December 11, 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.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of December 4, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of November 5, 2001; and, the Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters meetings of August 15, 2001 and September 19, 2001.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 336 vendors in the amount of $3,290,200.86.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Wa Restaurant, 740 Massachusetts (C-3 Zoning Requirement).  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for new electronic parking meters for the Police Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to POM Incorporated, in the amount of $42,212.  Motion carried unanimously.    (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for water treatment chemicals for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to award the water treatment chemicals to the low bidders (depicted with an asterisk) in the table above, for the Utility Department.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                    (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for Orchards Sanitary Sewer Creek Crossing Repairs for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to SiteRite Construction, in the amount of $22,578.80.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                             (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to renew the existing contract with Nutriget Inc., for the removal of biosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and apply to land for $10.09 per cubic yard, not to exceed $140,000.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                          (4) 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7455, amending Chapter 17, Article 7, of the City Code concerning bicycles.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                        (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7456, establishing requirements for the removal of snow or ice from public sidewalks; establishing inspection, notice, and fine provisions governing such municipal offense.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                           (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7458, authorizing a property tax abatement for Reuter Organ Co., for fifty percent of the appraised value of equipment, land, and building, in the total amount of $3,697.389.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                     (7)

Ordinance No. 7440, revising the requirements for street trees was read a second time.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, 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 Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6351, establishing the City boundaries.  Motion carried unanimously.              (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (RP-10-13-01) for Schafer Addition, a replat of Lot 5, Block 1, Cimarron Hills No. 4, one-lot residential subdivision containing approximately .191 acre, located at 2605 Harper Street; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                   Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following change:

a.                  Provision of a 10’ utility/pedestrian easement along the east property line; and,

2.                  Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.                  Copy of paid property tax receipt;

b.                  Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and,

c.                  Provision of a Master Street Tree Plan.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (10)

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-10-31-01) for Del Campo Subdivision, a 1-lot commercial subdivision containing approximately 1.07 acres, located at 1350 North 3^rd in North Lawrence; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provision of a 10’ roadway/sidewalk/utility easement along the North 3^rd Street right-of-way;

2.                  Provision of a Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708(a)(3) of the Subdivision Regulations;

3.                  Show the entire North 3^rd Street right-of-way; and,

4.                  Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-10-32-01) for Sunflower Park No. 4, a replat of Sunflower Park Addition No. 3, a 31-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 10.01 acres, located northwest of West 27^th Street and Crossgate Drive; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provision of a 10’ utility easement to both cul-de-sacs;

2.                  Show and label the new floodway and floodway fringe boundary per the 2001 FEMA maps effective November 7, 2001;

3.                  Re-name the plat to Sunflower Park Addition No. 4;

4.                  Include a note on the plat stating, “Any additional easements determined to be required during the engineering of public improvements for each phase shall be dedicated through separate instrument”;

5.                  Provide the correct label of the subject property on the Location Map;

6.                  Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;

7.                  Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;

8.                  Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan; and,

9.                  Provide FFE’s (finish floor elevations) on all lots located within the floodway fringes area, and eliminate the MEBO’s (minimum elevation of building openings) currently shown on the final plat.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-10-35-01) for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 3, a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 2, a 2-lot planned residential plat containing approximately 10.006 acres, located on the west side of Crossgate Drive, north of West 27^th Street; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Show and label the new floodway and floodway fringe boundary per the 2001 FEMA          study and maps effective November 7, 2001;

2.                  Replace note No. 2 with the following: “Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, shall have no more than   one direct access to Crossgate Drive.  Each access point will be located at a point             relative to the mid-point of residential block across Crossgate Drive”; Provision of a 10’     utility easement to both cul-de-sacs;

3.                  Provision and approval by Public Works of a sanitary sewer location plan prior to filing of the final plat;

4.                  Provide a 20’ utility easement between Lots 1 and 2;

5.                  Revise all utility easements to be 20’ wide;

6.                  Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;

7.                  Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan;

8.                  Remove all building setback lines on lots;

9.                  Approval by the City Clerk and Public Works Director of a proposed redistribution of          unpaid special assessments; and,

10.              Provide FFE’s (finish floor elevators) on all lots located within the floodway fringe area,      and eliminate the MEBO‘s (minimum elevation of building openings) currently shown on   the final plat.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “yield signs” on Hampton Street at 25^th Terrace/Kensington Road; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                   (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the south side of North Street between 2^nd Street and 3^rd Street; and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the east side of Airport Road; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Brian and Jennifer Baird, 2551 Montana Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                             (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Floyd and Estella White, 804 New Jersey Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement with Randy and Debbie Campbell, 757 Elm Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7453, rezoning of 19.77 acres from RS-1 to RCD-2, property generally located on the northeast corner of 31^st and Iowa Street, east of the convenience store.  Aye:  Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Dunfield and Rundle.  Motion carried.                            (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7454, rezoning of 4.197 acres from RS-1 to RCD-1, property generally located on the northeast corner of 31^st and Iowa Street, east of the convenience store.  Aye:  Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Dunfield and Rundle.  Motion carried.                            (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-10-33-01) for First National Addition, commonly known as Home Depot development, a four-lot and one tract commercial subdivision generally located on the north side of West 31^st Street, approximately 300’ east of Iowa Street, at 1900 West 31^st Street, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                              Provide revised plat to include:

a.                              Note on plat which indicates that Tract A is restricted to open    space/stormwater detention uses;

b.                              30’ drainage easement in NE corner of Tract A to cover proposed public storm            sewer;

2.                  Documentation from Williams Natural Gas indicating approval of the vacation of existing 40’ easement and approval of the proposed location of the new 40’ easement;

3.                  Provision of a public drainage easement for the off-site drainage system crossing the Gaslight Village Property;

4.                  Payment of street sign fees;

5.                  Submission and approval of a Master Street Plan;

6.                  Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and,

7.                  Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

Aye:  Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Dunfield and Rundle.  Motion carried.                           (22)

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, informed the City Commission the City received acknowledgement from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that the City’s CDBG Block Grant was accepted in the amount of $1,101,000 and the home allocation was $610,000.  

Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the unsafe structure at 1307 Brook.

Julie Wyatt, Environmental Inspector, said she requested the public hearing be set for 1307 Brook.  She updated the City Commission on the status of the property.  The structure was abandoned and deteriorated.  She said she had contact with the property owner concerning this structure since approximately April 2001 and received letters from her and talked to her on the phone.  She said she believed it was her intent to rehabilitate the property, but had seen a minimal amount of effort to improve the property.  At this time, she requested the City Commission adopt a resolution ordering the structure to be repaired or removed within 30 days. 

