October 23, 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.
Mayor Rundle acknowledged the attendance of two students from Eutin, Germany, one of Lawrence’s Sister Cities.
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed Wednesday, October 31, 2001 to be “Halloween Beggars Night.”
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 6, 2001; the Lawrence Arts Commission meeting minutes of June 13, 2001, August 8, 2001, and September 12, 2001; the Lawrence Douglas County Public Health Board meeting minutes of August 20, 2001; the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 12, 2001; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 26, 2001 and October 3, 2001; and, the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of October 11, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 423 vendors, in the amount of $5,854,688.31 and payroll from October 7, 2001 to October 20, 2001 in the amount of $1,177,042.46. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for bus shelter procurement to Brasco International in the amount of $68,496. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve an engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for The Reserve at Alvamar No. 3, in the amount of $32,000. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for roof replacement of the S.W.A.N. Building, 320 Industrial Lane for Building Maintenance. The bids were:
BIDDER ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT
American Roofing $34,773
Diamond Everly $36,750
Boone Brothers $25,350
Kaw Roofing and Sheetmetal $46,043
Kirberg Roofing $28,375
Hankins $54,513
Cornell Roofing $46,177
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the alternate bid for roof replacement of the S.W.A.N. Building, 320 Industrial Lane for Building Maintenance, to American Roofing, in the amount of $34,773. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7443, text amendments to Chapter 20, Article 9A and Chapter 20, Article 1709.2 of the Lawrence City Code, revising the flood plain development/management requirements. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7434, authorizing 22nd and Kasold geometric improvements, 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. (5)
Ordinance No. 7435, authorizing Crossgate Drive, 24th Place to 27th Street improvements, 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. 7436, authorizing 27th and Crossgate box culvert improvements, 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)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6347, setting a public hearing date of December 11, 2001, to discuss the unsafe structure at 1307 Brook and to consider adopting a resolution ordering said structure to be removed. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the site plan (SP-08-58-01) for an addition to the existing building at 1202 East 23rd, to house the Lawrence Athletic Club, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Site Plan that includes:
a. Accurate number of parking spaces provided;
b. Deletion of “Proposed Road” from the note regarding “Possible Future Alignment of Silicon Drive”;
2. Submission of details of the permeable parking surface for review and approval by the City Engineer;
3. Provision of detail regarding the trash enclosure for review and approval by the City Solid Waste Division;
4. Provision of written permission from the adjacent property owner to the east for the closure of the shared driveway to E. 23rd Street; and,
5. Provision of a photometric plan for review and approval of any parking lot lights proposed;
6. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the City Manager to issue a change order to LG Bargus & Sons for the Bowersock Dam Rehab project, in the amount of $243,130.48. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive the staff report concerning a blight violation for 1201 East 13th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive letter from David Geyer regarding Horizon 2020 amendment. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 16, 2001, subject to the amendment to the Preliminary Development Plan, PDP-07-06-01, Condition No. 3, as suggested by the Assistant City Manager, David Corliss. Corliss explained the City was not proceeding with the benefit district financing for this project. Since the City was participating financially in these public improvements, Corliss suggested that an agreement be signed between the City and the Developer that reflected all the details that were involved in these public improvements. Condition No. 3 as amended would read:
No occupancy shall be allowed prior to completion of public improvements per City specifications including improvements to Ousdahl north and south of 31st Street; 31st Street improvements; and traffic signal and related geometric improvements at Iowa and 31st Street, 31st Street entrance to the development, and 31st 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.
Motion carried unanimously. (13)
A member of the public requested that the site plan for redevelopment of the Intrust Bank site, 9th Street between Kentucky and Vermont be removed from the consent agenda for further discussion.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report concerning site plan (SP-08-52-01) for redevelopment of the Intrust Bank site, 9th Street between Kentucky and Vermont Streets. This site would involve a temporary facility as well as a new banking facility. The temporary facility would be in place until the new facility was built. At that time, the temporary facility would be removed and the remainder of the parking lot would be built.
Janet Gerstner, 1101 Ohio, member of the Oread Neighborhood Association Board, had a concern about a recommendation from the Planning Commission recommending a one-way alleyway. She said the neighborhood would like to see this issue taken to the Traffic Safety Commission. Residents in the neighborhood also suggested the alleyway from 8th to 9th Street between Vermont and Kentucky be reviewed because a one-way alley could be beneficial. Other concerns were traffic safety issues for the Community Center’s Head Start Program; the alleyway that intersects with 10th Street; and, the Community Drop-In Center LINK Program.
Dunfield asked if staff had recommended sending this issue to the Traffic Safety Commission and did the developer accept this recommendation.
Dyer said “yes” and stated the site plan conditions included a notation that the Traffic Safety Commission must recommend the one-way alleyway and the City Commission must prepare an Ordinance authorizing the one-way alleyway.
Mike Maddox speaking on behalf of Intrust Bank, said it was their understanding the one-way alleyway would make the traffic-flow safer. What they were trying to accomplish was that when arriving at their property line, north of Plymouth Church, it was a dangerous situation for pedestrians or vehicles getting out to the north onto 9th Street. He suggested the Neighborhood’s concerns could be addressed and was willing to go the Traffic Safety Commission for review. He asked if the City Commission could approve the Site Plan at this time and address the one-way traffic issues another time.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with staff’s recommendation to approve the site plan (SP-08-52A-2001) for redevelopment of the Intrust Bank site, 9th Street between Kentucky and Vermont, subject to the following conditions:
1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed; (Per Section 20-1433)
2. Property fronting along Kentucky Street must be replatted prior to the release of the Site Plan to Code Enforcement;
3. All street and alleyway improvements must be engineered and approved by the Public Works Department;
4. Public improvement plans for the curb realignment must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;
5. Completion of the Historic Resources Commission conditions as detailed in the staff report;
6. Approval of photometric plan;
7. Show 5’ Utility Easement as requested by SWB;
8. Revision of the Site Plan to include: (Per Planning Department)
a. Correction of legal description;
b. Notation indicating the Traffic Safety Committee must recommend one-way alleyway for approval and the City Commission must pass an Ordinance authorizing the one-way alley; and,
c. Notation indicating the parking lot improvements shall be completed within one month of securing a temporary occupancy permit for the permanent bank building.
Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the proposed partial vacation of City right-of-way at 409 East 12th Street, southeast corner of 12th and Connecticut.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, presented the proposed partial vacation of City right-of-way at 409 East 12th Street, southeast corner of 12th and Connecticut. Corliss stated the City Commission had previously approved a Site Plan for Odessa’s Café. As part of the Site Plan process, it was discovered that part of the parking lot for this site encroached on the public right-of-way. Staff also discovered that 12th Street, a residential street, has 100 feet of right-of-way. At the site planning stage, it was recommended there be approval of a Use of Right-of-Way Agreement to allow the encroachment. As further studied, it was recommended to vacate the right-of-way. The adjoining property owner that was the actual user of that right-of-way for the parking lot would receive this property. He said the City had followed the statutory process.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Order of Vacation for a partial vacation of City right-of-way at 409 East 12th Street, southeast corner of 12th and Connecticut. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the rezoning and preliminary development requests for property generally located northwest of the intersection of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The requests are (Z-08-29-01) approximately 8.44 acres from A (Agriculture District) to POD-1 (Planned Office District); (Z-08-30-1), 20.18 acres from A (Agriculture District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development), (Z-08-31-01), 19.199 acres from A (Agriculture District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial District) and (Z-08-32-01), 5.655 acres from A (Agriculture District) to O-1 (Office District). The Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-08-07-01) covered the entire PCD-2 area and a portion of the PRD-2 which was the stormwater detention area for the entire site. The development plan showed one large retail building with an accompanying garden center, one restaurant retail pad site, and one larger retail pad site.
Additionally, on the Preliminary Development Plan, there was a proposed land swap in which the City Commission needed to act upon. The developer was proposing to swap with the City 1,644 sq. ft. which was to address the right-of-way issues. Staff has kept the school board apprised of the changes on the development plan and has given them the opportunity to make comment, but no comment has been received. Planning staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these items subject to the conditions.
Bill Newsome, representing Southwind Capital, presented an area map to the City Commission for the proposed plan. In developing this plan, he said the developer had taken all the appropriate procedural steps. They had met extensively with City staff, KDOT, the neighborhood and the school district. Their plan complied with the Northwest Area Plan and Horizon 2020. The Northwest Area Plan called for commercial at this corner. Horizon 2020 identified this intersection as a commercial node. One of the goals of Horizon 2020 was to “promote the assemblage of small tracts to form larger more cohesive parcels to enable well planned and orderly development to occur.” He said on the proposed 52 acres they had assembled three separate parcels into a 52 acre Master Plan, so they had accomplished that goal of Horizon 2020. Both the Northwest Area Plan and Horizon 2020 emphasized the importance of the termination of strip development along West 6th Street and clearly, their plan accomplished that. Horizon 2020 called for the stopping of commercial sprawl and with their 15.7 acres of PCD bordered by Congressional Drive on the west and beyond to the west an O-1 zoning and a PRD zoning, their plan achieved the stopping of commercial sprawl.
Newsome also stated Horizon 2020 recommended “both higher density residential development and office uses be utilized as buffers between commercial uses and low density residential uses” which their plan had also accomplished. He said the amount of PCD zoning at this corner has long been a point of discussion. The developer has 15.7 net acres of PCD zoning on this plan. There was a home improvement center which comprises a garden center totaling, 133,000 square feet; 7,000 square feet for a restaurant building; and, 15,000 square feet for a retail store. Staff has consistently, over a number of years, requested that commercial zoning at this northwest corner be limited to 15 acres and this plan complied with this. The Planning Commission asked that a department store be deleted from the list of approved uses for this site because of potential concerns over competition with downtown and the developer has agreed to this request. Horizon 2020 has both a square footage and acreage limitation for a community commercial center which the developer also complied. For all these reasons, the developer has received favorable staff and Planning Commission approval.
Newsome stated in addition to the compliance with the Northwest Plan and Horizon 2020, this plan offered other components of good planning. It was preceding what would probably be significant residential growth to the north and to the west and those residents who move into those areas would know what was in front of them. The City-at-large was not paying one cent for roads and infrastructure for this project. Of the 8.6 acres of right-of-way, which was being dedicated as part of this project, approximately 3.5 acres of this was part of the KDOT dedication. The right-of-way at one time, was 120 feet and has since gone to 150 feet and the developer was dedicating 75 feet of right-of-way along 6th Street. According to their estimate, this comprised a value of $800,000 in dedicated right-of-way. If this project was not to happen, KDOT on behalf of the taxpayers, would be purchasing the right-of-way, just as they were doing to the west of this site. Development of the PCD and the remainder would generate initially $575,000 in incremental property taxes even over and above what the taxes would be now that this tract has been annexed into the City. The full project would generate approximately $1,000,000 in property taxes and the PCD portion among the three proposed building would generate in excess of $3,000,000 in estimated annual sales tax revenue.
