October 16, 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.  Student Commissioners Raney and Weber were present.

With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of October 14 – 20, 2001, as “Teen Read Week”; and, the week of October 21 – 28, 2001, as “World Population Awareness Week.”

Mayor Rundle added a consent agenda item concerning the appointment of members to the Historic Preservation Plan Element Taskforce.  The City Commission approved the Historic Preservation Fund Grant Agreement to develop a Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for the City of Lawrence in the amount of $28,000 on May 1, 2001.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approvethe appointment of members to the Historic Preservation Plan Element Taskforce. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 9, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of June 20, 2001; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 27, 2001 and Public Hearing citizens comments from September 27, 2001; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of October 1, 2001; and, the Lawrence Public Library Board meeting minutes of September 17, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 341 vendors in the amount of $724,870.86.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive the September – October 2001 Economic Development monthly activity report.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for India Palace, 129 East 10^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Gina A. Ross to the Sister Cities Advisory Board.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Crossgate Drive, 24^th Place to 27^th Street, and 27^th Street and Crossgate Drive box culvert – street, storm sewer, and waterline improvements for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for the Crossgate Drive, 24^th Place to 27^th Street, and 27^th Street and Crossgate Drive box culvert – street, storm sewer, and waterline improvements for the Public Works Department to LRM Industries, in the amount of $1,341,251.15.  Motion carried unanimously.  (1)            The City Commission reviewed the bids for the roof replacement at the S.W.A.N. Building, 320 Industrial Lane for Building Maintenance.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for roof replacement at the S.W.A.N. Building, 320 Industrial Lane for Building Maintenance to American Roofing, in the amount of $10,468.00.  Motion carried unanimously. (2)  

The City Commission reviewed the bids for roof replacement for the Lawrence-Douglas County Fire/Medical Station No. 5 for Building Maintenance.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for roof replacement for the Lawrence Douglas County Fire Medical Station No. 5 for Building Maintenance to American Roofing, in the amount of $18,177.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                     (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for roof replacement for the Red Barn for Building Maintenance.  The bids were:

 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for roof replacement for the Red Barn for Building Maintenance to American Roofing, in the amount of $28,333.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                   (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to set a bid date of October 23, 2001 for Montana Street, storm sewer repair.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (5)

Ordinance No. 7437, annexing approximately 0.5 acres, located west of East 1000 Road and south of West 6^th Street was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (6)

Ordinance No. 7438, annexing approximately 0.5 acres, located west of East 1000 Road and south of West 6^th Street was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (7)

Ordinance No. 7439, annexing approximately 0.85 acres, located west of East 1000 Road and north of West 6^th Street.  U.S. Hwy. 40 right-of-way adjacent to the City of Lawrence property and St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                     (8)

Ordinance No. 7441, annexing approximately one (1) acre, located east of Prairie Park Addition No. 3, west side of O’Connell Road was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                     (9)

Ordinance No. 7442, assessing the costs of sidewalk repairs to 2710 University Drive and 2712 University Drive was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6346, declaring 1244 Tennessee environmentally blighted, ordering the owner to abate the violation(s) within 20 days or the City will contract to have the violation(s) removed.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the site plan (SP-06-37-01) for Classic Eagle Distributors, located on North Iowa Street (east of K-Mart Distribution Center), subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

2.                  Approval and filing of a lot split for Lot 1 of Anna Hope Industrial Park with the Register of Deeds;

3.                  Construction of Packer Road adjacent to the subject property must be competed prior to issuance of occupancy permits;

4.                  Approval of a Sanitary Sewer Location Plan by the Utilities Department prior to release of the Site Plan to Code Enforcement;

5.                  Provision of an approved photometric plan;

6.                  Submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to release of the Site Plan to the Codes Enforcement Division;

7.                  Approval of addition fire hydrant locations and fire access by Fire/Medical Department prior to release of the Site Plan to the Code Enforcement Division;

8.                  Show correct drainage easement per preliminary plat submittal;

9.                  Move the overflow weir away from the outflow pipe alignment;

10.              Correct the detention outlet flowline to match the drainage study;

11.              Provision of eight (8) additional trees to obtain approval of alternate compliance plan from the Director of Planning;

12.              Provide height of security fence; and,

13.              Revise lot label to reflect the legal description.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (12)

Mayor Rundle pulled Item 9 from the consent agenda concerning a text amendment to Chapter 20, Article 9A of the Lawrence City Code, revising floodplain development/management requirements because the Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources had identified additional required items that needed to be added to the draft floodplain regulations.                                      (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the modification of site plan (SP-03-20-00) to require the sidewalk adjacent to Wakarusa Drive to be removed and reconstructed concurrently with Phase 2 or by August 1, 2002, whichever occurs first.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish alternate side parking along Barker Avenue between 15^th Street and 23^rd Street with parking permitted along the west side of the 1900 block.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                         (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish a school crossing and construct a pedestrian refuge island on 27^th Street, west of the Sunflower Elementary School driveway.  The estimated cost to construct this island and the necessary sidewalk ramp is $10,000.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                    (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in front of any mailbox.  Motion carried unanimously. (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Richard Heckler and Beth Mansur, 1217 Prospect.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                           (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the purchase of 1538 Harper and 1522 Lindenwood for up to $12,000.00 each, for future affordable housing development.  Motion carried unanimously.                                      (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive the staff report on recommendation for awarding a bid to Brasco International for bus shelters, pursuant to Federal Regulations and the Lawrence Transit System Protest Procedure.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (20)

Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report on the recommendation to approve TA-8-02-01, text amendment to Chapter 20, Article 9A of the Lawrence City Code, revising floodplain development/management requirements.  He said the Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources  (DWR) had been short staffed and City staff just recently had the opportunity to meet with the DWR and get an initial review of the draft floodplain regulations.  The DWR identified items that needed to be added to the draft floodplain regulations.   These suggestion were:

●          Until a regulatory floodway is designated, no encroachment may increase the base           flood level more than one foot;

●          Require base flood elevation data for any development proposal;

●          Require, for all new construction and substantial improvement, that fully enclosed areas   below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or             storage have permanent opening designed to allow the entry and exit of flood waters in     accordance with specifications of CFR 60.3(c)(5);

●          In Zones AO and AH, require drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide water   for structures;

●          No structure, fill or other uses within the floodway overlay district shall be permitted           unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in             accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would    not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of     the base flood discharge; and,

●          The Definitions for Historic Structure, New Construction, Structure, Substantial Damage,             and Violation.