                        Kennedy asked if the property owner had returned Wyatt’s calls to make plans for rehabilitation.

            Wyatt said she has had phone calls from the property owner throughout the past nine months and has had written correspondence with her.  She said the property owner intended to obtain a building permit and make the repairs, it just had not happened.

Mayor Rundle asked when the roof was replaced.

            Wyatt said the roof was not the biggest concern, but the general condition of the entire structure.  She said there was some work this Fall replacing siding on the front of the house, but that was the only action she has seen over the past nine months.

Hack asked Wyatt if she heard from her since this was posted in the paper.

Wyatt said “yes,” but there has been no building permit applications applied for.

Carmen Collins, owner of the structure at 1307 Brook, said she wished she could present this issue without being a public forum.  She said she and her ex-husband had purchased the property in November 1998, at the request of the women who’s father had built the house.  She asked her to buy the house because she thought she would take care of the house.  At that  time, it was her intent to rehabilitate the structure, however the divorce cost her a great deal financially and she did not have the resources for the necessary repairs.  In the Fall, she hoped she would be able to make the necessary repairs.  She said she had another piece of property that she had made arrangements with a person to manage and thought she could turn that property around to give her the funds that was needed for the rehabilitation at 1307 Brook.  This turned out not to be a good idea and she was in worse shape financially than she was then.  She said she was hoping to sell that property which would give her enough money for the rehabilitation.  She said she was asking the City Commission to have patience with her and she had every intention of rehabilitating the property.  She said she knew the people in the neighborhood were upset and she understood.  She said the roof had been replaced before they had purchased the property and had paid to have a new roof put on in the fall of 1998 because it was leaking badly in two spots.  She said she never wanted to gut the property, but wanted to repair the ceiling and use this structure as a rental.   She said if she could get the other property sold, which could happen soon, then she would be able to pay someone to do the work. 

            Henry asked if there had been any estimates on how much it would cost to refurbish the property.

            Collins said “no.”   She said she got a rough estimate approximately two months ago and figured with floor coverings and appliances it would cost around $10,000.

Rundle asked Collins if there was a timeframe in terms of rehabilitation of the structure.

Collins said it would depend on if she sold the other piece of property.   She said Wyatt had told her previously that if she could get the outside secured and get a building permit that she would work with her and give her as much time as she needed within reason to finish the interior.  She said she could barely pay her utility bills and was strapped for funds, but if the property sold, she would have the funds for rehabilitation.

            Rundle said this resolution would give her 30 days for rehabilitation or removal of the structure.  He said they needed to come back with a plan in 30 days.

Collins said in 30 days she would either be a lot more stable financially or would be declaring bankruptcy.  At that point, there would be no point of saving the house anyway.  She also requested a copy of the resolution.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City Commission could allow 60 or 90 days for rehabilitation and ask for a report back for any action taken.

Kirsten Roussel, Lawrence, representing the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said she had the opportunity to speak with the neighbor immediately to the north of this property and the neighbor had great concerns about the length of time that this structure has been abandoned and the safety of the property.   The property in general was asking someone to move into it and establish uninvited residents.  She said the neighborhood would like this property cleaned up. 

Jon Mericle, Lawrence, said he was a friend of the property owner.  At one point, there were people working on the property for Collins that did tend to be abusive towards alcohol.  They have been asked not to return to that property.  He said quite frankly it was an unreasonable idea to give someone 30 days to repair a property because of the weather.  He said he was willing to donate some time to help get the property in order for Collins and donate money for materials.

Moved by Henry, seconded by Dunfield, to close the public hearing.

Rundle suggested a 90 day resolution as long as the property owner kept in close contact with the staff. 

Commissioner Dunfield suggested a report in 30 days to see some sign of movement and did not expect the repairs to be completed in 30 days, but would like to see evidence that rehabilitation was occurring.

Commissioner Henry said he would like to see a report that would precisely identify what would be done because there was another piece of property the City Commission was dealing with that was moving slowly.  

Collins asked about the process and was she to report to Wyatt.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said Wyatt would be the best contact because she would have the file and worked with those particular issues.

Kennedy said it would be nice to see a building permit in 30 days if the other property was sold.

            Moved by Rundle, seconded Dunfield, to adopt Resolution 6352, declaring 1307 Brook Street unsafe and dangerous and allowing the property owner 90 days to repair or remove the structure; and, direct staff to provide a report on the repair process in 30 days.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                    (23)

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the staff report on the proposed purchase of 14 acres of park land.   Earlier this year, Francis Kelly, approached the City about the possible purchase of 14 acres immediately west of the Lichtwardt property which the City purchased. The Kelly property was a fairly flat area next to a largely wooded area.  Wildgen said Kelly’s desire was to have the same restrictions as the Lichtwardt property.  He said they had talked to him about the possibility of a small parking area at sometime in the future, but was continually looking for park opportunities.  This was good park property because the City could have a complex of approximately 100 acres in that area which would be a legacy park for the City.  Staff recommended the purchase of property.

            Moved by Henry, seconded by Hack, to authorize the purchase of 14 acres of park land located north of North 1700 Road, generally located north of Free Sate High School.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (24)            

            David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, presented the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to construct a traffic signal and install a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of 7^th and Kentucky Street, and that an all-way stop be installed on an interim basis.  He said a few weeks ago there was a request from the Postmaster to take a look at this intersection adjacent to the post office.  He and his employees had witnessed numerous accidents at this location.  When looking at this intersection there had been quite a number of right angle accidents.  Appropriate studies of traffic volume had been done and determined that a traffic signal was warranted at this intersection and could be justified based upon the traffic volumes and accident records.  Obviously, a traffic signal could not be put up overnight.  The Traffic Safety Commission recommended that in the interim an all-way stop be installed at this intersection to control the traffic until funds could be made available to construct a traffic signal.

            Some of the other discussions at the Traffic Safety meeting centered around the driveway that went into the post office drop boxes.  During the evening p.m. peak traffic would come down Kentucky Street and make a right turn onto 7^th and immediately try to turn left into the drop off lane which could cause some backup into the intersection.  The Postmaster indicated that he thought that maneuver was actually illegal.  It was not and he would not be opposed to some type of device that would prohibit that movement.  Woosley said staff did find some rubberized materials that could be installed along that area of 7^th Street from the intersection back to the east to prevent that movement as a part of the project.  