As far as the road design of this project, the KDOT improvement project fronts this development and he noted the developer was not taking any direct access off of 6th Street. Their project has not constituted a need for any change in design of any of the road systems associated with that project. Overland Drive and Congressional Drive were collector streets, they would be built as part of this project. The developer was signing agreements not-to-protest the formation of benefit districts. There were traffic lights called out at Wakarusa and Overland and 6th Street and Congressional and the developer was also signing agreements not-to-protest benefit district for these traffic lights. A deceleration lane westbound, turning onto Congressional was not part of the KDOT design, it was a staff requirement and the developer was again, in agreement and he was paying for that deceleration lane. The developer was also paying for the right-in/right-out on Wakarusa Drive. He said the developer’s timetable on the PCD portion of this project was ahead of the timetable of the 6th Street improvement project. The developer has worked with KDOT and the City and all parties were in agreement on a temporary access plan. Staff asked for a revised traffic study which was done to address the temporary improvement. What was called for was a widening of Wakarusa which was done at the developer’s expense to create enough room for a dedicated northbound left turn lane on Wakarusa allowing traffic northbound. There was a condition that there might be a need for temporary signalization and that would be assessed at some point in future and the developer was in agreement. Southbound has two lanes and enough right-of-way, that if in the design stage, the City wanted a curve lane southbound, a dedicated right-turn lane could be added. In summary, this was a good plan. From day one of this project, the developer has followed all the correct procedural steps to get where they were today. This plan was consistent with the long-term planning guidelines of the City and it was in compliance with the Northwest Plan and Horizon 2020 and for all of these reasons was why they believed they received favorable reports from City staff and the Planning Commission.
Jim Cooper, 1115 Stone Meadows Drive, said Lawrence has a definite need for a home improvement store. Many of his friends, co-workers and acquaintances go out of town to shop for their home improvement needs. He suggested not only would a home improvement store keep Lawrence customers in town, but would draw rural shoppers from as far away as Ottawa and Perry. He recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Wakarusa Place.
Jeff Moran, 4513 Harvard, had a concern about the same proposal being rejected at a previous City Commission meeting and was now before the City Commission again. All of the City Commission’s reasons for rejecting this proposal still applied. He said there has already been a claim that this proposal was different. It seemed the claim of being different was based on three changes which he noted were superficial changes to the plan. He hoped the City Commission would look at these changes closely. The first change was that the proposal was simply a revised proposal and it was a smaller size, but it was a different development somehow. At the last meeting, the fundamental basis of the “no vote” was the big box store in the middle on this corner. The big box store was still there. Almost all of the reduction in this plan, including the acreage or square footage reduction, came from eliminating pad sites. No one had a problem with the pad sites. The Planning Commission, in his view, gave almost no respect to the City Commission’s reasons for rejecting this proposal in the first place. He asked the City Commission why was this development still wrong even though it was a revised proposal and a smaller size. Other reasons were because the proposal was contrary to Horizon 2020; the development would still be right next to the school; and, it fundamentally changed the character of this intersection from commercial to a regional store. He said there would be an enormous traffic burden on this area by people coming in from elsewhere in the State. It was still a big box store in the middle of an ocean of parking. He said the plan showed 770 parking spaces. Wal-Mart parking lot was approximately 582 parking spaces which was an enormous parking lot. At this point, now that the City had cast their votes for the Home Depot on 31st and Iowa, there was less reason for having this development on 6th Street. Even though this proposed plan was smaller it was still fundamentally the same plan.
Moran stated the second issue was traffic. He said the City had what he characterized as an agnostic KDOT study which basically said “yes,” if the City built this intersection up substantially to approximately six lanes, the City would be able to handle the traffic generated by the development at this intersection. KDOT’s findings did not take into account all of the traffic streams. It did not take into account 6th Street or Wakarusa. The author of the original KDOT study said if you impede flow on 6th Street in order to have good flow going up Wakarusa, then you would have a mess on 6th Street. If you try to preserve the arterial nature of 6th Street, you eventually mess up traffic on Wakarusa, Monterey Way, Folks Road and all the way out to the K-10 by-pass. In fact, even with the political pressure that was on the KDOT planners to come up with a finding which was favorable to this development, all they could manage was an agnostic proposal. He said the City Commission’s job was not just to take into account this intersection, but rather the impact of traffic in the area. If looking for a reason to justify voting for this plan, you could take refuge behind the new KDOT study, but do not pretend the traffic problems had suddenly disappeared.
The other issue with traffic was that the City was trying to move toward some alternative modes of transportation. The KDOT study did not take this into account.
The third change was the discovery of square footage rather than acreage as a way of counting the size of these stores. There was ambiguity in Horizon 2020. Horizon 2020 talked about acreage and square footage, but the plan was too large. Even if you decided to move with square footage and you look at Horizon 2020, it noted that philosophically a community retail center could be 450,000 square feet of retail. There was a question of why the City should ram up the square footage right up to the maximum for this intersection. Perhaps planning staff could consider what was the minimum for the definition of a regional commercial center. It might be within the definition of a community retail center, but it puts the development in the middle of a regional retail center. There should be a presumption in favor of the lower square footage and acreage rather than the higher possibility. The original KDOT planners figured out that 150,000 square feet was right in the middle of a community retail center and thought that this was what needed to be at this intersection. These changes were not that different. He said everyone was worried about the stripping out of development from Wakarusa to K-10 and Wakarusa, back eastward which was still left to be developed. If you could not draw the line here, in front of the high school, then where would you draw the line. How could you expect people to think the City Commission and Planning Commission would pay attention to improper developments, further west and east, if you could not draw a line here. If you wait for a while, you would find that you would get better proposals. If you hold developers to a higher standard, you could get a more appropriate use for this area.
