December 4, 2001

 

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:45 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.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of November 27, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting of November 15, 2001, the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 24, 2001; and, the Lawrence Douglas County Public Health Board meeting minutes of September 24, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 399 vendors in the amount of $3,186,549.34 and payroll from November 18, 2001 to November 30, 2001 in the amount of $1,249,887.18.  Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of AVID Forensic Video System from Ocean Systems in the amount of $19,096 for the Police Department.  Motion carried unanimously.                                               (1) 

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a window compost turner for the Recycling Division.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid to Key Equipment and Supply, in the amount of $87,884 because the low bid from Big Timber Sales did not meet specifications.  Motion carried unanimously.                       (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for landscaping the Clinton Water Plant fire damage area.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid to Preferred Lawn Service, in the amount of $19,345.  Motion carried unanimously.

                                                                                                                                            (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7440, revising the requirements for street trees.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                          (4)

Ordinance No. 7447, for the improvement of 24^th Place from Inverness to Crossgate was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                               (5)

Ordinance No. 7448, for the improvement of Inverness Drive from 24^th Place to 27^th Street was read a second time.

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

Ordinance No. 7449, for the improvement of Inverness Drive from Clinton Parkway to 24^th Place was read a second time.

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

Ordinance No. 7450, for the improvement of Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate was read a second time.

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

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6350, establishing the special assessment benefit district for the construction of a temporary portion of Wakarusa Drive which was a connection to Queens Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                   (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-35-01) of approximately 12.085 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single Family Residence District), property generally located west of Branchwood Drive, north of Stoneridge Drive, extended; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                         (10)

 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the request for an amendment to a site plan (SP-3-17-94) for the Replay Lounge; and, refer these recommendations to staff for a report.  Motion carried unanimously.                    (11)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, informed the City Commission that the September sales tax report showed sales taxes higher than last year’s numbers and the City did not see the downfall in September as expected. 

Wildgen informed the City Commission on the status of the Arts Center project.  He said most of the large systems were installed in the building and anticipated the project would be completed in March.

Wildgen informed the City Commission the City was experiencing a soft start on the rental inspection program.  He said if anyone would like to submit an application, even though there were not any inspectors on board yet, there was staff available for questions.

Wildgen reported to the City Commission on the Access Management Plan which was submitted in 1998 for the area from Wakarusa to the SLT.  He said it explored four different scenarios except for the Hereford House access point which was not recognized in this plan.  KDOT has approved this access point which was important to keep in mind. 

Louis Klemp, Leavenworth, presented the City Commission with a copy of Elizabeth Watkin’s will and other documents regarding the Elizabeth Watkins Grave Site Trust.  He said it would be great for the whole community to observe her will to realize that she left trusts to several organizations which assisted the Lawrence community.  Klemp had a concern about the upkeep of the Watkin’s gravesite and presented pictures to the City Commission.  In 1939 a trust was set up for $5,000 for the maintenance of this grave and currently decreased to  $1,827.  He said it appeared the only withdraws were to pay bank and attorney fees.  In 1996 the City requested to take over the funds which would have been good for the trust, but the request was rejected.  He requested the City to attempt to take control over the funds once again.   He presented two checks from Leavenworth residents totaling $1,000 for the upkeep of the gravesite.

Mayor Rundle said he appreciated Klemp for bringing this issue to the City Commission’s attention.  He asked City staff to report back to the City Commission on what the consequences and cost would be to take over that trust and whether it was advisable.                        

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff could certainly research this matter.  He received a call from a representative from Bank of America asking for the City to obtain bids for repair work on Elizabeth Watkins gravesite.  He said he did not know what triggered the call, but would follow-up with those bids.                                                                                                            (12)

Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, presented a draft Ordinance on the proposed amendments concerning bicycle parking and bicycle registration.  The draft Ordinance clarified what was a significant obstruction and what would warrant the police department’s attention.  The draft Ordinance also prohibited parking a bicycle to a tree, fire hydrant, traffic control devices, and other devices and gave the police the authority to remove and dispose of these bicycles if these bicycles were not claimed by their rightful owner within a reasonable amount of time.  The draft Ordinance also clarified that it would not be unlawful to attach or park a bicycle to a parking meter post except for those designated for disabled parking as long as the bicycle did not significantly obstruct the sidewalk.  The draft Ordinance also deleted licensing provisions of the current code and made bicycle registration discretionary on the part of the bicycle owner.    