Rundle said if this was done, would there be some type of signage to direct people that they needed to make the loop around the block.

Woosley said they could, but he thought people would find out fairly quickly how to get around the block to get to the post office.

Rundle asked about the timing of the installation of the traffic signal.

            Wildgen said he wanted to get that type of information to the City Commission.  He said there might be some interim things done before putting in a three way stop.  Removing some of the parking on the west side for the east bound traffic.  He asked the City Commission for authority to make some interim steps to see if they worked.  Kentucky took a lot of traffic and he would like to see it keep flowing as much as possible. 

            Dunfield said he was reluctant to turn that intersection into a three way stop immediately.  He said the suggestion of trying some interim actions was a good idea and certainly worth exploring.  The left turn off of 7^th Street into the post office drop off had always seemed inappropriate to him and there were some site line issues that might be able to be resolved by changing parking.  

            Wildgen said an ordinance needed to be passed to install a stop sign and staff could try some other options first.

Kennedy asked about a temporary stop sign on Kentucky Street.

Wildgen said Woosley had authority to do a temporary 90 day stop sign.

Kennedy said based on these recommendations from the Traffic Safety Commission, the City should research traffic flows into the drop off for the post office and definitely eliminate that maneuver which impeded traffic flow in the area.  The idea of adding a stop sign appealed to him at this time to go along with the recommendations from the Traffic Safety Commission on an interim basis to see if it would help the safety situation while at the same time, not deterring the traffic flow in that area.

Rundle asked if the alternative suggestions would be taken back to the Traffic Safety Commission or brought  to the City Commission as interim solutions.

Wildgen said staff would bring back suggestions to the City Commission. 

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to construct a traffic signal and install a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of 7^th and Kentucky Street, and direct staff to prepare a financing and implementation report.  The recommended all-way stop was excluded.   Motion carried unanimously.                        (25)

Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the proposed special assessments for storm sewer improvements at the northwest corner of 6^th and Maine, Medical Plaza.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, presented the proposed special assessment for storm sewer improvements at the northwest corner of 6^th and Maine.  At an earlier City Commission meeting, $50,000 was contributed because this was a stormwater project that was one of the priorities under the Stormwater Master Plan so there was $50,000 that was not being assessed which would be picked up by the City-at-Large.  Tonight was the public hearing and the appropriate notices had been sent.  After the public hearing was closed, then the motion, if you wanted to proceed, would be to adopt the ordinance.

Rundle asked if this was part of the condition for approval of that site plan.

Corliss said one of the site plan requirements was the stormwater improvements and used the City to help finance the improvement.

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

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7457, for the proposed special assessments for storm sewer improvements at the northwest corner of 6^th and Maine (Medical Plaza).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                 (26)

Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, presented site plan (SP-09-64-01) for St. Lawrence Catholic Center, located at 1631 Crescent Road.  The was for the expansion to the St. Lawrence Catholic Center which included a two level parking garage that would provide 174 parking spaces on site.  In addition, in the northeast corner of the property, there would be approximately 16,000 gross square feet on a two level structure with a basement.  This addition was planned to provide additional administrative offices and classroom multi-purpose space.  Staff had reviewed the site plan for zoning ordinance compliance and recommended approval subject to the seven conditions listed in the staff report.

The applicant received variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals to reduce setbacks.  The setback along 15^th Street had been reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet and along a portion of the east property line adjacent to the Pi Phi property from 50 feet to 10 feet for that parking garage structure.  The addition in the northeast corner did respect the fifty-foot setback from the north property line and a 50 foot setback from the east property line in that area. 

As part of the review, the applicant was requested to provide a traffic study which was prepared by George Butler and Associates.  Staff had recommended approval and one of these specific conditions of approval that would need to come back to staff would be submission of a Parking Mitigation Plan because in order to build the parking garage, they would need to remove the existing surface parking lot and the intent was to build that parking garage first so it was up and in operation before the entire addition was completed.   Staff again recommended approval subject to a mitigation plan which showed the current 98 parking spaces would be provided somewhere else during that interim construction period.  They had proposed that the property directly to the west would temporarily be used as a parking facility and that could accommodate 55 parking spaces. Staff asked that the applicant would be able to provide some assurance that the additional 40 spaces could be provided in other parking facilities nearby and make arrangements on how their congregation would use this parking facility off-site.  This was specific information that needed to come back to staff before the actual project was approved.

            Rundle said in the report the conclusion indicated the addition of a proposed parking structure was expected to have minimal impacts on the intersections and would continue to operate at levels similar to the existing structure.  He asked if it covered the additional administrative and classroom space.

           Stogsdill said she believed the traffic study covered all of those issues, but was looking specifically at the percentage of those 174 spaces that would be occupied at any specific time and what the movements entering and exiting this site would be during peak hour periods and Sunday periods.

Henry said the staff report indicated that the applicant requested that off-street parking be permitted to accommodate those extra vehicles that could not be accommodated in the parking lot and he asked Stogsdill if staff was recommending that not be approved.

Stogsdill said “yes.”  As part of their proposal for how they would provide the temporary parking they had suggested the City Commission temporarily lift the restriction on several nearby local streets which currently were restricted to “no parking” and staff did not believe that was an adequate measure to provide that off-site parking.

Henry asked if the disallowing of parking would be part of the mitigation plan.

            Stogsdill said “yes.”  Staff would certainly want the City Commission to give them direction related to the “no parking” restriction.  It would take a specific action of the City Commission to rescind that parking restriction even temporarily.           

Bob Schumm, a member of the St. Lawrence Center, said he was there to request the Commission to approve a site plan which included an expansion of the building as well as a new parking structure. 

Fr. Vince Krische, Director, Campus Champlain, St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center, said he was in his twenty-fifth year with this campus ministry at the University of Kansas.  The mission of St. Lawrence Center was to serve the University community with particular focus upon the students of the University.  There were approximately 2,000 students who were registered and offered programs in faith education which was the primary mission of the church along with programs with integrating faith in professional life, programs in community service and some social programs.  The St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center had two goals for every student who entered into their program.  The first was that when they graduate and settle in their parish, they would be the best parishioners that they could be and the second would be they would be the best ethical and morally sound professionals in whatever field they were entering.  The funding for the St. Lawrence Center was mostly external to Lawrence.   The funding came from parents, alumni and friends from practically every state in the union.  People who support them to offer quality programs to the students they serve.  They had a tremendously dedicated staff and great young people.  The young people today were searching for meaning and purpose in life.  They seek the spiritual foundations upon which to build a good life.  They want to know how to be a good member of the church and a good citizen of our country. 

