oread neighborhood regarding the University’s acquisition of properties in the 1300 block of Ohio Street. We share the concerns of the Oread Neighborhood Association as well as other neighborhood bounding the University.  This was a local example of a phenomenon that had occurred in many places throughout the United States:  university encroachment on adjacent residential neighborhoods.  In many cases, this has started a process of blight as some owners let their properties run down and hope to make a killing by selling to the university.  Those owners who stay may eventually suffer problems of traffic, parking, noise and litter.  What was once a pleasant family neighborhood may turn into a student ghetto.  Some universities have made conscientious efforts to work with neighborhoods to achieve more harmonious results.  We hope the University of Kansas will do the same.  Such an intention is clearly expressed in the Campus Plan completed in 1997.  Another factor is that the houses on Ohio Street are almost one hundred years old and have some historical value.  Several have been associated with University faculty members and thus part of KU’s history.  While restoration may be expensive, there are numerous examples in the Oread and Old West Lawrence neighborhoods of homes that have been beautifully restored by their owner-occupants. Some Oread homeowners feel they have been betrayed by KU because the Campus Plan implies that the alley between Louisiana and Ohio Streets would be the boundary for University growth.  It appears that the University wants to ignore this commitment because it is convenient to do so.  What does this portend for future pronouncements from KU?  Actually the alley makes an excellent boundary because it is virtually invisible and the transition is muted.  To have student housing facing single-family homes across the street would create an incongruous streetscape as well as some practical problems already mentioned.  I am not qualified to comment on the City’s legal status in this case.  To mix metaphors, I hope the City Commission will show some sympathy for the underdog in this battle between David and Goliath.”

David Geyer, Chairman of Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said at the last LAN meeting the issue of encroachment of KU onto Oread Neighborhood was discussed.  He said LAN was in support of the Oread Neighborhood.

Terry Riordan, Oread Neighborhood Association, said the history of this Commission was rich in making tough decisions that guide our City and its development creating the City that was the envy of many Kansans.  Such decisions as the rejection of downtown malls which allowed the City to nurture our downtown.  It created a beautiful restored downtown that was the destination for many visitors to Lawrence.  The rejection of a now discredited and disgraced hospital group to build many unneeded and unwanted hospital beds in competition with our own Lawrence Memorial Hospital.  A City hospital that provided excellent and modern care to all citizens of Lawrence, even to those who cannot pay for those medical needs.  There were many ways in which the City provided protection to our citizens under the watchful eye of the City Commission and the present City Manager.  He asked the City Commission to help protect not only the Oread Neighborhood, but also the City of Lawrence.  The ONA was promised 100 off-street parking spots in the garage near Amini Hall, but parking construction never happened.  The ONA was told verbally the University would respect the Ohio alley as a boundary between the University and the ONA and was verified in the KU Master Campus Plan.  There were also newspaper accounts and personal communication with a previous Mayor and State Senator Sandy Prager who heard the statement made by K.U.  The University said they did not have a scheduled meeting in June of this year with the Campus Historic Preservation Board, when in fact a letter dated in May to SHIPO clearly stated the Preservation Board was scheduled to meet on July 25, 2001.  The ONA asked for a ten day notice for the Campus Historic Preservation Meeting to prepare, but were given less.  He said the Master Campus Plan stated the Preservation Board should not purchase properties in the neighborhood just because they were available, but then proceeded to purchase and propose demolish of those properties.  The greatest asset of a small group was its ability to get the truth to those in power and also just as importantly to create a climate in a community that would not tolerate the bullying and arrogant tactics of a powerful individual or institution.  He said the City Commission has heard from several individuals who were trying to explain Oread’s situation and how transitions were important.  The transition from our neighborhood via 14^th Street to the University of Kansas was a major entrance to the University where visitors experience for the first time University Campus.  The City must be protected against haphazard, unchecked development and its impact on the environs to the City of Lawrence. The ONA requested that any action by the Campus Historic Preservation Board be delayed until they fulfilled the agreement they signed with the Kansas SHIPO office.  Second, to create a well defined boundary between the City and the University which should be written down and agreed to by both parties and also, facilitate an ongoing process that could be used by the City and Oread Neighborhood in discussion with the University concerning land use, traffic, parking, stormwater and setbacks.  He asked that a process be created to allow the neighborhoods and University a genuine chance to alter any actions that harm the citizens of Lawrence.  A process that begins the education of our University Administrators, the day of unilateral University actions that negatively affect Lawrence Citizens would simply not be allowed anymore.