RoxAnne Miller, an attorney representing the owners of 19 acres of property on the northeast corner of 6th and Wakarusa, said their property was the subject of an application for approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for that northeast corner and was in a process with the City. She said she was at this meeting to express concerns of her clients to this project on the northwest corner based on the Planning Commission meeting and their findings. It was her understanding from attending the Planning Commission meeting that the commission interpreted Horizon 2020 to have a limit of commercial development on this intersection. If you consider the existing development on the south side, it left approximately 200,000 square feet for the northeast and northwest corners. If this project was approved, that left her client’s property approximately 46,000 square feet which was not a reasonable amount of commercial development considering the facts. Her clients were going to develop 19 acres and received conditional planned district commercial zoning in 1995. One of the conditions on that zoning was they receive approval of a Preliminary Development Plan. That condition has not been met at this time, but the zoning has been approved. Last spring the City gave notice to her clients that they must file a development plan by a certain deadline in order to maintain their conditional zoning, or they would lose that zoning. She said she was not there to debate the validity of that kind of a demand, but the owners of this property wanted to cooperate with the City. At that point her clients were under contract with the developer to sell the property. The developer filed the development plan, meeting the deadline that was suggested by the City. That development plan did not contain the traffic study which was a requirement because the City waived the timing of that traffic study. The KDOT traffic study had not been released at that time and was a significant issue in the traffic and what kind of development was appropriate at this intersection. Since that time, the developer was no longer involved in the property. This occurred due to a delay in the anticipated occupancy of the project. At that point, the northwest corner was going through an approval process for their earlier application which was ultimately denied by the City Commission. As a part of that approval process, which was denied, the City placed a condition that there would not be any occupancy of development until 6th Street improvements were completed which was estimated to be, at the earliest, 2004. Her clients anticipated the northeast corner would have similar conditions and that project could not be occupied until that point. That condition has been removed due to the KDOT study being released and there was not that concern any longer. The owners decided after the developer pulled out, to proceed with the development plan approval for their property. They revised the development plan responding to the City planning staff’s comments and completed their traffic study upon receiving the KDOT traffic report. These items had been filed and the project was on the agenda for the Planning Commission on November 28, 2001.
She asked the City Commission to table the application until they had an opportunity to study the issues surrounding the development of all property at this corner. It was their view that it was unnecessary to turn this into a competition where northeast corner was competing with the northwest corner for the amount of square footage that was appropriate for this intersection. The City had completed a portion of the five-year update to Horizon 2020, specifically the portion dealing with commercial development and in that draft there was a recommendation for an increase in the square footage of commercial use at this intersection. This recommended increase was due to previous population projections being short of what has actually happened and other facts that had influenced the recommendation for an increase in commercial square footage. If Horizon 2020 was updated prior to the City Commission’s consideration and action upon either the northeast or northwest corner, there would be adequate commercial square footage for both properties. She again asked the City Commission to table the application before them, pursue the amendment of Horizon 2020 that was already in process, and then consider the applications for both corners. This delay would not cause the developer of the northwest corner any undue hardship. The delay that was likely to happen due to the provision of sewer services would mean that a short delay to adopt this plan revision would not be a significant delay.
If the City Commission decided to move forward with this project, prior to considering the northeast corner, she said she wanted to point out a few mischaracterizations about this project and its comparison to the northeast corner. The northeast corner has conditional zoning in place and they did not have a rezoning application. This project has rezoning application and did not have the appropriate zoning at this time. Therefore, if the City Commission was looking at who was in the pike first, she believed the northeast corner holds that role. In addition, the northwest corner had an initial application that went through the process and was denied, this was a new application that has found to be substantially different. The application for the northeast corner was submitted prior to the application for the project before the Commission. Primarily, because they had a plan, they made revisions and did not need to start from scratch and they did not wait on the KDOT Study. It was her view that often developers of projects try to hurry through the developmental process before they had everything in place, but it was their goal to completely address the concerns including traffic prior to coming before the Planning Commission. In addition, a significant difference between the northeast and northwest corner was that Horizon 2020 stated that a portion of this intersection would be community commercial. If you look on the map that was included in the Northwest Plan, the northwest corner did not have a color designation. It was not designated as commercial because she thought the property at that point was not annexed. The proposal before the City Commission was looked at as mixed use, however, the project before the City Commission tonight was a commercial project. The developer has requested rezoning for adjacent property that was something other than commercial, but none of that property showed development occurring on this development plan. As far as compatibility with the neighborhood, it was her view that the compatibility with the neighborhood goes to the actual use of the property as well as the traffic in this situation and the primary consideration was traffic. Whether or not a big box commercial development was more compatible then small commercial uses, they were facing the high school as staff had advised them to do and allowed community interaction for the north and the Aquatic Center. Both uses were similarly compatible with the high school use. She said her clients did not oppose the project, rather they would like to see a solution that provided reasonable commercial development on both corners. If this application was approved, they did oppose the limitation of commercial development at this intersection in a manner that would make the property on the northeast corner unsuitable for commercial development.
Stewart Nowlin, 4609 Harvard Road, said he has been in Lawrence since 1957 and watched unprecedented growth in this City. Some of this growth was nationally notable, such as downtown with the work of many people. Some of this growth was chaotic and unsightly, such as 23rd Street and some growth, the national chain imposed design and development for large retail and regional businesses such as on South Iowa was questionable. He referenced an article from Professor Stone, University of Iowa, School of Business which supported his contentions that if this development was approved we could:
1. Have a downtown full of empty stores and suburbs with sprawl;
2. Possibly see the failure of old and establish businesses as well as family owned businesses;
3. See our downtown at best to be a boutique similar to Westport in Kansas City; and,
4. Did Lawrence really need a Home Depot at 31st Street and a Lowe’s at Wakarusa and 6th. Lawrence consumers could not support both. Lawrence already had one such store.
He said the calculation on sales revenue most likely would be less than presented. He asked the City Commission to vote for family businesses for downtown, transportation, to control sprawl, and an elimination in our community of these corporate wars that left empty big boxes and sprawl in their wakes for communities to deal with. He asked that retail development outlined in Horizon 2020 be respected and asked the City Commission to vote against the current proposal at 6th and Wakarusa.