The center had also approximately 140 University related families who were part of their ministry.  These families formed a stable foundation upon which the ministry to students rests since the students were primarily a transient community.  The families were critical to the success of their campus ministry and belonged to St. Lawrence because they want to help them serve the students.  Everyone who came to be part of the permanent community has as their primary motivation to serve the students.  These families serve on their budget committee, finance committee, advisory board, scholarship selection committee and more.  Krische said the center did not receive the normal benefits of parish life, but since it was a specialized ministry within the church, it was established according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law.  They also had a good relationship with the University and their ministry with the students was helping the students have a better college experience.  Krische said plan which was brought before the City Commission was intended to help solve two problems.  First, was the problem of parking and second, additional space for their programs.  They had been in the neighborhood for over 30 years.  They seek no harm or damage to the neighborhood because it was also their neighborhood and they had as their goal, a goal to improve the conditions for the welfare of all.   He said he respectfully asked the City Commission to consider the approval of the plan.

Derrick Teeter, senior at the University of Kansas majoring in political science and international studies, said he was from a small town in western Kansas.  He came to Lawrence three years ago.  The first week he arrived, he toured the St. Lawrence Center and was introduced to the community and the learning opportunities and outreach opportunities it held for him.  He was looking for something like the St. Lawrence Center to help his transition to a larger town and to college and found the answer in the St. Lawrence Center.  Through the center, he said he met new friends, mentors, and began participating in a service program which sent teachers to surrounding parishes to help with youth education.  Over the next three years he became even more involved at the St. Lawrence Center and could truthfully say today that he would not imagine his college experience without the center.  He said he knew his situation was not unique.  Thousands of other students at the University of Kansas have gone to the St. Lawrence Center since its inception and had made major contributions, not only to the University, but to the City of Lawrence as well as other communities.   St. Lawrence did not just strive to teach Catholic religion.  It motivated its students to become active members of the community and to be good servants in the public life.  St. Lawrence provided students with something the University could not, which was a strong faith and in both these ways, the St. Lawrence Center was an asset to the community. 

Teeter said an integral part of the center’s success has been its location.  Situated only a few hundred yards from the student dorms, the center was positioned to serve the most people with the least hassle.  It could not exist off-campus because it served students and that was why it needed to be near campus.  Putting the center somewhere else destroyed the mission of the center and that was why they were in the position to grow where they were.  He said if St. Lawrence was not located on campus, he would have not been as motivated to participate in the center or the various programs it offered.  The expansion of St. Lawrence was not only a leap forward for Catholic students, but also for the community.  Last year St. Lawrence students put in approximately 17,000 hours in social service programs in this town and surrounding communities.  With the center’s expansion, it would better facilitate all of these programs.  The need for the expansion was the direct result of the center’s tremendous success, its contribution to this community, and its service to thousands of students.  He respectfully asked the City Commission to approve this plan for expansion of the center.

Kate Kemerata, a sophomore student at the University of Kansas, said one of the key indicators of a University’s high academic status was the number of out-of-state students it attracts.  She said she was from Nashville, Tennessee and came to K.U. because of the St. Lawrence Center.  Nowhere else could she find a prestigious research University, supplemented by such a fine Catholic establishment for students.  The center has directly affected all of her roles on campus.  The unique knowledge gained in the weekly classes she took, has been applied to the way she studied and how much making the life decisions, so many people face in college, and was applied to a manner in which she had fun and how she participated in University activities and the way she interacted with her peers and professors.  St. Lawrence Center has allowed her to practice her religion on campus and attend church on Sundays and everyday during the school week.  It was a sanctuary and a place for thousand of students at K.U.   For the many students that she took classes with, she was inspired by their leadership and looked up to their kindness.  St. Lawrence has made a profound difference in her life and has helped her to thrive.

            Schumm said he wanted to review the history of this process.  During 1999 and 2000, there were three meetings with members of the Westwood Neighborhood Association.  Those meetings were to explore building options that would have located the facility expansion on the west side of Engel Road.  After hearing their concerns and suggestions, it was decided by the St. Lawrence staff that the expansion should be located on the current site in order to minimize the impact on the overall neighborhood.  On August 29, 2000, and again on October 10, 2001, a meeting took place with the immediate neighbors.  At these meetings, they presented their plan and answered questions.  In response to the neighbor’s comments, they made the following statements and observations:

1.      They acknowledge that 15^th Street and Engel Road was a busy intersection and agreed with the neighbors that they should all work together with the City in order to improve access at this intersection;

2.      The exterior of the Engel house was currently being refurbished with a plan attached to the site plan indicating a new driveway and landscape theme; 

3.      They have initiated a temporary parking plan that should offer sufficient parking for the center during construction;

Dan Sabatini, Project Architect, presented the site plan to the City Commission.  He said the site plan had a two level parking structure.  The main level was at Engel Road grade and below.  He said they had increased the area of the parking structure from the original parking lot.  There were currently two entry and exits onto Engel Road and the plan reduced that to one entry and exit to control the traffic.  The proposed addition was a three level structure which consisted of 4500 sq. ft. per level.  He said the roof was designed to mimic the original Williams’ home which was limestone with a shingle roof.  It was designed to be both compatible with the neighborhood and the existing center.  The landscape plan was intensifying the trees along the whole perimeter.

In regard to the Traffic Mitigation Plan, what they proposed was temporary parking along Crescent and Engel Roads and utilizing the existing parking on Spencer and Hillcrest and there was parking along the remainder of Crescent Road that they were proposing to utilize.  After further talking to K.U., there was the ability to use the existing toll parking structure near Allen Fieldhouse.

Rundle asked in addition to the program center, was there an auditorium as part of that addition.

Sabatini said it was a multi-use facility area with the idea of temporary seating.  At full capacity it could seat 80 people.  The idea was it would have stack seating that could be pulled down and used for other activities.  It would mainly be used for lectures.

Dunfield asked about the landscaping plan.  He said in looking at the site plan along the east side of the property, most of that landscaping already existed.  The main group of it seemed to act as a landscaping screen to the neighboring property.  He asked if it had been surveyed and was comfortable where the property line was relative to those trees.

Sabatini said it had been surveyed and he felt comfortable.   The majority of those were evergreen trees along the edge.

Dunfield said there were three trees that appeared to be quite close to the addition and asked if they were existing trees.