Rundle said there has been a long standing relationship between K.U. and the City of Lawrence which was based on a strong foundation of cooperation and mutual support.  He asked that before anyone started accusing each other, he wanted to acknowledge that everyone stay focused on the problems and to understand the City, University and Neighborhoods all have an interest that needed to be recognized and addressed.  He asked that they focus on solutions to the problems. 

Warren Corman, University Architect, said the Chancellor asked him to come to the City Commission Meeting to give facts about why there was a need for more scholarship halls for the University.  The condition of the neighborhood immediately east of Amini Halls had not been discussed.  The problems on the west side of Ohio were not caused by the original owners but in 1970, the private owners at that time, decided to turn these homes into apartments.  These structures were not maintained and were eventually put on the market.  Corman said these homes were so bad, K.U. decided to make a condition study and appointed licensed and registered architects to look at these homes.  He presented an executive summary of the findings describing the condition of those homes.  These homes did not meet code and he did not think there was an economical way to replace or restore these homes unless spending millions of dollars.   Corman said he has had a lot of neighbor’s in the area tell him they wished the homes were gone, but felt that it was not in their best interest to come down and make a pubic statement because they would not be supporting their neighborhood.  The University did not see any other option accept razing these homes as soon as they had permission to do so.  Someday, the University would build scholarship halls at that location and the Chancellor wanted the public to know that they would try to design these halls to fit the neighborhood.  At the present time, the University did not have the funding for these scholarship halls.  The University did not have a mission of establishing, building or repairing private homes for private use, but their mission was to take care of students.  He said the University had no reason to go east of Ohio Street.                                                                          

Hack asked Corman about the comment of money not being available for construction of the scholarship halls and if they had a plan or time frame for construction of the proposed halls.

Corman said in the Endowment Association Fund Drive, there was funding for one or two scholarship halls if they desired.  He did not know the time frame for construction of these halls.

Bill Mitchell, 1201 Emery Road, said he supported the Oread Neighborhood Association and their efforts.  He had concerns about the encroachment on residential neighborhoods and the commitment made by the University to the neighborhood east of the campus, not to extend east beyond the alley between Ohio and Louisiana Streets.       

Jim Long, Chair, Campus Historic Preservation Board, said it was important the City understood the purpose of the Campus Historic Preservation Board was to preserve and protect the University’s historic heritage and to that extent, the board was formed by the University.  There were efforts on the University Board to look at the potential for establishing a historic district on the campus.  The University did enter into an agreement to establish the Campus Historic Preservation Board with responsibilities for making reviews on projects that would occur within the environs of properties that were listed on the National Historic Places.  There were nine members currently on that board and had served for three to four years and knowledgeable of a variety of technical aspects that related to Historic Preservation.  In regard to crossing jurisdiction, was a matter that needed to be addressed with the City Commission as well as the Campus Board.  He said he met with SHIPO in early May to talk about handling cross jurisdiction reviews because as a provision of the agreement, they could seek advice and technical assistance concerning Historic Preservation.  In the meeting, there was discussion about the Attorney General’s Opinion (99-22).  He said they provided SHIPO official notice of the University’s plan for developing student housing in the area of Ohio Street.  The University was planning to submit to the Campus Board an application which proposed demolition of the properties on Ohio Street and some thought with regard to one to two scholarship halls in that area.  They also advised the Campus Board that there was a probability of a meeting occurring on July 25, 2001 to discuss this concern and asked if they had any concerns with the way they were proceeding, to let them know.  He said SHIPO was encouraging the Campus Board to continue to work on their efforts to make a review of the cross jurisdiction or shared environs procedure.  Notice was given that there would be a meeting of the Campus Board on July 24, 2001, a nine day notice which was sent out to all interested parties and at that same time all information available that they had received from the University.  He said it was important with regard to stormwater, parking, noise and partnerships, to work with the University to develop some kind of mechanism where such issues could be considered.  The Campus Board was to delay the University’s request to give the City and opportunity to share its views with the University’s plans.  He said they agreed the City and University should develop some kind of formal process by which some of the issues raised could be addressed.   The Campus Historic Preservation Board looked forward to an opportunity to join in that effort.