Mark Desetti, 4605 Harvard Road, said he has been a resident of Lawrence for three years and chose to live in Lawrence because of Downtown Lawrence. They also came here for the excellent schools. He said he has been working with traffic issues on Harvard Road. The traffic problem was because plans were waived in the past and people were allowed to develop houses that fronted collector streets and as a consequence, the City had a residential area on a collector street that sometimes resembles a raceway or 6th Street with the amount of traffic and speed.
Fortunately, the City Commission and the Traffic Safety Commission has worked with them to relieve these traffic situations. He said he wondered what would happen when 6th Street and Wakarusa was further backed-up. The main issue for him around this development was not that it was corporate America coming to Lawrence it was the fact that the City had a corner that has been to this point, recreational and educational. He said he was not against development by corporate groups such as Eddie Bauer, because they had came into this community and made their plans fit. He urged the City Commission to look at what that intersection would look like with this quantity of development. He had a concern for the safety of children because of the development of a big box store at this location. He asked the City Commission to reject this proposal.
Mike Maddox, 4405 West Goldfield, said development was going to happen on northeast corner. This was one of the busiest intersections in town. It is an intersection that needed development. Development should happen in a responsible and planned manner. The City had local developers that have proposed a planned development, 52 acres, that has been well thought out and offered the City mixed uses all in one development. With this planned development, if the development was changed at a later date, it could be denied by the City Commission. The professionals on the City’s planning staff supported this project. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 in support of this project. He asked the City Commission to support the project.
David Clemente, 4512 Goldfield, said he was attending this meeting because he was in the construction industry. The majority of his dollars went to buying supplies for the homes he has built in Lawrence for twenty years. He knew how desperate the City was for a home improvement store. Tax dollars and revenue were leaving Lawrence. As the land stands now, it was vacant ground. The developers had not displaced any homeowners. He said the developer was giving the City a road system and traffic lights. As far as the intersection goes, KDOT dictated what the intersection would look like. He was in favor of the development and did not think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Barton Nash, 620 Kentucky, said he also worked in the construction industry. He had a concern about the dollars that were being spent away from Lawrence. The City needed these home improvement stores.
Johan Feddema, 4600 Grove Drive, said he had concerns about this development. A home improvement store was needed in Lawrence. The question was where would the store be located. A previous speaker suggested this was a well-planned plan. Perhaps this was a well- planned plan for this particular area however, was this appropriate planning for Lawrence as a whole. He said he had several concerns that were related to this particular project. The Planning Commission decided that this intersection could be built out to the full 450,000 square feet of retail space that was proposed for a community center. The regional center was approximately 300 to 800 square feet. This 450,000 square feet, on the intersection, was in the middle of a regional development as opposed to a community development. He was disappointed in the Planning Commission’s decision when they considered this project and did not think of the other potential projects that could go in its place. They could have at least postponed their decision to see what might be the more appropriate project for Lawrence in this location. Appropriate citywide planning should consider all the options the City had. The City was not going through an efficient planning process from the context of this project.
This particular project was against the spirit of Horizon 2020, not in terms of size, but in that plan, a community center was not to have a big box store. The Planning Commission decided to ignore that particular criteria for deciding whether it was a community or regional development. In his opinion, he was in favor of a home improvement center, but not the location. This type of store should be located at the intersection of K-10 and Route 40 (6th Street), or Iowa Street. In this particular project, he had several concerns. His first concern was related to the high school. This amount of traffic with the high school was not responsible in terms of planning. If the City had a development like this, it was going to increase traffic dramatically. One of the greatest diseases the City currently had a problem with was asthma. The developer has planned to build a parking lot with 770 parking spaces with no dust suppression and no considerations for trapping any type of pollutants right next to the high school. These students would be breathing this material from that parking lot everyday. This type of development did not mix well with the educational facilities in this town. He presented a graph to the City Commission depicting the population and the urban rule temperature difference between different Cities.
Environmentally, he was concerned about this development being in the middle of a drainage divide between Baldwin Creek and the Wakarusa River. Any water that went into those watersheds was going to affect the entire length of the water system especially along Baldwin Creek. This project suggested that it had a large portion of greenspace, however, a water detention basin did not constitute greenspace in his opinion.
Another concern was the number of people who felt they were under employed. The kind of jobs the project would bring were not exactly the type of jobs that would make people feel they were over employed. A lot of planning discussions suggested that Lawrence should grow to bring in higher technology.
The final concern was a statement made by the developer at a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission asked the developer if they would like this project to include a home improvement store only. The developer said “no.” They wanted to keep their options open. The Planning Commission eventually voted that they would not allow retail. Feddema thought it was not a good idea to approve the project until the City knew what was going in at that location.
David Schauner, 5200 Jefferies Ct., said he moved to Lawrence because it was a unique place. He said Horizon 2020 was not the law and had some fallibility, but was the best effort of 500 to 600 people who live and work in Lawrence to give the people who made decisions about future development, the City and Planning Commissions, their best thinking about what Lawrence ought to look like in the future in order to retain its unique status. He had a concern about the City Commission approving the proposed project and abandoning other projects for this area. It was humorous to think that someone suggested that the City should have two home improvement stores because it would save approximately eight to ten minutes of travel time to go to the 6th and Wakarusa location rather than the 31st and Iowa to the new Home Depot that the City Commission already approved. The decisions the City Commission would make on this proposed development would set the tone for a string of proposals that would come to the City Commission for approval in the next ten years. He said there would be no way the City Commission could say “no” to future developers west of 6th and Wakarusa, if the City Commission could not say “no” to this proposed development. The survey in the Lawrence Journal World concerning this proposed development suggested 56 percent of the people who answered the survey opposed the development at 6th and Wakarusa. He thought that Lawrence Citizens opposed this project because we deserve better. The job of the City Commission was to try to balance these competing interest which was not an easy task. The City Commission needed to way the short-term possibility of the $7.00 to $8.00 an hour jobs as compared with an opportunity to develop the “cultural spirit” of this town. This proposed plan was essentially the same plan the City Commission turned down a few months ago, except it did not have the out pads as part of the developed plan. If the City Commission approved this development, he thought they would be safe by marking their calendar for sometime in the next 24 months to hear the developers or their successors come before the City Commission for permission to put an Applebee’s or Casey’s or some other development on an out pad. He said there was no reason this body needed to make an affirmative decision at this time. As long as that land stands vacant there would be developers standing in line waiting to bring the City Commission a proposal.