Sabatini said “yes.”  He said the intent was to try to save the trees and he did not consider them screening trees.

Dunfield said he would like to see some specific indications of how they intended to go about preserving that landscaping along the east side of the property.

Sabatini said one of the biggest things to do would be to put a semi-permanent fence around it during construction.                                 

Kennedy asked about the temporary parking in the neighborhoods and he suggested that construction workers for the project park at the Lied Center parking lot and possibly bus the workers over to that project.  He further asked if this could be researched in order not to impact the neighborhood.

Sabatini said “yes.” 

Schumm said the parking was a major concern to the neighborhood and equally a concern to St. Lawrence as well because they want the facility to continue to operate and if the parking was a problem its not going to operate at the capacity it was right now.  It was important for St. Lawrence to have people park and be able to get into the center and obviously was looking for the correct solution as well.  The big generator of the impact of traffic was the Mass.  Usually it was at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, 4:45 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and there was Sunday evening Mass at 10:00 p.m.  If it became so difficult through whatever mechanism to get people in and out of the structure to use it for the Mass, then more than likely you would see the Mass shift to a different location.  He said they had to continue to give the parishioners and the students that use that facility the Mass service.

He said this project was probably going to take approximately one year.  The parking structure would be built first which would start early in the spring, so therefore the summer months were being less impacted and would be able to use some of the K.U. parking and hoped to have that parking structure built by January.  This was a lot shorter length of time that the parking would be a problem.  The real problematic months were from mid August to mid December because that was when it conflicted directly with K.U. being in session. 

Rundle asked Schumm about the statement “if it became a problem” how would it be addressed.

Schumm said they would be willing to leave it open-ended to work with staff.  This was tough to get a handle on because there were different components that made up the problem.  He said a combination of things could happen such as a shuttle, off site parking with K.U., the Engel property.  If all of this failed, then they would need to move the service to a different location.  They would like to see the Parking Mitigation Plan be administered by staff and updated as things changed. 

Schumm had a concern about one of staff’s recommendations which stated:  “Indication that sod will be installed at 1435 Engel Road as part of the restoration plan.”  He said they would like that to read:  “Indication that the yard would be restored at 1435 Engel  Road as part of the restoration plan.”  This allowed them to use a seed instead of sod. 

Schumm also had a concern about the “Execution of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a future benefit district for geometric improvements or installation of a traffic control device at the intersection of Engel Road and 15^th Street.”   He said they recognized the concern of the intersection at 15^th and Engel Road.  This has been a problem for many years.  He said from his recollection of this intersection, it would take an extraordinary cost to improve it to a standard that would function well in each direction.  He said the St. Lawrence Center was a minimal user of that intersection relative to all the traffic that flowed through that whole area.  K.U. by in large was the biggest user of that intersection.  He said the City-at-Large should have a part to play in this.  He said the City was asking them to submit to being  part of this benefit district not knowing any costs and did not feel they were 50% of the benefit district, just because they owned half the property on one side of the road.  They did not create that much demand for traffic relative to the whole intersection.  He asked if this standard had been applied to other site plans where there was retrofitting in an area or refurbishing in an area.  He said he knew they did that on new commercial areas where obviously the commercial demand for traffic demanded traffic signalization.  It was a direct benefit to those particular properties.  In areas that had been already established, he said he did not know if that was common, and if so, it seemed to him the people who should participate in particular division of responsibility would be the City-at-Large, K.U., St. Lawrence Center and the neighborhood because they were all net benefactors of an improved safe intersection.  He had a concern about what percentage the St. Lawrence Center would need to pay because they were basically signing a blank check for the future. 

Rundle said they would get staff to comment on both the benefit district and the issue of seed versus sod.

            Scott Canfield, Traffic Engineer, George Butler Associates, said they were originally hired by Dan Sabatini to conduct a traffic impact study.  The recommendation was made by the City of Lawrence to conduct the study to find out what type of impacts the improvements they were looking at would have on the existing traffic conditions.  They knew this site did not have the typical flow of traffic when the streets and intersections around the site were at their highest volume during the weekday.  The amount of traffic volume generated by this site was actually minimal.  Most of the activities take place during the evening hours, 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m., and during the weekends.  With these thoughts in mind, they conducted traffic volumes at the intersection for more than week and looked at the impacts of how the site related to the existing traffic under the current conditions.  In addition, his firm examined the impact once this site was developed, the additional parking spaces were put in, how the site would impact the intersection then.  They found during the average weekday, during the p.m. peak of 4:00 to 5:30, the actual site itself generated little traffic that was going through the intersection up to 15^th Street about 2% to 3% of that total traffic. On the weekends when traffic was much less, the site did develop and generate a lot more traffic proportionally to the traffic that was out on the street.  On the weekend you see approximately half the volume of traffic on 15^th Street and therefore, when the church site was having its biggest generation time, they made a lot more of an impact, but when you compare their impact on the weekends or the late hours of the evening, their impact was minimal compared to times during the week when the traffic was actually the heaviest.  He pointed out they did not count the cars that actually ran through the intersection of 15^th and Engel and accessed the parking lot site.  One thing they did notice, during their Sunday count, was that although their parking lot was approximately 100 parking spaces, they typically park approximately 120 vehicles.  In essence, your only looking at an increase of approximately 50 stalls which should adequately handle the parking needs of this site. 

Rundle said his frame of mind was oriented toward the site as a trip generator.  With the additional capacity of the programming center as well as the church there might be times when there would be a higher demand for center activities.                                      

            Canfield said when they looked at the site they looked at the existing traffic volumes and tried to relate this to some acceptable national standards on what a church type of facility generated.  Typically in those studies, they provided a range of traffic volumes.  He said they wanted to make sure this site did not exceed nationally accepted standards.  This site fits right along with the national average for the amount of trips generated for its size.  They looked at the existing volumes, the existing site and then included the new development and the number of trips that would be generated out of this and those impacts on the existing traffic control intersections.  The existing daily traffic volume at 15^th and Engel was between 16, 500 and 17, 000 cars per day.  When looking at what occurs during the p.m. peak hour, your looking at approximately 1400 vehicles in that peak hour.  Of those 1400 vehicles, they were looking at adding an additional 100 vehicles.