Betty Alderson, 1920 Maine, said she has been involved in some preservation efforts in Lawrence for quite awhile.  The Campus Board was growing and comparatively new in this field, much newer than our City Historic Resources Commission.  She said she remember when the City increased the density in the Oread Neigborhood and were now hearing the results of this decision.  There were viable alternatives for buildings that looked like they were going to fall down. 

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff could work with the neighborhoods and K.U. representatives to attack ONA’s concerns.  Also, the agreement the City has between SHIPO, University and the City on those cooperative reviews would be a beginning point to solve these problems.  He suggested appointing a City Commissioner to represent the City.

Dunfield said there were two different areas of discussion in which the dialogue needed to be opened up and approved upon.  There may be two different processes the City needed to establish.  One area had to do with the historic issues and the overlapping jurisdictions problem.  He said the more difficult issue was establishing an ongoing dialogue that involved the City, Neighborhoods and the University to try to arrive at a structure that would make sense and worked for all parties.                          

Hack concurred with Dunfield.  She said there were hurdles to overcome this issue, but the only way we could do this was respect each other opinions.

Henry thanked K.U. for deferring this item for an indefinite period of time.  In the interest of establishing a dialogue with the other parties, for example, approximately one year ago, there was a controversial situation dealing with the community on tax abatements.  A task force was formed with a large number of individuals that came from many different perspectives on the issue of tax abatements.  In the course of meeting, this diverse group had developed a sense a trust.  He said dialogue was absolutely essential and supported a strong mechanism for this dialogue to happen.

Kennedy said one of his main concerns about the buildings on Ohio Street, near the University, was safety for the neighborhood.  He asked that the City’s Building Inspection Department ensure that what ever happened to these buildings, would be more safety oriented.   Having vacant buildings proposed fire and safety hazards for the neighborhood and was important that these remaining vacant houses were not damaged anymore. 

Rundle concurred with Dunfield concerning the joint review of overlapping jurisdictions becoming a formal process and establishing an ongoing dialogue that involved the City, Neighborhoods and the University.  He said there was a wealth of alternatives and choices concerning these issues.                                                                                                             (7)

 Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, presented the staff report on 1997 Uniform Housing Code and 1997 Uniform Building Code.  He said there were minor changes to the Uniform Housing and Building Code.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the Housing Code would be the code that was enforced for the Rental Inspection Program and the Building Code related to new construction. 

Torres said both Ordinance had been reviewed and approved by both the Uniform Building Code of Appeals for the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee reviewed the 1997 Uniform Housing Code.

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopting on first reading Ordinance No. 7377, adopting the Uniform Housing Code.  Motion carried unanimously.                                        (8)

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopting on first reading Ordinance No. 7380 adopting the Uniform Building Code, if appropriate.                                                                  (9)

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the summary of the 2002 Budget Proposal.  He said the mill levy based on the decisions of the City Commission at the study session would be 24.77, which was a .87 mill increase over the previous year.  The outside agency request has been increased by $60,000.00 in the Special Alcohol Fund by lowering the amount for contingencies. 

            Hack said she had a concern about the vehicle reduction discussion at the last study session.  She supported keeping the money in the budget for vehicle replacement as needed according to guidelines.

            Rundle concurred with Hack. 

            Kennedy said he challenged staff at the last study session regarding the elimination of some vehicle expenditure which would save tax payers money.  After careful review, he said City staff traded down vehicles from a high use to a low use operation and was reflected in the budget     He said he was pleased that staff made sure they did not spend additional money for vehicles that were not used.      