Commissioner Dunfield wanted to clarify to the public that there had been a couple of references to the Planning Commission’s determination that “retail” was not to be allowed in this big box store. The use group that the Planning Commission wanted removed was “department store” not “retail.”
Tim Holverson, Vice President of Public Policy, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said the one thing that could be agreed upon was that “yes” we do all love Lawrence and have the best interest of this community at heart. That was why as the project was deliberated, he asked that two things be kept in mind. The first was the impact of jobs of this project and secondly, the tax impact. As you know through our economic development efforts, jobs have been a challenge to keep up the pace with growth in the community and has been an area in which the community only succeeded once in the past twenty years which was 1998. This project would offer the opportunity for secondary incomes, part-time jobs, supplemental incomes as well as managerial positions. The second aspect was the tax impact such as the sales tax growth of such a project which was important that it was taken into consideration given that sales tax receipts had been rather flat in the past year. The mill levy rates have had to come up to help offset those short falls in that area. On the property tax increases, the City did a great job in keeping the proposed mill levy increase to less than 1 mill. The County and School District were 3 ½ mills each. The City has had substantial increases on top of valuation increase and needed to consider the growth of commercial and industrial property tax base since they pay at a much higher rate then residential property tax.
Marilyn Bittenbender, 5209 Deer Run Court, said Lawrence has always been a great place to live and would be a wonderful place to live in the future. Progress and change was scary, but the City needed faith and confidence. She was heartened by the fact it had a positive staff recommendation and a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation. The City hired experts in the field and was sent to several departments such as fire, traffic and engineering for discussion before a recommendation was made. The Planning Commission then studies those recommendations in depth at their sessions and then voted, which the proposed development had a unanimous approval. She was pleased to have a retail complex as opposed to apartments looking at this in a traffic prospective. She encouraged the City Commission to support this project as a neighbor and a long-time Lawrence resident.
Michael Warner concurred with the previous speaker, Marilyn Bittenbender. He said Lawrence was never going to be like Topeka in the foreseeable future. This was a good plan and would bring jobs to Lawrence. He supported the plan.
Larry Kipp, 1029 North 1750 Road, said success was what happened when you survive all your mistakes. This debate boiled down to opinion and point of view. He said the economy has been on a downturn in the last year. The City lacked information concerning what was our retail capacity. The Planning Commission was supposed to have some expertise advice about retail and how much the City could handle. One of the mistakes the City could make was to have so much retail that the City imploded other businesses in town. Not only were we pulling dollars from outside, the City was hurting existing businesses. If the City had a retail study, the City might have more information to make a decision. Whatever the City Commission decision was, he asked that they implore the Planning Commission to get the retail study done. He said this was not a matter of whether this was the right development or the wrong development, but a matter of timing with regard to current and projected economic conditions.
Mayor Rundle commented that there were questions about whether or not this project has gone from community retail center to a regional retail center and whether or not it was designated as a community retail center in the City planning guidelines.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, said this intersection was designated as a community commercial center in Horizon 2020. The guidelines stated in Horizon 2020 for that community commercial center was approximately 10 to 30 acres and for gross leaseable space the center typically contained 150,000 square feet, but might contain 100,000 to 450,000 square feet. A regional commercial center was defined in Horizon 2020 for special needs was approximately 10 to 60 acres and typically contains gross leaseable area of 400,000 square feet, but might contain 300,000 to 800,000 square feet or more.
Rundle asked if there were any ideas concerning the dilemma of two competing properties.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the Planning Commission has always taken these proposed developments as they have been presented particularly, when there was an area plan. The Northwest Area Plan showed what the land use was. The Northwest Area Plan showed commercial on both the northeast and northwest sides.
Dyer presented the Northwest Area Plan map for the intersections to the City Commission. Finger stated the issue of timing of the two developments was totally at the City Commission’s discretion. The developments needed to be considered independent as requests, but also in the context of the community node at that location.
Mayor Rundle stated he was interested in some changes coming down the pike from the Planning Commission on the commercial section of Horizon 2020, such as expanding the amount of commercial use at this intersection. He asked if there were any changes in terms of intersections.
Dyer said the changing of the square footage was simply one change being looked at by the Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission. Within the definition of community commercial center, there were other changes as well. Looking simply at the square footage of that definition perhaps was giving the section a short shrift in that there were other issues.
Dunfield asked about the references made to the timing of the infrastructure, in particular, sanitary sewers and where that stood.
Dyer said on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan was a statement that said, “All public improvements, which included all public sanitary sewers for Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, would be completed, final inspected, and accepted by the Public Works Department prior to any occupancy of the site.”
Dunfield asked Dyer if meeting that condition required action from the City or entirely the developers.
Dyer said meeting that condition relied mainly on the completion of the Baldwin Creek sewer benefit district which was in the proposal stage and design phase.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the County was originally petitioned for the improvements. The City has become involved because of some of the residential land to the north, but it was under design. The anticipated construction year was 2002.