            Todd Thompson, Lawrence, said he saw the picture in the newspaper of the site plan which indicated an exit out of the lower level of the parking garage and the shared access with the Pi Phi House on 15^th Street.  It appeared this was not the site plan that was before the City Commission.  He said he wanted to briefly address the traffic issues.  He said the City Commission would hear a lot about the size issue.  He wanted to note that the site plan indicated it was over 16,000 square feet and not 4500 per floor.  The fact was that it could have been a separate facility located across the street.  He said according to Schumm, it was going to serve thousands and thousands of students when it was built and noted a letter to the editor in the newspaper that indicated it was much more than a church and was absurd to consider it just a church.  He asked the City Commission to keep all of this in mind when they decide whether or not to place this facility in this neighborhood.  He said he would like to think they could co-exist.  He said he had approximately 13 years of history in this neighborhood.  There were traffic and parking problems at this time with the existing facility.  The additional parking was a good thing, but what was proposed called for moving the entrance to the upper level parking closer to 15^th Street than it currently was and that was a fundamentally unsound idea.  He asked the City Commission to insist that the plan be revised to push the driveway back to where it was.  Another concern was the impossibility when someone wanted to turn left.  There was only one southbound lane.  The church owned the property on the west side of the street  and thus has the ability to provide land for additional lanes to make the intersection function more properly.  He asked the City Commission to allow the plan to be revised for St. Lawrence Center’s own benefit and their safety.  He said widening the street would allow for some additional stacking and safety and less inconvenience.  He also asked the City Commission to ask St. Lawrence to go back and revisit the initial plan to provide an access out of the lower level to the Pi Phi driveway or a shared driveway right on the property line so that some of this traffic did not need to go through the neighborhood.  He said he has not heard a  single neighbor suggest that the activities at the center were bad activities.  This was not the issue, but the question was whether this was a force fit and was it too big for the place their trying to put it.  He also stated a concern about the applicant wanting to use seed instead of sod.

Bill Skepnek, Lawrence, said this matter was about the use of this facility and the consistency of that use with the neighborhood.  He said he lived in this neighborhood for 12 years and had been involved in several traffic issues in that neighborhood.  He was involved in getting the stop signs that were put along University Drive and other traffic issues in the neighborhood.  This was a situation in which the neighborhood was over their parking and traffic budget, because they had too many cars in the neighborhood without ever having addressed, in a comprehensive way, the whole traffic pattern in the neighborhood and the problem with 15^th and Engel.  These were problems they have known about for years and never addressed.  He agreed with Thompson’s suggestion about routing traffic down through Pi Phi parking.  He said now was the time for the City, University, and all the neighbors to come together and fix the problem before it gets worse and make this a better facility.  He asked the City Commission to deny the request and send it back for further study.

Faye Watson, Lawrence, said she lived in this neighborhood for twenty years.  She presented a map to the City Commission which showed 100 homes in the neighborhood, but six homes were in opposition to the plan that was submitted.  She said she wanted to state that they were not against the Catholic Church.  She said they were appreciative of the care and interest that were shown to the K.U. Students and K.U. Staff, but were unhappy with the building plans that were before the City Commission.  Plans that were too evasive for our single-family zoned neighborhood and the most important fact was the traffic problems that would increase with the addition of more students, personnel, cars, programs and attendees that were not being addressed.   She disagreed with the traffic study conclusions.  She said the study failed to include the impact of the proposed educational building of 16,049 square feet.   She said she and her neighbors could never keep up with the facts because they were never shared with the neighborhood.  They receive their information from site plans from others and not the St. Lawrence Center and this was part of their frustration with the entire process.  The Board of Zoning Appeals stated that the neighborhood had proved without a doubt that St. Lawrence Center had not met the five criteria necessary to grant the requested variances, however, it was approved 3-2.  When the matter headed to the Planning Commission they were informed there was no public comment allowed.  Neither of the boards addressed traffic issues and she was told it was not their place to do so.  She asked what was happening and why should this go all the way to the City Commission to act on this point of traffic when they had not been aware of this problem and project.  There were various boards and commission that develop a certain expertise in these matters.  She said this was not a true traffic study because it was done during the Columbus Day holiday  weekend.  In the staff report, tables 1 and 2  were incorrectly labeled.  She asked that this matter be handled before this building project begins and not after the fact.  The City compromised with the 1984 building of the center, chapel, sanctuary and parking lot by activating “no parking” on Engel, Westwood and part of Crescent Road.  On the other streets in the area, parking was allowed from 5:00 to 7:00 and on weekends in some cases.  She said the neighborhood emphatically asked the City Commission not to change these restrictions put into place by the City of Lawrence as part of the past agreement.  Other arrangements must be made by St. Lawrence Center for parking during the expected long period of construction which could take approximately one year.

She also had a concern about St. Lawrence Center student parking. She said they had been told that the parking garage would enhance the neighborhood by reducing parking conflicts and doubling the parking capacity it would improve the value of their properties, but they did not agree with that.  The proposed parking garage was still not large enough to provide present and future adequate parking for the center.  They were dismayed to find parking was not in a covered type garage, but would actually look like a field of cars with parking spaces scattered all over the area.  They had not removed the parking spaces that they presently use.  She said this new garage would not have enough space to cover what would be in this new addition.  She suggested that Engel Road be closed right at the edge of their property and the neighborhood would use from Westwood and Crescent as part of the neighborhood.  She said they needed the City Commission’s help and guidance on what was once considered a neighborhood low-key student center from becoming a complex that was too intense and too invasive for the neighborhood.

Bob McColl, Lawrence, presented the City Commission with photographs of the neighborhood to give the City Commission a sense of scale.  There were two issues, the size of the center and traffic.  The size of the center would need to be looked at in the photographs to see what the impact would be.   That it was well designed and attractive was a given.  He said the area had a serious traffic problem on Sundays.  Crescent Road was parked on both sides and one car could barely make it through and no emergency vehicle could.  There were already indications from the University that they were more than willing to work with this.  Since 1999, there had been over 24 vehicular accidents, not including bicycles or pedestrians.  He encouraged the City Commission to think before it was approved.  This neighborhood had an incredible amount of expertise and would like to meet with the center. 

Joe Potts, Lawrence, said they moved to this address just two years ago and appreciated the ministry of the St. Lawrence Center.  He said he had not met with other members of his neighborhood before, but was gratified to here some of the comments that he had prepared to make.  He said he had three concerns.  First, they were not opposed to the parking garage, at least the parking garage aspect of this proposal in principal, because they do think it would solve some aspects of the current problems.  He said they were concerned about recent modifications to the original design specifically only one entrance.  There was already a volume and velocity problem on his street.  Students and others, not just persons attending the center, use Engel Road as a high-speed detour around 15^th and Iowa.  With the latest design, they could not see how volume was at all likely not to increase during certain times of the week.  This concerns a lot of people in the neighborhood because of small children.