Commissioner Kennedy said the draft Ordinance seemed to address all the concerns of the City Commission.                                                                                                                    (13)

 Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, presented the draft Ordinance establishing the duties of the property owner’s responsibility for the removal of snow and ice from public sidewalks.  The property owner would have forty-eight hours after snow or ice accumulated to clear the sidewalk. This draft Ordinance only covered public sidewalks and did not cover private sidewalks leading to a house.  This Ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis and established a $10.00 fine if the property owner was not in compliance. Neighborhood Resource Inspectors would mail a written notice of violation ordering the prompt removal of the snow or ice.  After discussion with the Mayor and Vice Mayor a revised draft Ordinance was submitted to add the word “occupant” in the event where the property owner was out of state or could not be reached, then the “occupant” of the property would be responsible.  Also, in the revised Ordinance, the sprinkling or placement of “salt” was deleted because it damaged sidewalks.   

Commissioner Dunfield said he did not understand the notice provisions.  He asked when an inspector responded to a complaint, did they deliver a notice to the property at that point?

Wheeler said the way the draft Ordinance was written it did say that the inspectors would mail a written notice.  She said if there was someone on site they could give notice at that time and asked if the City Commission would like this language clarified to reflect that verbal notice could serve as notice. 

Dunfield said he questioned whether the City would be accomplishing much if they waited to mail the written notice.

Wildgen said as with other inspection processes, they would try to notify a resident as quickly as possible.   

Henry had a concern about “salt” versus “sand.”  He said there were commercial products available to melt the ice that were neither salt nor sand, but a chemical of some sort.

Wheeler said she had talked with Terese Gorman, City Engineer.  She said Gorman stated that some of these chemicals were only effective at certain temperatures and did not serve as traction.  Wheeler said she would further explore this concern.  

 Bill Mitchell, 1201 Emery Road, said he regretted the City had to legislate neighborliness and further regretted the City was creating another un-enforced law.  He had a concern about giving a property owner forty-eight hours to remove snow and thought it was too much time.  He said there needed to be a balance between timeliness and reasonableness. Mitchell said his neighborhood was retrofitted with sidewalks on one side of the street and there was no green space between the sidewalk and the curb.  As a result, City snowplows would plow snow on the sidewalk.  He had a concern about snow being plowed on the side of the street where there were sidewalks and asked the City Commission to consider this problem in approving this Ordinance.          

Dunfield said allowing forty-eight hours for snow removal was too long.  In cases where the sidewalk was well traveled, by the time forty-eight hours elapsed, the sidewalk would be packed solid and becomes a problem to shovel.  He suggested a twenty-four hour time period for snow removal.   Dunfield said this Ordinance was not intended to be punitive.  The intention was to increase public awareness and citizen responsibility for maintaining clear sidewalks.  He said a $10 fine was not a serious fine and wondered if it represented the cost for shoveling a sidewalk.  He said the time issue was his main concern.  He also stated some type of notice that would immediately follow the inspection would seem to be appropriate. 

Rundle said twenty-four hour allowance for snow removal was acceptable and should allow enough time for a person who was trying to hire someone to shovel the snow if the property owner was physically unable to do so.

Wildgen said even the occupant issue needed to be addressed because in some cases, there would be multiple occupancy. 

Kennedy said a $20 fine would be appropriate.  He challenged the City’s youth to be young entrepreneurs and shovel the snow to earn some money.  He also concurred with Dunfield about this Ordinance creating public awareness to the community about the property owner’s obligation to remove snow.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to incorporate changes to the snow removal ordinance to reflect a twenty-four hour limit for snow removal; if failure to comply and after verification of public complaint, staff would notify the “occupant” or property owner of record; a $20 fine if found in non-compliance; and, to place on a future agenda a revised ordinance establishing the requirements for the removal of snow or ice from public sidewalks.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (14)

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report regarding site plan (SP-10-71-01) for construction of S&B Motel, located at 821 Iowa.  Staff originally recommended denial of this site plan for the following reasons:

1.                  Site plan does not comply with Section 20-1432(b).  The proposed arrangement of buildings, off-street parking, access and lighting, landscaping, and drainage are not compatible with adjacent land uses;

2.                  Site plan does not comply with Section 20-1432(c).  The vehicular ingress and egress to and from the site and circulation within the site does not provide for safe, efficient and convenient movement of traffic within the site;

3.                  Proposed grading is off-site.   Site plan must be revised to demonstrate that the parking can be accommodated with the revised grading; and,

4.                  Site does not comply with section 21-1216 with regard to the minimum parking lot setback from a residential district to provide appropriate screening.  