Todd Thompson, an attorney representing the developers, showed that the developers were in compliance with regards to commercial and mixed-use groups. This was a materially different plan than what was presented before. This commercial development was approximately 40,000 square feet smaller than what was previously proposed. With regard to the property across the street, on the northeast corner, they had six years to come before the City Commission. Suddenly, they had come out with a new plan after the prior developer left and he did not believe that it was good planning to hold up this development. He wanted to point out, contrary to what others might have said, this project was not directly in front of the high school but to the west of the high school and was buffered by a multi-family area. In this particular instance, the developer had brought before the City Commission a plan that was reviewed by all of the City’s professional staff and they approved the plan. The Planning Commission unanimously approved this plan. This was not taking the square footage up to 450,000 square feet, the development was just over 400,000. It was well within the square footage of Horizon 2020. He asked the City Commission to approve the plan. There were no concrete planning reasons or rezoning reasons for not approving the plan.
Jeff Moran said another change in Horizon 2020 was that there would be a provision that big boxes belong only in regional centers. It was not considered to be a radical change to the comprehensive plan, but merely this was considered to be spelling out what everybody more or less thought was in the comprehensive plan already.
RoxAnne Miller said she wanted to comment about the timing of the two projects and what was appropriate to be considered. It was entirely appropriate when you consider a zoning application to consider what other property was zoned for already and was basically adjacent to it and whether there was a plan in the process. As far as timing, it was entirely appropriate to consider two plans that have the potential of knocking each other’s properties commercially viable use out of the picture.
David Schauner said the proponent of the development commented that there was no concrete planning or zoning reason why the City Commission should not approve the plan. He said the City needed to remember that comment because when they come back to the City Commission requesting that the out pads be developed and an increase in development, west of this location, there would be the same arguments. It was a good plan, it was a colorful map and it was good for the City’s tax base, but the fact of the matter was there was more to this life and this City than tax creation. He said this was the City Commission’s last opportunity to avoid making a mistake at that intersection. Once the building was there it would stay. He asked the City Commission not to rush to a decision.
Stewart Nowlin said the City Commission should not accept the logic presented by the developer that Planning Commission approved it therefore, the City Commission should approve it. He mentioned that the prior project was approved by the Planning Commission, but was rejected by the City Commission and that the City Commission should follow that logic and reject the plan for further study.
David Clemente said the people of Lawrence made Lawrence. The reason Lawrence flourished was because it was strategically located between Topeka and Kansas City. He had a concern that if the City continually restricted growth and development, it would drive land cost through the roof. Whether it was a big box or a dozen small shops, whoever developed that corner would maximize the square footage allowed under Horizon 2020.
Mayor Rundle asked staff if text language went along with the Northwest Plan zoning maps.
Dyers said “yes” and the text in the Northwest Plan, in regards to that intersection, simply stated that it was appropriate that commercial be located at that intersection.
Finger said Horizon 2020 was a policy document so the text took precedence over the pictures. The graphics were a visual representation of what the policies meant.
Kennedy asked if commercial would happen on the four corners of that node.
Finger said “yes.” That was what the plan said.
Rundle said because of the competing corners this was an issue that needed to be discussed. This comes to the City Commission with more compliance with Horizon 2020 guidelines than the item from the previous week. He asked for comment from the other commissioners.
Kennedy said he wanted to commend the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission stood on its own morals and did not bend or waiver. The Planning Commission did an exceptional job with the text on the Planning Commission meeting. He said they looked at Horizon 2020 as a useful tool that they could plan for development at this corner. If looking at the Northwest Plan, it could be an exceptional corner of the entire development, rather than a strip center or anything else on some of the other corners that were allowed at that time. Big boxes were here in Lawrence and were useful to Lawrence’s economic base. He was pleased with City staff and what they had done with the Northwest Plan. Staff has taken the developer to the maximum uses and correct uses for this property and developed this property to its potential and adequate use.
Henry recognized the Planning Commission efforts, but he also wanted to thank everyone who had spoken in favor of, and in opposition to, this particular project. He said they have done exceptionally well, with everyone being articulate and thoughtful, and that was what made Lawrence such a beautiful community to live in. He said we may not all agree, but we love our community. He said he has great faith with the ability for us to survive as a community. He said he has lived in Lawrence for 34 years and this was a much better community than when he first moved here. Henry said the City needed the tax base. Commercial and industrial properties were taxed up to a twenty five (25) percent rate which was more then double the residential rate, and these taxes were what kept the community going. Lawrence has aging infrastructures, a wastewater treatment plant that needed upgrading, and unfunded federal mandates. This money came from taxes and if the City did not have the industrial and the commercial base to bring in these needed taxes, then the mill levy would increase tremendously and Lawrence did not want that. He was glad the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff came forward with this recommendation and believed it was right for this community and supported the project.
Hack concurred with Henry’s comments. She stated this plan was a good plan and it was in compliance with Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Plan. She agreed with those who commented on the ambiguity of Horizon 2020, but that was why the City Commission continued to work on that document. She said Horizon 2020 emphasized the importance of terminating lineal commercial development along West 6th. Therefore, with residential and office development as the applicant was providing with this development it did allow the City the ability to limit commercial uses farther to the west. It was a math problem when having demands on dollars and at the same time wanting to stop something that could come in and give us more dollars. Hack said you cannot sit through budget hearings with repeated requests, flat sale taxes, lowered property taxes, and not support a plan like this. Her original concern was the size, but that concern was taken care of by this plan. She said she was supportive of the project.
Dunfield said this particular development proposal also influenced the issue of what happened immediately to the east between the High School and 6th Street. This raised a couple of important questions that needed to be dealt with. One of those questions was what was meant by a community shopping center. He said they have talked about square footages and acreage of development, but the real question was, “what was a community commercial center” and “what did this concept mean to this community.” A number of people had suggested that a regional store (big box store) did not belong in a community commercial center. The City had a regional center which had a number of big box stores, and another regional center on the way. The City has said as a community, that was an appropriate form for that type of a center. He did not think a big box store was an appropriate form for a community center, and thought it was a significant move that deserved further consideration in the future.