On the traffic study, he was not sure they were hitting the real point if it did not also measure volume and velocity half-way between 15^th Street and University Drive because that road went downhill and speeds of 60 mph were not unusual on Engel Road and that was an issue that needed to be addressed in any kind of meaningful traffic study of this neighborhood. 

The second concern was that the corner of 15^th and Engel Road was a hazard and as the City addresses the primary item on the agenda, it would be irresponsible if they did not also recognize that any decision made on the parking garage and its design were not also part of solutions to the intersection problem there.   

The third concern was this area being zoned single family, this zoning included the Engel home and St. Lawrence already owned the structure.  He strongly urged the City not to allow that structure to be removed.  They needed to think in long terms and that building represented an important aspect of Lawrence’s history and served to protect the single-family character of the cul-de-sac and the surrounding neighborhood.  It was a cornerstone and protected the integrity of the neighborhood.  He urged the City Commission to deny any request that came their way and to realize this would be an issue that could come up again in future years and urged the City to think ahead to that point.

Bill Mitchell, Lawrence, said the Mayor was quoted in the Journal World as saying he did not believe the occasional tiff between church and neighborhood rises to the point for calling for the review of the zoning ordinance.  He respectfully, but heartedly disagreed.  Churches were allowed in single-family zones because churches were low activity neighborhood oriented uses.  Open Sunday mornings for nearby people to walk to, but churches had changed.  They were now high activity, seven day a week entities, catering to a motoring public.  Churches were given the original and eternal tax abatement.  When that abatement was granted, who imagined the church as land speculator.  In the area around St. Lawrence, there were probably a dozen residential properties which were now church properties paying no taxes.  Some of these were for future St. Lawrence expansion such as the Engel house with its ever increasing and illegal gravel front yard.  It was not good to invade an old established single-family area and create a traffic generator like the St. Lawrence Center.  The zoning ordinance should be changed.  He also said 15^th Street desperately needed to be widened to four lanes from Iowa to Naismith. 

Larry Good, Lawrence, said this has been a wonderful single-family residential environment and should not be changed without careful consideration and planning.  He did not see how they could proceed without a careful study of the whole neighborhood with the movement of vehicles, parking and traffic.

John Stein, Lawrence, said his family had only been in Lawrence for six months.  He said he has heard several issues brought up dealing with potential traffic issues and he said he thought about when they had chosen to live in this neighborhood that they recognized that they were close to the University and that Spencer Drive was a parking lot everyday and carried a lot of traffic.  He said he also saw that every time there was a home football game, not only did he see additional traffic and parking in the neighborhood, but also try to make sure that he did not go anywhere about the time that game was being let out because sometimes the police would not let you go where you want to go as they directed traffic.  He said now the neighborhood was looking at a parking structure that might or might not increase traffic for a couple of hours on a Sunday.  As for the Center’s temporary accommodation, he said he looked at the St. Lawrence Center as a neighbor of his and hoped the City Commission would grant that accommodation because someday he might need to come before the City to request some kind of a temporary accommodation and he hoped his neighbors would support him.  

Joyce Wolf, Lawrence, said she had been involved in this issue from the beginning.  She said the people of St. Lawrence understood that parking was a safety issue for them and the neighborhood.  She said she recalled the controversy of the initial addition of the chapel to the area and a priority was to keep the neighborhood informed about what they were trying to do.  Since then, she was a member of the advisory board and has received quarterly updates on members of the staff meeting with people in the neighborhood.  She said the reconfiguration of Engel Road so it would be further west was one of the issues brought to St. Lawrence from the City.  She said the neighbors did not want this because it probably would have meant the demolition of the Engel house.  In terms of the Pi Phi situation, there were months of negotiations between the sorority and St. Lawrence.  Part of the current parking was reserved for Pi Phi during the week and that was going to be part of the final outcome.  Pi Phi would receive many parking spots in this new parking garage.  The City would not allow St. Lawrence to have a second curb cut on 15^th Street so that was why they tried to work through with using the Pi Phi driveway and they could not come to a consensus agreement.  As a member of this center and as a practicing adult catholic it was truly heartening for her to go to church on Sunday and see the students doing everything that they do.  They were involved in the community and teach and give thousands of hours and were an invaluable assistance to this community.  She said more students would become involved if the center expansion was built.  It would allow them to accommodate more students.  In this day and age, the City needed to encourage that kind of behavior among young people.  

David Nutt, Lawrence, said he was relatively new to the neighborhood and lived almost directly across from the center.  He said his family chose to live in that neighborhood.  He said he has attended a number of meetings about the proposed St. Lawrence Center expansion since moving into the neighborhood and believed folks were sincere when they expressed their personal concerns about the project.  Regarding the traffic issue, the University of Kansas, the student population in the dormitories across from 15^th and Engel and the intersection of 15^th and Iowa which was now a major entrance to the campus were the cause of the traffic problems in that area not the St. Lawrence Center.   In the summer, when most of the students were gone, their neighborhood was a quiet place.

Regarding the proposed expanded parking facility, he believed  it would take parking off the street and thought it would be a benefit.  Regarding the issue of traffic congestion and 15^th and Engel, a couple of times weekly when the St. Lawrence Mass dismisses, he quickly learned that during that 20 minutes a week, he turned east instead of west at the bottom of his driveway. Regarding the building addition, physical appearance and maintenance of the structure in the grounds of the St. Lawrence Center were absolutely superior and immaculate and he was confident the new addition would be just as well maintained. 

Alex Ott, Lawrence, said he has lived in the area for the last 17 years and as a child he grew up riding his bicycle up and down the street and enjoying the small things in life, but his main concern was the safety of all the pedestrians that use Crescent and Engel Road. 

Schumm wanted to clarify some issues that had been raised.  He said Thompson had raised the issue about Pi Phi.  The center originally had entered into a discussion with Pi Phi in which they spent the better part of a year trying to work with their organization to build a larger parking structure.  They would have traded out access through their drive system down the west part of their house and it looked like it was a win/win/win for everyone.  The deal fell apart when St. Lawrence’s benefactors and staff drew up a contract that asked them to be responsible for the renovation of the structure when an overhaul was to be performed.  In every parking structure, in some year between 15 and 25 years a substantial overhaul of the structure was necessary.   Pi Phi did not want to commit to that because they did not know where they would be as an organization in 15 to 25 years.  It put St. Lawrence in the position of having to maintain the space for them forever.  He said his board thought that was not in the best interest of the benefactors of St. Lawrence Center to give them parking spaces in perpetuity.