                        Day said the revised plan seemed to satisfy the concerns in No. 3 and No. 4 above.  Day said another concern was direct access from Iowa Street which was discussed in the staff report and was in excess of thirty feet.  The applicant had provided a cross-section and was reviewed with Public Works staff.  The grading issue that had concerned staff, as they looked at the initial review on the far west side of the property, did appear to be addressed as the applicant was grading within the property line.  The final grade would be near the park property, but would be maintained on the applicant’s property.

            Kennedy said with the location of this building on that lot, he assumed that all cross-access that did occur at this time would be between the two properties.

            Day said all four properties were currently served by an access pathway, some within an access easement and some that occurred across private parking lots.  All of this would be removed as a result of this project.

            Kennedy asked if this project would be using the same access point.

            Day said “yes.”  These two properties would share the same driveway access to the public street.

            Rundle asked Day about sanitation trucks getting to the new location.

            Day said there were several discussions with the Solid Waste Division and Public Works.  The proposed dumpster site would serve this proposed motel and the existing hotel to the north.  It was possible to get to the dumpster with the hook loader truck.  It was a smaller vehicle and more maneuverable, but it depended on the far two end stalls being vacant or doing a lot of maneuvering of that vehicle to service that property.

                        Hack asked about the parking spaces required and if those end stalls needed to be vacant for the sanitation workers to get through.          

            Day said there were sixty rooms and the site plan indicated that the maximum employees per shift was four individuals.  That equated to 62 parking spaces which was shown on the plan.  In order to provide the required parking, they needed to rely on compact spaces. Those two vacant spaces made it necessary for the applicant to acquire a variance.  

C.L. Maurer, LandPlan Engineering said this site plan has been in the planning office for approximately four weeks.  He met with Day concerning Sanitation’s concerns about backing up a larger vehicle to service that property.  Sanitation had agreed that the hook loader truck would work better because it was a lightweight truck and could be easily maneuvered.   He said Terese Gorman, City Engineer, said on this site plan the parking lot would not work because there was a dead end without turnout spaces.  When looking at this issue again, he said he discovered that two compact spaces would only occupy 14 ½ feet with a car and left approximately 31 feet of an island space.  He said he had documentation to show that a compact car could be backed up and maneuvered to get out without having that 5 foot slot.  If the City did not want to go with this site plan and the trash dumpster came back to this location, he then provided a pull-off area with compact spaces.  He had a concern about the denial of the site plan because of the proposed arrangement of the building and staff’s recommending that this was an incompatible use.

  As far as ingress and egress from the site, he said there were access easements on this site.  Both lots were owned by the same owner and had a fifty-year lease.  The access easement shown on the site plan was a twenty-foot access easement off of 9^th Street down to the back and across the lot and did not serve anyone but those two lots.  He said he did not follow the land use issue.  He said they had met the Code based on compact spaces.   The drainage issue was his fault because they thought they needed to go off-site.  He said it would be a  simple change and would be rectified.  The reason why they did not originally have a fence was because of the view of the City park form the hotel. The fence would obstruct the view.  Since this did not meet Code, they would install a six-foot fence.  He said it was not appropriate because it was adjacent land use and was residential, but it was a park.  The thirty-four foot wide curb cut issue, he had provided a six-foot concrete island, so it was reduced down to a way in and a way out.                   

            Paul Bryant, future General Manager of the Travel Lodge, 9^th and Iowa, said after reviewing the agenda today, this was the first time he had heard about this issue.  After making a few inquiries, he learned the property owner was notified of this situation and never notified the Travel Lodge.  He asked if his company could be in the loop on this issue.  He presented the City Commission with a map showing the location of the Travel Lodge and its two access points.  As far as consideration of this proposal, whatever changes were needed, his company needed time because they did not know about this plan.  He said his concern was if they had to change to horizontal parking instead of angle parking, it would be difficult for trucks to maneuver.  He said this type of parking would exclude anyone with a trailer or small U-haul.  He requested that if the City Commission stood by staff’s recommendation to deny the site plan, then the process could be started over and wanted to be included in the loop because it would affect their business.  If the City Commission approved this site plan, if possible, he requested that it be tentative and defer the final decision until his company had a chance to look at this proposal and what affect this proposal would have on this property.                              