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Henry, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance concerning the draft floodplain regulations subject to the required conditions by the Division of Water Resources.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                 (21)

Mayor Rundle called public hearings on the proposed maximum special assessments for 22^nd and Kasold geometric improvements; Crossgate Drive, 24^th Place to 27^th Street; and, 27^th and Crossgate box culvert improvements.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, presented the proposed maximum special assessments for 22^nd and Kasold geometric improvements; Crossgate Drive, 24^th Place to 27^th Street; and, 27^th and Crossgate box culvert improvements.  The 22^nd and Kasold geometric improvements included City participation and included property on the west side of Kasold and the north side Clinton Parkway.  The improvements were required due to development that had occurred in that area.  The other two improvements were to the west and south of 22^nd and Kasold.  The City was currently constructing Crossgate Drive, from 24^th Place to Clinton Parkway including traffic signalization improvements at the intersection.  Bids were previously received for the improvement of Crossgate and the box culvert at 27^th and Crossgate.  These two projects required no City participation.  Pursuant to State law, the City was conducting a public hearing receiving public comment on the proposed assessment.  If approved, the City Commission would adopt on first reading the Ordinance setting those maximum assessments.  The 2^nd Reading would be the following Tuesday and the Ordinances would be published.  The property owners would then have thirty days to begin a lawsuit on the maximum assessments. 

Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Kennedy, to close the public hearings.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                              (22)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7434, levying the maximum assessments to pay for the cost of geometric improvements for 22^nd and Kasold.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                           (23)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7435, levying the maximum assessments to pay for the cost of improvements for Crossgate Drive, 24^th Place to 27^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                           (24)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7436, levying the maximum assessments to pay for the cost of box culvert improvements for 27^th and Crossgate.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                     (25)

            David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report on the proposed rezoning of property located at 1201 East 13th Street (Schuyler Lister property owner of record).  Corliss began by reviewing the recent actions of the Planning Commission.  Corliss explained that the Planning Commission met on July 25, 2001 and, on a 7-1 vote, recommended that the property be rezoned to RS-2.  The only notice for the proposed rezoning was for C-1 which was the designation requested by the property owner. 

            Due to the difference in the Planning Commission's recommendation (RS-2) and the notice to the property owner (C-1), Corliss explained there was an open legal question as to whether the notice to the property owner complied with K.S.A. 12-757 (2000 Supp.). 

            Corliss also stated there was also a procedural due process argument because neither the property owner nor adjacent property owners were notified of the possibility of the RS-2 rezoning which was beyond the range of C-4 to C-1 on the lesser change table. 

            Corliss further explained any procedural defects could be cured by a new notice of the proposed rezoning.  He stated staff's recommendation was for the City Commission to return this matter back to the Planning Commission with directions to initiate an RS-2 rezoning of the property.  

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the property owner had been notified the rezoning of his property was on tonight’s regular agenda.

Corliss said he talked to the owner’s attorney, Price Banks, and advised him of the City Commission meeting.  He said Banks indicated the owner was not likely to attend the meeting.

Commissioner Hack said she had no objections to starting the rezoning changes over, but requested this site be cleaned-up.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said he had already informed the owner’s attorney that this site needed to be cleaned-up.  The owner was physically unable to cleanup the site at the present time, but would tighten up the site for winter.  The condition of the site was the reason why it was brought before the City Commission.

Kennedy said based on the original plan, the site should have already been completed.  He asked for input from the other Commissioners.

Rundle said Corliss stated there were some questions about procedure and whether the lesser change table was adequately used.  Rundle stated because of the potential legal question reinitiating the RS-2 rezoning made sense.            

Susan Miller, Treasurer, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, presented a letter written by Kirsten Roussel, President, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association.  The letter stated that at their most recent Brookcreek Neighborhood Association meeting, they discussed the property that pertained to the proposed rezoning.  In keeping with their Brookcreek Neighborhood needs assessment of 1998, they wished to maintain their neighborhood as a low-density residential area and discouraged commercial development in areas adjacent to residential areas and parks.  The site did not meet current requirements for commercial use.  The location was along a primary access into the neighborhood and was adjacent to single-family homes and would be more appropriate for RS-2.  The consensus of the attendees at their three most recent meetings in May, September and October was to request the City Commission support the recommendation of the Planning Commission for rezoning the property from C4 to RS-2.   

Dunfield said in terms of the zoning aspect, the City Commission needed assurance that everything was done correctly from a legal point of view so once they did initiate that rezoning, it was going to standup.  He was in favor of staff’s recommendation to send the request for rezoning back to the Planning Commission and publicize the site as a down zoning to RS-2. 

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to send the rezoning request back to the Planning Commission for recommendations and initiate the down zoning for this site to RS-2.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (26)

Kennedy said he had heard from a number of individuals in the Brookceek Neighborhood concerning this site and thought it was appropriate to demand this project be completed.

Wildgen asked the Mayor for additional time to see if the timetable for that Resolution was still open.  The City Commission would need to start that blight process again if the timetable expired for that Resolution.  He said he thought the Resolution was still open for the City Commission to take action concerning a twenty-day notice to abate the violations or the City would contract to have the violations removed.

Mayor Rundle presented the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to deny the request to establish additional “no parking” along the west side of Sunset Drive between Cambridge Drive and Harvard Road.   He said the Board of Directors of the West Hills Homeowners Association was unaware of a request submitted by a resident of the neighborhood and respectfully asked the City Commission not to deny the request that was submitted but refer the request back to the Traffic Safety Commission.   The residents of this neighborhood had concerns about traffic safety regarding the portion of Sunset Drive and would like the opportunity to address the Traffic Safety Commission.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, not to deny the request to establish additional “no parking” along the west side of Sunset Drive between Cambridge Drive and Harvard Road; and, refer the request back to the Traffic Safety Commission.  Motion carried unanimously.   (27)  

Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the staff’s recommendations regarding rezoning request Z-07-28-01.  The original request was to rezone approximately 23.97 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) for property generally located on the northeast corner of 31^st and Iowa Streets, east of the convenience store.  Finger explained that the Planning Commission recommended rezoning 19.77 acres from RS-1 to PCD-2 and 4.197 acres from RS-1 to PRD-1 (using the lesser change table).  She stated that as staff looked at this development plan and this zoning request they applied Horizon 2020 which is not a document that is written clearly when read as a whole.  She explained therefore that staff had to make various assumptions based on the facts before them.  Those facts and assumptions are contained in the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission minutes. 