On the parking lot there were two entrances, one entrance and one egress of the current parking lot.  The center was reducing this to one entrance and exit as a way to reduce the amount of traffic which made it a safer situation. 

Schumm also clarified that the building square footage was 16,300 square feet, however, 5400 square feet of this was basement and a large portion of that was a mechanical room.  The net usable space was approximately 10,000 square feet.  He pointed out the Engel house was having the exterior refurbished.  He said from the center’s perspective, they did not know where they would end up with an expansion and so there was no real incentive to pour money into it.  The center now had focused on the current location and was willing to restore this building.

He said an important point to remember in this whole request was the main generator of the center has not changed and that was the sanctuary.  If you listen to the traffic engineer, what he was saying was there was not much of a new net impact of vehicles because they were not expanding the sanctuary.  If they were expanding the sanctuary, he suggested they would be creating a substantial increase in the amount of trips per day.  He said the center’s goal was to have people at Mass when the Mass service was going on and not having competing operations in another part of the building.  When the church was in session, little activity was occurring in the rest of the building.   

Rundle said the idea that the center would try to program and keep the sanctuary for the educational center as the primary focus was on the site plan.  He said these things seemed almost impossible to enforce.  He asked how they would be able to stick to their primary focus.

Schumm said the way the building was designed, the real traffic generator was the lecture room.  If you have a lecture which used the maximum capacity of seating, it would not be when there was a Mass going on. 

Rundle asked about the agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district and what has been proposed for improving that intersection and how it might play out in terms of a cost share between K.U., St. Lawrence Center and City share.

Wildgen said that intersection had been studied a number of times.    He said the City could not force the University into a benefit district because it was state property.  Wildgen said it was a difficult intersection to try to make substantial improvements. 

Commissioner Dunfield said the way the City portions benefit districts was limited on how the City could charge property owners based on certain state formulas which dealt with area or lineal footage. 

Corliss said front footage or square footage were the methods traditionally used in determining or spreading special assessments.  State law also allowed the City to use other reasonable methods.

Dunfield said it seemed in this case it was clear that the difference between front footage or area and the proportion of traffic generated was significant.  If the City was asking this applicant for an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district how would the City deal with that legitimate concern about their perceived share of a benefit district in this case.                                        

Corliss said it was possible in the agreement with the church to establish certain conditions in terms of total cost.  This would be a benefit district in which the City would also participate or a benefit district in which an equal amount of property elsewhere would participate in a cost limitation or project limitation.  He said he thought it was reasonable to ask the property on the north side of 15^th Street to participate in a benefit district for improvements to 15^th and Engel.

Rundle asked about the north driveway and the proximity to 15^th Street.

Linda Finger, Planning Director said it was her understanding that the traffic engineer, David Woosley, did look at this north driveway and that there were other concerns about loading that intersection from two directions.  Not only would you have traffic coming from the north, but the east. 

Rundle asked why there wasn’t more comment from the applicant’s traffic engineer or the City’s traffic engineer.

Woosley said his comments were limited to what was presented to him on the specific project and not necessarily to the history of problems at 15^th and Engel or any other intersections in the area.  Those problems had existed and would continue to exist until there were major improvements.  His comments were based upon the study that was presented.  He said the one driveway would be approximately half way between the two existing driveways now.  This would allow for traffic further away from the intersection than it currently was.  

Finger commented on the last question Schumm asked concerning whether the center could seed rather than sod.  It was staff’s opinion, because of the temporary use of that property for parking, sod would have a better chance of establishing itself than seed because of the compaction. 

Rundle asked about how much right-of-way did the City have if they wanted to do anything on Engel Road.

Sabatini said there was approximately 15 feet along that right-of-way.  He said as far as widening 15^th Street, the right-of-way was increased when they replatted the property to 40 feet and there was also a 10 foot utility and sidewalk easement that was given in addition for the improvement of 15^th Street.

Rundle stated it was his understanding from earlier discussions with staff that this project meets the City’s planning guidelines and asked if there was any basis for tabling this plan.

Corliss said the City Commission’s ability to deny this site plan was based upon City Code.  The City Code requirements were the basis of the staff report.  Staff looked at what was required for a site plan.  They looked at whether the use was appropriate and then they looked at all the different parameters.  Some of them were objective and some were analytical where the professional’s decided on issues such as traffic.  The ability to deny the site plan then would be based upon the City Commission’s determination that the applicant was not meeting those code requirements.

Finger said there were several code sections that were substantial within what the planning department needed to look at for whether a site plan was acceptable.  These were the compatibility of the land use; the ability to integrate this development based upon its permitted uses; the landscape plan; and, the stormwater factor. The principle elements that were in the site plan review, complied with these sections.

Rundle asked about the parking problems as they were portrayed such as the public safety issue of double parking.  It appeared that the City was looking the other way.

Wildgen said he did not think that was accurate because the City had done some coning and he knew there were cars that were ticketed for blocking the sidewalks. 

Hack asked about Condition No. 7, with the parking mitigation and the concerns that were expressed to her involved parking into the neighborhood even on a temporary basis and that the City should not have this mitigation plan.  She asked how did the City negotiate something like this.    

Finger said what the mitigation plan actually provided was that the applicant would have something to span the gap between the existing use and what was proposed.  Without this plan, it was more of a hunt and search situation.  What the applicant has shown was temporarily using the site that was on the west side of Engel, approximately 55 spaces at that location.  They recognize that they probably have close to 120 cars, so the mitigation plan was saying you need to establish for the City that they have a contractual relationship and provide the means to enable that relationship whether that was getting permission to park at the Lied Center and the ability to transport your congregation back and forth or something else.

Hack said the applicant’s plan indicated some on street parking where it previously had not been allowed.

Finger said staff recommended that was not acceptable because it appeared to be contrary to an agreement reached between parties in this neighborhood to resolve an earlier controversy

Corliss said he found the statute that provided the basis for special assessing state property.  Essentially what it boiled down to was that if the state agreed to be assessed, they would participate.  He said there was an elaborate process of going to the Secretary of Administration and that individual made the determination as to whether or not there was an immediate benefit to the State of Kansas.