Dunfield stated his second concern was Lawrence did not have a great track record, as a community, of drawing lines and not allowing development beyond those lines. In this case, because the City had a comprehensive plan that did show a block of commercial on either side of this intersection, the City would hear the argument that if this much commercial retail development was allowable on the northwest corner then the same amount of commercial development should be allowed on the other corner. Otherwise, the City would not be treating people fairly and equally. The Planning Commission’s approval of this development was predicated on the idea that we could restrict the northeast corner to 48,000 square feet of retail space. That point was made strongly and was clear in the minutes of the discussion. Dunfield said he did not have a lot of confidence in the City’s ability to restrict the square footage because of concern for the legal standing, based on prior decisions the City had made.
Rundle said that this development on the northwest corner seemed to fit the intent of the Northwest Plan in terms of meeting the square footage, but he had the same concerns as Commissioner Dunfield in terms of the Planning Commission and Planning Director limiting the square footage on the northeast corner. He also stated that when going over the plan with staff, it was pointed out that the department store was removed and the definitions were a little loose or non-existent. He asked if “variety stores” were similar to “department stores” or was “variety stores” another use that needed to be limited.
Finger said if you look at when the Ordinance was approved, “variety stores” were much smaller versions of what the City saw today as “discount stores.”
Rundle asked if there were enough limitations to make sure this was a “home improvement store.”
Finger said “no.” The use was not being restricted specifically on the development plan. There were a variety of uses that were recommended to be struck from the existing use groups, but “ home improvement store” was not the only use group remaining.
Rundle said he would like to question the comment that Lawrence did not like big box stores. He said he has heard that everybody would welcome a big box store like a Home Depot. It was the planning and location where people took exception. He reiterated that when talking about tax implications and retail impacts, the City should use their studies and review the impact in a scientific manner. He said the City should stop shooting from the hip on sales taxes impact and property taxes impact and whether or not something was going to impact retail in the community. The Planning Commission needed to get on board with using the necessary tools. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-29-01) of approximately 8.44 acres from A (Agricultural District) to POD-1 (Planned Office District), property generally located northwest of the intersection of West 6th Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan; and,
2. Completion of all Preliminary Development Plan conditions of approval.
Aye: Hack, Henry and Kennedy Nay: Dunfield and Rundle. Motion carried. (16)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-30-01) of approximately 20.18 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development), property generally located northwest of the intersection of West 6th Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance subject to the following conditions with respect to that portion of the subject property that is to be used for stormwater detention, approximately 2.8 acres, the conditions are:
1. Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan;
2. The applicant provide a legal description for that portion of the subject property included in PDP-08-07-01. (Shown as part of Lot 2, Block 2, in the Preliminary Plat of Wakarusa Place, PP-08-14-01;
With respect to the remaining portion of the subject property, approximately 17.3 acres, the conditions are:
1. Within 18 months of approval of this rezoning request a Preliminary Development Plan that includes the remaining portion of the subject property. (Shown as Lot 1, Block 3 and a part of Lot 2, Block 2 in the Preliminary Plat of Wakarusa Place, PP- 08-14-01) must be submitted;
2. Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan that includes the remaining portion of the subject property (Shown as Lot 1, Block 3 and a part of Lot 2, Block 2 in the Preliminary Plat of Wakarusa Place, PP-08-14-01); and,
3. The applicant provide a legal description for this portion of the property.
Aye: Hack, Henry, Kennedy. Nay: Dunfield and Rundle
Motion carried. (17)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-31-01) of approximately 19.199 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial District), property generally located northwest of the intersection of West 6th Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance subject to the following conditions:.
1. Approval ofa Preliminary Development Plan; and,
2. Completion of all Preliminary Development Plan conditions of approval.
|
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS |
Parking Group |
Special Cond. |
|||||
|
|
CP |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 |
|||
|
20-709.10 |
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 12. RETAIL STORES - PERSONAL SERVICES. Certain types of retail stores and service establishments which: (a) Provide for a wide variety of local consumer and transient needs, and (b) Have a small service area and are, therefore, not distributed widely throughout the city. (1) Retail Stores and Service Establishments Altering, pressing, repairing of wearing apparel Antique sales Appliance, furniture, home furnishings, sales, rental repair Art supply sales
Bank, savings & loan and trust company Barber or beauty shop Bicycle sales, rental, repair Book sales Bowling alley Camera or photographic supply sales Clothing sales
Computer store; sales, service and equipment Confectionery store
Drug store Dry cleaning Eating place, enclosed, without dancing or entertainment and not providing service in automobiles Florist shop and greenhouse
Food store, including retail bakery Furrier shop, including storage of furs Garden supply sales Gift, novelty, souvenir sales Hardware store and small tool rental, but not including sales of lumber or industrial hardware Hat blocking and repair Hobby supply sales
Interior decorating shop Jewelry sales and repair Laundry pick-up station Laundry, self-service only
Locksmith, key shop Mail order agency Music, musical instrument and phonographic record sales Newsstand Nursery stock sales Optical goods, sales Orthopedic or medical appliance sales Paint and wall paper sales
Photographic processing Photographic studio Post Office Quick copy or duplicating center Radio and television studio Reading room Sewing machine sales and repair Shoe repair and sales Sporting goods sales Surgical and dental supply sales Theatre, indoor commercial Variety store Video store, sale or rental of video equipment, movies and games parlor
|
12 13 13 12
12 11 13 12 10 12 15
12 12
11 12 26
12
11 13 13 12 12
13 12
12 12 12 11
12 12 13 11 13 13 12 13
15 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 12 12
|
1428
1453
1453 |