Finger explained two questions in particular were raised when staff reviewed the rezoning request: (1) why couldn’t this property be forced to be developed with the corner property; and (2) the issue of the development facing Iowa Street rather than 31^st Street.  As to the first question, she explained staff did not have the ability to force development with the corner through regulations or Code enforcement.  When advised of this, the Planning Commission wanted to make the property owners aware of the strip of lots that were directly adjacent to Iowa on the east side.  The Planning Commission would like to initiate these lots for PCD zoning so when these lots come up for redevelopment they could be integrated into this development and could become a consolidated site.  She further explained there were rules and regulations concerning internal access and coordination taken with external access considerations, that would further the rules and regulations concerning the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.  Based on that authority, staff was asking for cross-access easements. 

As to the second question, Finger explained that Horizon 2020 is fairly clear that the development should face towards the arterial streets; therefore, the development should face toward Iowa Street.  However, she explained staff looked at how this project integrated with the existing neighborhood and how it transitions back into the remainder of the neighborhood to the north and east.  If this big box building were to face Iowa, because it sits back so far, what would happen is there would be parking north, west, and south of the building which would then begin to establish a land use pattern that all of the other small lots to the northwest of this development along the east side of Iowa, should be able to extend as they redevelop back that same depth of commercial; which makes this a much greater commercial “potential” area than what you would have on the other corners.  As a result, she stated this was not good land use planning and that the development should face toward 31^st street with Ousdahl and the open space as transitions.  Staff’s recommendation was to approve the rezoning request based upon specific use restrictions that are seen on the Preliminary Development Plan.

Kennedy asked if the change in staff’s recommendation was partially in regards to the initial refusal of this development due to its size and location on that parcel.

Finger responded that the size and square footage, which were two of the factors that were fairly primary when looking at commercial nodes, particularly in regard to regional or community development, were factors that were taken into consideration.

Rundle expressed concern about the idea that by sticking to the City’s plans they would be forcing development.  The development along South Iowa has not been forced to develop because the City followed its plans.  He said the market developed these areas and by waiting for the market forces to bring these parcels together would be how he would view things working.

Finger said it was in the authority of the City Commission to make the determination that based upon timing, it was not appropriate for this development.

Dunfield had a concern about the impact on the affordable housing situation immediately surrounding it.  The staff report said residential properties to the north and east would be detrimentally impacted by the encroachment of commercial development.  Redevelopment of this site would place redevelopment pressures on the remaining portions of Gaslight Village.  He asked if this was an indirect way of expressing that this might not be a viable residential neighborhood anymore.

Finger said one of the assumptions staff made was this size of a commercial development would have a negative impact on the existing single-family homes.  These single- family homes were at a greater density in the mobile home park than a single-family district would be, but they were still single-family in use.  Finger said what staff tried to do with the review of this plan was to make sure there was a buffer so this project did not have immediate parking or noise impacts upon the adjacent residential areas as they exist today.  The mobile home parks have historically been looked at through our code as a holding type of use and not considered a permanent use.  This assumption might be an error in how this has been viewed, but was certainly the pattern that has happened in Lawrence as well as other communities.   Though the site was residentially developed, it was a commercial project because the mobile home park was owned by an individual and residents pay rent to have sites to place their homes.

Finger also explained that the Southern Development Plan could be expanded if the City Commission wished.  This expansion would enable the Commission to see what kind of land use was appropriate if this proposal goes forward from the strip from Iowa to Louisiana because that north part of 31^st Street was never looked at as part of the Southern Development Plan. 

Dunfield asked Finger about the Southern Development Plan and whether the City Commission adopted that plan on the condition that further commercial development was limited to a parcel.

Finger said it was limited to 25 acres and those acres were developed when the 34^th Street Investors developed on the south side of 33^rd.

Bill Knoth, President, Knoth Co., Overland Park, Kansas, said he was speaking on behalf of First National Development and Home Depot.  He said approximately six months ago he was given guidelines to improve this plan; namely, to make the size of the development smaller; fewer pads; and, detention needed to be added.  On July 25, 2001 he came back with a plan for the Planning Commission suggesting they had made a substantial change in their plan.  They decreased the size of all the buildings on the project to the extent there was a thirty percent decrease in retail area.  They specified the home improvement and the one additional electronic store which was to the west.  The detention area of approximately four acres was now zoned PRD.  The purpose of this zoning was to insure the community that this property be used for commercial development and with the detention basin, it would be impossible to go forward with any commercial development in that area. 

Knoth further stated that on September 26, 2001, they went before the Planning Commission with a staff recommendation.  They received approval by the Planning Commission for rezoning and on the preliminary plan for this property.  He said a study was done by a company out of Chicago to determine approximately how many additional dollars this project would bring to the City of Lawrence.  One schedule was for a twenty-year life which specifically pointed out that the real estate taxes over twenty years on this particular project would amount to $7,129,000.  The sales tax, based upon some conservative assumptions, and based on all new sales, was $36,018,000.  The total additional taxes generated by this development over a twenty-year period exceeds $43,000,000 based on the report.  This development was the engine behind the public and private partnership for the road improvements that were anticipated. 

Knoth then explained a roadwork schedule for the improvements.  He said the Ousdahl north improvements, costing approximately $90,000, would all be paid for by the developer.  The Ousdahl south and the 31^st Street improvements associated with the Ousdahl improvements would be split 50/50 between the developer and the City.  Overall, the estimated total cost for the public improvements was $1,095,545.40 by the developer and $1,078,114.20 by the City.  He said the tax and sales tax engine would help the City pay for this development.  He stated that the roadwork would be completed and open to the public before the buildings are open to the public.  He said the developer would like to build the road improvements to ensure the road improvement was in place.  The road improvements would be built to specification and inspected by the City, but if the developer completed the road improvements, they could deliver the project at a lower cost than the City because of the way the project would be bid.  He said the developer would like to start this process as soon as possible if the City Commission approved their requests. 

Finger then explained the staff’s position regarding the development plan.  The development plan comes before the City Commission on 5-4 vote.  There was some opposition to the development plan specifically from Commissioner Bateman based on access to the K-mart area.  The proposal the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Commission was with seven conditions. 