            Moved by Rundle, seconded by Kennedy, to set a public hearing date of August 7, 2001 for the final 2002 Budget proposal.                                                                                           (10)

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the change order requests for the Southeast Sanitary Pump Station Project, the Downtown 2000 alley and the New Hampshire Street Project.  The first change order was the miscalculation for the reconstruction of a trench within east 27^th Street during the design phase of the project.   The miscalculation was the replacement amount of 200 square yards which should actually be 2000 square yards of asphalt.  Wildgen said Williams (Public Works Director) indicated that because of the condition of 27^th Street, the City would be ahead by overlaying the entire width of 27^th Street.  After checking the current bids, the contractor has given a quote that was within both the milling and asphalt prices that were bid this summer.  Another change order request concerning the Downtown 2000 Project was the recommendation to replace asphalt with concrete to pave the alley west of the Parking garage for drainage purposes.  The last change order request was for the New Hampshire Project.  In order for New Hampshire Street to be opened this fall for the new garage, the City needed to do additional work on the street and the street would be two-lane.  Wildgen said New Hampshire Street would not be completed until next spring due to the Art Center construction.

            Dunfield said the New Hampshire Street Project was a progression in trying to determine how to maintain adequate construction access and at the same time making the new garage useful and usable as soon as possible.  He asked if this proposal was reflecting the amount of work needing to be done on New Hampshire Street in order to allow two-way traffic on New Hampshire so the garage could function as construction continued on the rest of the project.       

            Moved by Henry, seconded by Hack, to approve the change order requests for the Southeast Sanitary Pump Station Project, the Downtown 2000 alley and the New Hampshire Street Project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                              (11)

Gary Miller, Chairman, Coalition of Homeless Concerns, said the Coalition had identified some concerns for the homeless.  The concern for shelter was discussed at last weeks City Commission meeting and this week, he wanted to discuss the need for drug and alcohol detoxification.  Currently there were inpatient services available in Topeka and Kansas City.  Often times he has come across individuals who do not want to receive the service in Topeka and Kansas City because they wanted to stay in the Lawrence area.  He said he wanted to make the community aware there was a need for social medical detoxification.  The Coalition has opened up a temporary shelter at St. John’s Catholic Church and was operating with volunteers.  He said the Coalition’s proposals were to ask the City for help to purchase a building for a homeless shelter.  If the Coalition had the building, they would provide all operational cost which the money could be raised through grants and the community.  Another proposal was the City giving the Coalition help with staff salaries and/or utilities.  The last proposal was the community come together with the help of Social Service Agencies to apply for grants to operate a Treatment Center in Lawrence/Douglas County.  These services would provide an immediate safe haven shelter with social and/or medical detoxification. 

Saunny Scott had a concern about City funds and how they were being used.                          

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.   Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                      

 

 

 

                                                                        APPROVED:

                                                                        _____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Diane Trybom, Deputy City Clerk

COMMISSION MEETING JULY 24,  2001

1.                  Ordinance No. 7381 – 1^st Reading, Temporary moratorium, annexed property located in designated floodplain areas.

2.                  Ordinance No. 7382 – 1^st Reading, Temporary moratorium, annexed property located N of KS River.

3.                  Ordinance No. 7378 – 2^nd Reading, 2001 Standard Traffic Ordinance.

4.                  Ordinance No. 7379 – 2^nd Reading, Rezone (Z-11-48-00) 14.4 acres, VC to M-2, N of Kaw Water Treatment Plant, W 2^nd & Illinois.

5.                  Site Plan – (SP-06-40-01), Parking lot, Grace Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

6.                  Mortgage Release – 1021 E Home Cir., James Cooper.

7.                   KU Expansion Plans – Oread Neighborhood discussion.

8.                  Ordinance No. 7377 – 1^st Reading, Adopt Uniform Housing Code.

9.                  Ordinance No. 7380 – 1^st Reading, Adopt Uniform Building Code.

10.              2002 Budget Proposal – Public hearing date set for August 7, 2001.

11.              SE Sanitary Sewer Project – Change order for Downtown 2000 alley & New Hamp project.