            Mayor Rundle said the applicant said staff was denying the site plan request based on land use issues of a hotel next to a hotel, but the site plan read the proposed arrangement of buildings, off street parking, access and lighting, landscaping, and drainage were not compatible with adjacent land uses and he did not see that staff was denying the request simply because a hotel was next to a hotel.

                        Linda Finger, Planning Director, said it was certainly not staff’s intent that the land use was incompatible, but the access and arrangement of the parking that staff found incompatible with the adjacent land uses.  She said the concern about the fence was to screen lights from vehicles, so a four-foot high fence would serve that purpose. 

                        Henry asked if there was any legal requirement for notifying adjacent property owners of the development.

                        Finger said both properties were under the same ownership, it was the lessee who was not notified and there was no requirement to notify the lessee. 

                        Hack asked about the access points.

                        Day presented a drawing of a map to the City Commission on the access points.

                        Rundle said this seemed like a tight site and there was no room for extra parking spaces and he asked if a deferral would result in solutions to problems that already existed with the plan.

            Finger said the reason why this site plan was before the City Commission was because as you look at solving one problem it often created another problem therefore  causing a domino effect.  

            Henry asked about access to the far west end and whether Travel Lodge now had to access by crossing another property owner’s property.

            Finger said she did not know if it was a formal or informal agreement to use that access.  Previously, it was practiced to have cross parking between restaurants and hotels because they accommodated each other.  With this site plan, it would close off that access.  Because of how Travel Lodge was designed, it was all angle parking, so that when you enter from the east you could park easily in that parking lot.  The development of this property to the south would facilitate a change in clientele for the Travel Lodge because of the large trucks that would no longer be able to go under their canopy.

                        Dunfield said in terms of this issue of the access between the two properties, it was identified as a forty-three foot access easement that ran east and west along the north edge of the property in question which meant that easement touched the current point at which the two share that drive.  He asked about the significance of that in terms of one owner wanting to close a portion of that easement.  

                        Day said the most recent time the easement arrangements were looked at  was with the replat which was considered a few months ago.  The development of this site in this particular fashion did disrupt this because this access easement was now being used partially for parking as well.  The only piece that maintained itself as being open access easement was the immediate portion of the driveway at Iowa Street.  Technically you could drive across, but not if vehicles were parked there.      

                        Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to defer indefinitely the site plan (SP-10-71-01) for construction of S&B Motel, located at 821 Iowa, and to look at possible redesign and reduction of the size of this property so staff could make this site plan work for the property owner and the existing land use that was there.   Motion carried unanimously.                    (15)

                        Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the 2002 City Commission meeting calendar.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (16)

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 7:55 p.m.   Motion carried unanimously.   

                                                                                                APPROVED:

                                                                                    _____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001

1.                  Purchase AVID Forensic Video System – Ocean Systems for $19,096 for then Police Department.

2.                  Bids – Window Compost Turner, Key Equipment for $87,884 for the Recycling Division.

3.                  Bids – Landscaping Clinton Water Plant fire damage area – Preferred Lawn Service for $19,350.

4.                  Ordinance No. 7440 – 1^st Reading, revise requirements for street trees.

5.                  Ordinance No. 7447 –  2^nd Reading, benefit district, 24^th Pl from Inverness to Crossgate.

6.                  Ordinance No. 7448 – 2^nd Reading, benefit district, Inverness Dr. from 24^th to 27^th.

7.                  Ordinance No. 7449 – 2^nd Reading, benefit district, Inverness Dr. from Clinton Pkwy to 24^th Pl.

8.                  Ordinance No. 7450 – 2^nd Reading, benefit district, Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate.

9.                  Resolution No. 6350 – Benefit District, construction of temporary portion of Wakarusa Dr.

10.              Rezone – (Z-09-35-01) 12.085 acres, A to RS-2, W of Branchwood Dr., N of Stoneridge Dr.

11.              Site Plan – (SP-3-17-94) Replay Lounge,

12.              Trust Fund – Elizabeth Watkins gravesite at Oak Hill Cemetery.

13.              Bicycle Parking & Bicycle Registration.

14.              Snow & Ice removal from public sidewalks.

15.              Site Plan – (SP-10-71-01) denial for construction of S&B Motel, 82 Iowa.

16.              2002 City Commission meeting calendar.