The first condition was an itemized list of additional information that needed to be provided on the development plan which included eighty feet of right-of-way for Ousdahl along the eastern property line for the full extent of the property outside encumbrance area for relocated gas line main, which occurred in the northeast corner of this development.  At the Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion of the concept that either Ousdahl be developed or a right-in/right-out access be developed as was shown on the development plan immediately to the west.  It was staff’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation that Ousdahl be developed and the right-in/right-out not be developed. 

Condition No. 2 dealt with a public drainage easement for the system which crosses the Gaslight Village property which was not on this site.  The 3^rd Condition dealt with an agreement not-to-protest the formation of benefit districts for streets, sidewalks and traffic signals for Ousdahl, 31^st and Iowa Street.  She stated the applicants wanted to approach the City with a change in this condition.  The 4^th Condition was to provide cross-access easements with properties to the west as shown on the development plan.  The applicants wanted to propose a change to this condition as well. 

Condition No. 5 was to provide an agreement with the owner of Lot 8, the service station of Commerce Plaza Addition, stating adequate right-of-way for a right turn lane be provided upon the redevelopment of that lot and needing a right turn lane at the intersection of 31^st and Iowa.  Finger stated the applicants requested deletion of this condition. 

Condition No. 6 was written authorization from the owners of Gaslight Village that off-site improvements were satisfactory and would be installed with Phase 1 of the development because some of the lane improvements needed to occur to the east off-site from this development along 31^st Street.  The 7^th Condition was a limitation on specific uses to be permitted within the development plan.  These uses being limited to a home improvement store, a retail electronic store or restaurants.  She stated the applicants would also like to address this condition. 

Rundle asked about the public improvements and whether the position of staff was based on the City’s development standards.

Finger stated that the staff’s position assumed following the development policy but staff did not consider an allocation of cost in their presentation.

Knoth presented the condition modifications for the items they were requesting.  In Condition No. 1a he said Kyle Mieras, Planner, expressed that the 80’ of right-of-way was for that extent of Ousdahl which was going to be improved at this time which would come north 250’ to 300’.  Mieras was also looking at the applicant to ensure there was 80’ of right-of-way so Ousdahl could be built to the extent that it was built north and then the applicant would then be required to give their half of forty feet north.  Mieras also wanted to make sure there was a gas line main that was proposed to be in that forty foot which was a main that the applicant was relocating which could be relocated differently to get the main out of the forty feet which he agreed to do.  He was asking the language in Condition No. 1a be amended so that basically references were to eighty feet for improved Ousdahl.  They would then give their half (40’) further north. 

Knoth said Condition 3 should not be changed, but it should reflect the roadwork schedule and that the developers would likely put their share up front in cash.  Condition No. 4 should be rewritten to require providing cross-access easement for (not with) properties to the west as shown on the development plan.  Based upon current conditions and recent changes, the applicant would give a letter to the City entering into an easement agreement with the property owners to the west.  He said both their traffic engineer and the City’s traffic engineer spent 3 days researching traffic numbers.  He stated the easement agreement letter would not affect the outcome of the traffic study so it was not a hindrance to the site especially because he was agreeing to participate in the cost of improvements to the north end of Ousdahl.  Condition No. 5 would be omitted and there would be no change to Condition No. 6.

Finger then commented on the applicant’s recommended condition changes.  Finger said in Condition No. 1b, the revised plan came in after the report was written and the 250’ versus 300’ matter could be determined at the Final Development Plan stage. 

As to condition 1a, Finger stated the applicant’s changes would give control of Ousdahl Road’s development to the developer; whereas the condition 1a, as originally written and recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, would give the City control of the Ousdahl Road’s development because the City would have control of the full right-of-way.

In Condition No. 4, “with properties” rather than “to properties” means that if you get to a property (line), then you could not go any further.  If you use “with properties,” then the easement would be able to connect to the frontage road.  Finger explained this was a significant distinction the City Commission needed to understand.  She stated this was a key factor staff looked at because the development did not go all the way to the intersection.  She also stated if “to” is substituted there would be no guarantee of cross circulation with the lots to the west.

Rundle asked if it was possible the developer simply could not get the easement from the adjacent property owner to the west.

Finger stated it was possible and stated “with properties” is how you integrate this development plan with the lots to the west.  She said staff thought this was the only way this development could happen without incorporating the lots to the west.  She stated this change in conditions affects one of the major findings or assumptions on which staff based its recommendation. 

She said on Condition No. 1i, she understood that the Planning Commission wanted the uses to be exactly as proposed, and a “restaurant/retail” note on the plan may have been understood as the same thing. 

Hack asked if there was a reason both pad sites could not say “restaurant/retail”.

Finger said they did not present it that way.

Knoth said they felt it could be either/or.

David Geyer, Chairman, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said he had a concern about this development from the beginning because it would face 31^st Street.  He said it appeared to be the first step in stripping out 31^st Street and making it look like 23^rd Street.  There was a PRD tract on the east side of the development that would possibly stop future development but there was no guarantee to stop development from jumping that tract.

Bob Suderman, 614 West 27^th Terrace, Indian Hills Neighborhood, had a concern about having a coordinated comprehensive plan.  He said everyone knew what was going on in terms of 31^st Street and other traffic issues that brought the City to the point where a decision needed to be made on how the City viewed Home Depot.  Besides the issues of traffic volume, water flooding, and other general concerns, they were also concerned about traffic routing, land use issues, and affordable housing.  The first major concern was the removal of affordable housing without some concrete plan to replace that affordable housing.  The Indian Hills Neighborhood has grownup with this mobile home park and it was accepted by the neighborhood.  The second concern was the movement of the development down 31^st Street east.  Suderman also expressed concerns about traffic counts and he stated he did not agree with all of the applicant’s traffic counts.

Shon Qualseth, speaking on behalf of Malan Realty, property owners of the K-mart property, presented a letter of opposition for the proposed Preliminary Development Plan.  The letter noted approval of this plan would have a severe, permanent, and detrimental economic impact to Malan’s property.  The letter also noted that if the proposed development plan was approved in its current design, Malan would be forced to seek any and all remedies available to them to offset the severe and permanent economic impact to their property.  Malan asked that the City Commission reject the proposed development plan and require a new plan that did not provide an unfair and unreasonable advantage to the First National site. 

Bob Hagan, 926 West 28^th Terrace, said the proposal presented was a good plan that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He said he could appreciate the fact that the stormwater questions raised in the first plan had been resolved, at least to the extent to the engineers could give that assurance.  There was a substantial contribution towards some of the intersection construction.  Unfortunately other serious questions were not addressed by modifications to the plan, in particular traffic off the site and compatibility with the adjacent residential areas.  In a year, maybe less, this community would have a clearer idea of floodplain development rules, the route of the South Lawrence  Trafficway and the fate of 31^st Street and its interconnections.  At this stage, the City would be in a better position to plan ahead for development or redevelopment of the entire area.  He urged the City Commission to vote against this project. 

Tim Holverson, Vice President, Public Policy, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, asked the City Commission to take into consideration the jobs that would be provided by such a project and the need for jobs for the citizens of varying skill levels throughout our community.  He also asked the Commission to consider sales tax receipts that could be generated by such a project and the property tax generated by the project.

Melinda Henderson said she also had a concern with a PRD tract on the east side of the proposed development which could possibly stop future development, but what was to stop development from jumping that tract.  As far as financing the Ousdahl improvements, that recommendation was based on the City Development Policy.  She said it seemed the policy required the developer to pay 100 percent for that street improvement and wondered if the City would be setting some type of precedent for future requests if the policy was not followed. 

Marcia Francisco, 946 Ohio, said she spoke at the Planning Commission meeting in regard to this development and emphasized this was not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan.  The request that the League of Women’s Voters made to the Planning Commission was if the City was to approve this development, then the City should change its Comprehensive Plan first and not approve something that was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 

Jim Turrentine, 2905 Belle Haven Drive, said in the past he had shown the City Commission existing conditions in the area.  He asked if it was in the best interest for schools on Louisiana, flooding problems, cost to the citizens, more development, the amount of encroachment and other additional problems.  He asked the City Commission to think about the project from the aspects of what was envisioned in Horizon 2020 when it was written and see if the City still upheld those values.  He said the City would be creating an unfair advantage for those people in that center compared to the other businesses in this City.  He urged the City Commission to do something with this development that was in the best interest for the City of Lawrence. 

Mayor Rundle asked how did the City keep from jumping the residential buffer east of this development and moving east on 31^st street.

Finger said there were no guarantees in zoning because zoning was flexible and could change.  The guarantee the City could have is to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 

Rundle asked whether staff saw a future northern extension of Ousdahl into the residential neighborhoods.

Finger said “no”, not into a residential neighborhood.  What the staff report indicated was similar in design to Congressional Drive extending north across 6^th Street and tying back into Overland Drive.  This would basically have a looped road system defining and confining this type of high intensity or commercial development.  Finger stated that there is not a transportation plan or small area plan that would show the looped road system here.

Kennedy asked about KDOT’s approval of the entrance to the K-mart property and the island when the Malan property was redeveloped.

Finger said what KDOT looked at when the Malan property redeveloped was the relocation of that frontage road as far back as they could.  It ended up being as far east as could be and still be in front of the K-mart structure at that point in time.  The City also has an agreement not-to-protest the installation of a traffic signal. 

Finger said she knew KDOT was concerned with the stacking lane distance for the double left turns at that intersection.  She asked George Williams, Public Works Director, to address the issue as to the median and whether it should be closed or fully across 31^st Street and how far back.  

Williams said he had not had any contact with KDOT, but the stacking lanes issue is a valid concern. 

Dunfield asked if it would be fair to say that at the time when the study was initially done and the K-mart redevelopment was approved it was done without the assumption of a major retail development happening directly across 31^st Street from K-mart.

Finger said “yes.”  She said she thought there was an assumption the City would try to move the frontage road back as far as they could on the northeast side, but did not think there was consideration given to commercial development of this size in that location.

Dunfield asked if the City had any proposal or solution being considered that would allow the left turn in or out access to K-mart with the Home Depot project going in.

Finger said to her knowledge the only thing would be, if Ousdahl on the south side of that intersection were improved, to allow full access over to K-mart.  The post office’s portion of that section of that intersection would also need improvement because immediately upon entering  the post office site is a drop-off lane.

Williams said you could make a similar argument for the elimination of the entrance into the Home Depot site that was near Ousdahl.  In fact, the City preferred to have the Ousdahl Road entrance, rather than an entrance off of 31^st Street.  At one time, they only had a right-in right-out entrance.  This plan showed the eastern entrance off of Ousdahl.  It was a matter of the amount of traffic on that street.

Rundle asked Mike Wildgen about cost sharing and if he could comment on how the cost-sharing proposal fits into our Development Policy.       

Wildgen said the Development Policy had been in place for some years and required that costs be paid 100 percent by the property owner and developer.  The City at large would not participate.  There was a new proposal for improvement costs that proposes costs would be split roughly $1,100,000 apiece for the City and developer for all improvements.  Part of the proposal for this cost sharing was on the theory that there were four lanes now on 31^st street and those have not been approved to City standards because it was an old county road at one time. 

Rundle asked what would the city pay for if this was a new development on 31^st Street. 

Wildgen said there was a two-lane split.  The City would pay for two lanes and the curbs.

Williams said if the City were to do this from scratch, the developer would pay for a 31’ street plus curb and gutters and sidewalks and the City would pay the rest.

Rundle asked as this was currently proposed, what should the City be responsible for paying.

Wildgen said what the City should pay for has been a debate on different projects throughout the years.  There were different examples as to what the City paid throughout the years.  It was up to the City Commission as to what it feels is the public benefit.

Henry asked if there was a standard industry figure staff was aware of for stacking lanes. 

Williams said it depended on the number of cars that were turning in the peak hours.  It was based on the signal timing and the number of cars that could be moving and how many would be making that turn in the peak hour.

Rundle spoke on the taxes that would possibly be generated.  He stated while the numbers were impressive, this was not a tax increment-financing district.  Those taxes were not going to pay the cost generated by this project. 

Rundle also commented on the idea for stopping further development.  There was one compelling way to do that and that was to follow the Comprehensive Plan.  The courts have said, if you make decisions based upon your Comprehensive Plan, it shall be considered reasonable.

In terms of the project facing 31^st Street and touching commercial property on Iowa Street, having a cross access easement agreement concerned him.  He said if anything should have taught the City a lesson, it was 23^rd street and the bad planning decisions.  The fact that the citizens of Lawrence have asked the City to fix 23^rd Street, and the City committing the money to develop the South Lawrence Trafficway, and already spending $57,000,000 on a part of a road that the City now finds out that would not fix 23^rd Street, and the fact the City of Lawrence has done the study on how 23^rd Street would be fixed, are all rather compelling.  He said it was compelling that the citizens did not want the City to create another problem that needed to be paid for in the future.  He said waiting for the market to bring those parcels  together was the way the City should go.  The development should not proceed down 31^st Street according to the plan and this project does that and it would probably continue. 

Rundle asked Finger about the various options the City could take. 

Finger said when the City Commission received a Planning Commission recommendation, you could confirm that recommendation and suggest an Ordinance be drafted; you could send it back to the Planning Commission indicating what questions you felt were not answered; or, on a super majority vote, the City Commission could take a final action that was in contradiction to that you received as a recommendation. 

Rundle asked if there were any requirements in terms of super majority votes.

Finger said if you vote in contradiction to the recommendation you need a 4-1 vote minimum.

Rundle said there was a policy prohibiting direct access from individual properties on 31^st Street.  This project has a major entrance onto 31^st Street and he did not understand why this was development plan was allowed. 

Dunfield said when this issue was before the City Commission the last time, he said he made the statement that he did not see possible changes that Home Depot could make that would satisfy them and that he could agree with.  He said he still believed that.    He said he was in a unique position in that he seemed to agree with most of staff’s analysis, but disagreed with staff’s conclusions.  He said this was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, or the Southern Development Plan all of which were referred to in staff’s analysis.  He then read passages from staff’s analysis that supported his conclusion that this project was not consistent with Horizon 2020, the Comprehensive Plan, or the Southern Development Plan. 

Dunfield stated that the City does not have a good track record that once a commitment was made and blessed by a plan, sticking with that commitment a few years down the line when the next development proposal comes along.  He stated it does not do any good to draw lines for the future, because the lines needed to be drawn now.  There were a couple of specific issues related that indicated the importance of that decisiveness on the part of the City Commission to follow the City’s Comprehensive Plan and to stick with it.  Those two issues were the impact on affordable housing in Lawrence and access to 31^st street for existing businesses.  K-Mart’s access and plans were predicated on an assumption about the future of the property across 31^st Street from them.  With that assumption going out the window we are seeing access to their project was completely up in the air and there are no proposed solutions that would satisfy K-mart.   The City was reducing K-Mart’s access significantly and causing it a tremendous potential negative impact on their business as a result of approval of a project which was not planned for at the time these other considerations were being made. 

Dunfield stated for those reasons he still could not approve this project.

Hack said when this issue came before the City Commission before, the comments she made were that she was supportive of the retail development at that particular corner, but her concern was the size.  She stated now the developer on the project is more in tune with what she hoped it would be at the beginning.  There were several issues to address and one of them was the need for a store of this type.  She stated these kinds of dollars were not just trickling out of our community, but were rushing out.  She also stated the City would have the ability to improve a difficult intersection and was getting help in doing so.  She said it was a protection of taxpayers’ dollars and the developer was willing to absorb the cost for improving Ousdahl and a portion of a traffic light at 31^st and Ousdahl and a portion of Ousdahl to the south. 

She said an additional return to the community is the sales and property taxes that would be generated.  For those reasons, Hack stated she was in support of the development.

Henry said when the project came to the City Commission before, he voted against it because the project was too large.  He now sees a project that is significantly reduced in size, with significantly improved plans.  There is a lot of leakage of sales tax dollars.  Here is an opportunity to take one of the worst intersections in the City and have it improved at approximately half the cost to the taxpayers.  He said the City Commission would be doing a great disservice to taxpayers in the future if they did not accept an offer to help improve that intersection.

Henry said he supported the project but he was concerned about the access to K-mart and believed a break in the median could be engineered so the stacking distance would be acceptable and still allow traffic into K-mart.  He also stated the tax revenue was substantial over time.  For those reasons, Henry supported the project. 

Kennedy said the City has already developed commercially from Iowa to Ousdahl on the south side.  He said he would like to see it stopped at Ousdahl and the City now had a chance to develop the northern part of that street from approximately Iowa to Ousdahl and he would like to see commercial development stop at Ousdahl.  If it took an amendment to the Southern Development Plan he thought the City Commission would be more than happy to address that issue and put it on the table that the City was willing to stop commercial development at Ousdahl.  

Kennedy further stated the improvements the City would receive on 31^st Street and at the intersection were crucial and the City needed to be able to have those paid for.  He had concerns about the increased traffic that would impact the neighborhoods along 31^st Street. 

Kennedy noted that while staff had some concerns and reservations, staff recommended both the rezoning request and the Preliminary Development Plan.  Staff diligently listened to the City Commission when the original plan was rejected and asked the developer to bring it back to the City Commission in a revised, downscaled format that would be more acceptable for the commercial and residential area.  He said the developer has made a major step on the stormwater issue for this piece of property.

Rundle said he was disappointed as he thought probably a great many people in the public were regarding planning decisions.  Rundle noted, as Dunfield pointed out, the City drafted a plan for our community, yet the City could never get behind it.  He said the City should not amend a plan after the City made a decision.  We should find the political will to stop these kinds of decisions.  The City Commission would be looking at a very similar project next week and he was troubled by the justification in terms of retail anecdotal feelings.  We have asked the Planning Commission to use, or the public has asked us to consider, looking at retail data in a scientific way.  He said the City needed to stick to good planning as he said in his introductory comments.  Rundle further stated, if you abide by your Comprehensive Plan, your decisions shall be considered reasonable.  They were not considered unreasonable if you deviate because it was true, you need to have flexibility whenever circumstances merit and he did not think they have seen merit here tonight. 

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to adopt the rezoning request for 19.77 acres from RS-1 to PCD-2, property generally located on the northeast corner of 31^st and Iowa Streets, east of the convenience store; with the findings of fact and the conditions that came to the City Commission from the Planning Commission; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Henry, Kennedy.  Nay: Rundle, Dunfield.                                               (28)

Moved by Kennedy, seconded Hack, to adopt the rezoning request for 4.197 acres from RS-1 to PRD-1, property generally located on the northeast corner of 31^st and Iowa Streets, east of the convenience store; with the findings of fact and the conditions that came to the City Commission from the Planning Commission; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Henry, Kennedy.  Nay:  Rundle, Dunfield.                                 (29)

Rundle presented the Preliminary Development Plan for a Home Depot Store, one junior department store and two additional retail pad sites for a total of 182, 470 sq. ft., property located northeast of the intersection of 31^st and Iowa Streets, east of the convenience store.

Dunfield asked about the clarification to the changes made to the roadwork, street improvements, and who would pay for those costs.

Rundle asked if this discussion was part of the Preliminary Development Plan.

Finger said “no” it could be done at a separate deliberation.  The City Commission might also want additional deliberation on comparable costs to Louisiana Street improvements.

Wildgen said another way would be to set a maximum amount for the City to participate rather than percentages.

Dunfield asked if the City Commission was not acting on the cost of these improvements.

Wildgen said the condition was that these improvements needed to be done.  The applicant was asking the City Commission to participate in this latest proposal.  The City Commission could request what they feel was appropriate.    

Finger said the improvements were part of the plan that was forwarded to the City Commission, how the costs are shared is not necessarily needed at this time. 

Dunfield suggested the City Commission defer the costs of the improvements and allow staff to work with the applicant and come back to the City Commission.

Henry said the developer was willing to pay more for the cost of improvements.

Dunfield said what he was trying to do was to look at the necessity for these improvements.  The City was picking up the costs of Iowa Street improvements because clearly Iowa Street was an issue that goes way beyond this particular development.  He said it seemed to him that it made more sense that the traffic signal be considered a part of the improvements because of the Ousdahl and 31^st Street access issues.

Hack asked if there were any indications this area would need a traffic light.

Wildgen said “no.” 

Rundle asked if the City should incur the costs for these improvements, when would they need to be budgeted.

Wildgen said if the City Commission wanted to proceed immediately, it would need to be bonded and approximately two years from now it would be assessed because it would be temporary notes until the project was done.  It then would be placed in the City budget as a long-term bond. 

Dunfield said the City Commission needed a more complete analysis from staff of those kinds of issues relative to these particular costs.

Rundle asked if this particular aspect could be deferred until next week.

Wildgen said “yes.”

Dunfield said before the City Commission commits a million dollars of taxpayers’ money he would like more discussion.

Wildgen asked the City Commission if they would like staff to use the $1,078,114.20  to show projections.

Kennedy said “yes.”

Rundle had a concern about the costs and stated, if this were allowed to redevelop properly as the City plans stated, we would not be facing these costs. 

Kennedy said the City has been asking for money for 31^st Street in the plan for the State for approximately five years.  He said the City might need to incur costs for that intersection.

Finger said from the City’s position you could approve the improvements with conditions.  The City Commission needed to workout how these improvements were going to happen because the developer needed to know what share they would pay.             

Finger said staff was concerned about Condition No. 4 as requested by the developer which stated: “Provide cross access easements ‘for’ properties to the west as shown on the development plan.”

Kennedy suggested leaving Condition No. 4 as staff suggested.

Knoth said he could not control the property owner to the west. 

Rundle said it seemed to him that having that access agreement was part of the developer’s justification.

Finger said it was staff’s justification for the development not going all the way to the corner.  

Finger said the timing of when this redevelopment would happen was in the property owner’s hands and not the City Commission’s.

Rundle asked Finger the importance of having the direct access easement.

Finger said having access at that location tied the community together because the frontage road was an obstacle and would save movement at that intersection.  If you did not have cross access across those single lots that would separate this development proposal from the Iowa frontage road and there would be no connectivity.  This was one criteria that staff said was absolutely critical.

Hack asked Finger if Knoth was saying that he would get cross access as far as he could because he did not own it to the west.

Finger said “yes”, but staff said the burden was upon the developer because they were asking the City to do something.  Staff’s concern was with safety and welfare and traffic movement.

Rundle said his understanding was that Knoth was dedicating cross access easement on his property to the property owner. 

Knoth said the safety issue was important.  Until which time the property owner to the west wanted to redevelop, it was not essential for any safety reasons to have to exit that way.  Initially, when they looked at this, they thought it was only five percent of the traffic going that way.  He said they had been asked to change those numbers, but it was not that important of an aspect to this development.  He said they had two points of access to 31^st Street.  He said it was not a concern of the traffic study that they do not do this.  He said they would provide the easement to the property to the west.  He said he could not make someone sign an easement.

Finger said when staff initially talked with the developer on this project staff informed the developer that there were four things that would need to happen and this was one of them.  She said she would like to clarify to the City Commission that this was the City Commission’s opportunity to get connectivity.  Finger said the communities interest needed to take precedent.

Rundle asked about the agreement-not-to protest.  If the plan were for Ousdahl to loop around, would it touch the property on the north?

Finger said it might not necessarily touch this property on the north.  Conceptually, it probably would not.

Rundle asked if the expansion of Ousdahl would be covered by the agreement not-to-protest if it were appropriate for them to be included.

Finger said the portion adjacent to this property based upon the City’s Policy would be included. What you were looking at was different design concepts and they were at the preliminary sketch level for staff.        

Rundle asked about labeling one building “restaurant/retail.”

Finger said all she could convey to the City Commission was as she listened to the Planning Commission they wanted exactly what they were shown on the plan. 

Henry was in support of what was on the Preliminary Development Plan.

Wildgen asked if the City Commission would like staff to re-write these conditions.  He wanted to make sure the City Commission knew what he or she was voting on.  

Knoth went through the conditions after discussion from the City Commission.  These conditions were:

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

a.      Provide 80’ of right-of-way for the improved portion of Ousdahl and 40’ of right-of-way north of improved Ousdahl along the eastern property line of this site and relocate gas line easement;

b.      Construct Ousdahl Road, with sidewalks, along the eastern side of this site to a point at least 250’ north of 31^st Street and provide adequate access to the mobile home park;

c.      Revise Site Summary numbers to reflect the construction of Ousdahl Road;

d.      Remove proposed eastern access point to the site;

e.      Provide a traffic signal at the intersection of 31^st Street and Ousdahl Road;

f.        Show the extension and tie-in of the proposed public storm sewer along 31^st Street;

g.      Show necessary improvements to the drainage system crossing the Gaslight Village property;

h.       Show all proposed off-site drainage easements on Sheet 1 of the development plan;

i.         Provide a note on the plan restricting the use of the property to those shown on the Preliminary Development Plan (Home Improvement Store, Electronics Store and Restaurant/Retail);

2.      Provide a public drainage easement for the systems crossing the Gaslight Village property;

3.      No occupancy shall be allowed prior to completion of public improvements per City specifications including improvements to Ousdahl north and south of 31^st Street; 31^st Street improvements; and traffic signal and related geometric improvements at Iowa and 31^st Street, 31^st Street entrance to the development, and 31^st and Ousdahl, and all related sidewalk, drainage and other public improvements.  The City and the Developer shall enter into an agreement concerning the sharing of costs and the design and construction of the public improvements pursuant to the Road Work Schedule provided by the Developer;

4.      Provide cross access easements for properties to the west as shown on development plan;

5.      Provide written authorization from the owner of Gaslight Village (Mid America Manufacturing Housing Communities Inc.) that off site improvements are satisfactory and that these will be installed with Phase 1 of the development;

6.      Uses be limited to those shown on the Preliminary Development Plan: home improvement store, retail electronic store, restaurant store, and restaurant/retail store.

Note:   Condition No. 5 referenced in the Planning Commission’s recommendations was deleted. Condition No. 5 Stated:  Provide an agreement from the owner of Lot 8, Commerce Plaza Addition stating adequate right-of-way for a right-turn lane will be provided upon redevelopment of Lot 8, Commerce Plaza Addition.

            Dunfield suggested leaving staff’s recommendation for Condition No. 4.  He said he could not get past the City’s contribution to these street improvements.   He said the City had a lot of budgetary considerations that come into play and have just been handed a million dollar bill.  He did not want to commit taxpayer money to these street improvements. 

            Henry said the City Commission needed good faith that they were serving the interest and needs of the people of our community by approving this development plan.   He said he thought it was the right plan for this entire community because it would go toward vastly improving a bad situation.  The taxpayers of this community needed to be reminded of that from time to time.  He said the City Commission could approve the percentages as shown and put a cap on it at $1,078,000. 

            Knoth said he could not control the design.  These dollars reflect the design that was on the table today.  If the design changed, that was why a cap would be difficult.  He said he did not want the dollars to be any higher than the City did.

            Rundle said the intersection would be improved, but the impacts have not been assessed.  Staff has not looked at the traffic impact on Louisiana Street and while we were improving an intersection and cost sharing, the City would have impacts in cost that we could not predict at this time.

            Rundle said the conditions should reflect percentages in case of a change in costs.

            Wildgen suggested that with a cap, if a property owner wanted to sue over an access point, it could delay the improvements for a long time. 

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the changes in the conditions that were agreed upon by the City Commission for the costs of construction with the costs to be shared according to the amended roadwork schedule reflecting the percentages as outlined.  Aye:  Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Dunfield and Rundle.  Motion carried.                                 (30)

Moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to extend the City Commission meeting for 30 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.

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

                                                                                    APPROVED:

                                                                        _____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

 

COMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16,  2001

1.                  Bid – Crossgate, 24^th Pl to 27^th St & 27^th St & Crossgate, Box Culvert, street, storm sewer and waterline improvements to LRM for $1,341,251.15.

2.                  Bid – S.W.A.N. Bldg, roof replacement to American Roofing for $10,468.

3.                  Bid – Lawrence-Douglas County Fire/Medical Station No. 5, roof replacement to American Roofing for $18,177.

4.                  Bid – Red Barn, roof replacement to American Roofing for $28,333.

5.                  Bid Date Set – Montana Street, storm sewer repair, Oct 23, 2001.

6.                  Ordinance No. 7437 – 2^nd  Reading, Annex .5 acres, W of E 1000 Rd & S of W 6^th.

7.                  Ordinance No. 7438 – 2^nd Reading, Annex 0.5 acres, W of E 1000 Rd & S of W 6^th.

8.                  Ordinance No. 7439 – 2^nd Reading, Annex 0.85 acres, W of E 1000 Rd & N of W 6^th.

9.                  Ordinance No. 7441 – 2^nd Reading, Annex 1 acre, E of Prairie Pk Add No. 3, W side of O’Connell.

10.              Ordinance No. 7442 – 2^nd Reading, Cost Assess, sidewalk repairs, 2710 & 2612 University.

11.              Resolution No. 6346 – Blight, 1244 Tennessee.

12.              Site Plan – (SP-06-37-01), Classic Eagle Distributors, N Iowa, E of K-Mart Distribution.

13.               Text Amendment – (20-9A), Floodplain development/mgmt requirements. (Pulled from consent agenda – See Footnote 21)

14.              Site Plan – (SP-03-20-00) Require sidewalks adjacent to Wakarusa.

15.               TSC – Alternate side parking along Barker between 15^th & 23^rd w/parking along W side of 1900 Blk.

16.              TSC – School crossing & construct a pedestrian refuge island on 27^th, W of Sunflower Elementary School.

17.              TSC – “No Parking” 8 am – 5 pm, Mon-Sat, in front of any mailbox.

18.              Subordination Agreement – 1217 Prospect, Heckler & Mansur.

19.              Real Estate Purchase – 1538 Harper & 1522 Lindenwood. For up to $12,000 each.

20.              Bid recommendation – Bus Shelters, to Brasco International.

21.               Text Amendment – (TA-8-02-01) Chapter 20, Article 9A, floodplain development/mgmt requirements.

22.              Public Hearing – Maximum Special Assessment for 22^nd & Kasold; Crossgate, 24^th Pl to 27^th & 27^th & Crossgate.

23.              Ordinance No. 7434 – 1^st Reading, Max Assessment for geometric improvements for 22^nd & Kasold.

24.              Ordinance No. 7435 – 1^st Reading, Max Assessment for improvements for Crossgate, 24^th Pl to 27^th.

25.              Ordinance No. 7436 – 1^st Reading, Max Assessment for box culvert for 27^th & Crossgate.

26.              Rezoning Request – 1201 E 13^th (Lister property), back to the Planning Commission initiate down zoning to RS-2. (Discussion)

27.              TSC – No Parking, W side of Sunset between Cambridge & Harvard (Not to Deny)

28.              Rezone – NE corner of 31^st & Iowa, E of convenience store, 19.77 acres from RS-1 to PCD-2.

29.              Rezone – NE corner of 31^st & Iowa, E of convenience store, 4.197 acres from RS-1 to PRD-1.

30.              Home Improvement Center Conditions (discussion)