April 16, 2002

 

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 Hack presiding and members Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy and Rundle present.  Student Commissioner Raney was present.

With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of April 21 – 27, 2002, to be “National Volunteer Week in Lawrence” and, the week of April 21 – 27, 2002, to be “Crime Victims’ Rights Week.”

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 9, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Lawrence Arts Commission meeting minutes of December 12, 2002 and January 9, 2002; and, the Lawrence Douglas County Public Health Board meeting minutes of February 25, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 317 vendors in the amount of $3,110,826.47.   Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Bambino’s, 1801 Massachusetts (Contingent Upon State License); Paradise Café, 728 Massachusetts (Contingent Upon State License); Tremors Night Club, 279 New Hampshire; and, the Caterer License for Maceli’s Marvelous Meals, 125 East 19^th.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to set a bid date of April 30, 2002 for the 2002 Overlay and Curb Repair Project, Phase 3.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to set a bid date of May 7, 2002 for the 6^th Street, Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive, Mill, Overlay, Pavement Marking Improvements (KLINK).  Motion carried unanimously.                                    (2)

            The City Commission reviewed the bids for 2002 Overlay and Curb Repair program, for Downtown Streets for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to LRM Industries, Inc., in the amount of $190,654.85.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                             (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve a change order for computer hardware, in the amount of $18,500, for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                               (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for construction of the McGrew Nature Trail for the Parks & Recreation Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to the low bidder, BA Green Construction, in the amount of $162,500.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                       (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve purchases for Cable Installation and Technology Infrastructure Improvements for the 947 New Hampshire building and Municipal Court.  Motion carried unanimously.                                (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 7521, rezoning (Z-11-50-00) approximately 144.74 acres, from A (Agricultural District), I-3 (Heavy Industrial District), and RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District), to M-2 (General Industrial District).  The property is generally located between E. 8^th Street and E. 11^th Street, and is the site of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (7)

Ordinance No. 7515, granting Phase II property tax abatement to Allen Press, was read a second time.     As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (8)

Ordinance No. 7517, rezoning approximately 27.9 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), was read a second time.  The property is generally located east of Queens Road, approximately 2300 feet north of West 6^th Street.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.

                                                                                                                                            (9)

Ordinance No. 7518, rezoning approximately 13.4 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District), was read a second time.  The property generally located east of Queens Road, approximately 673 feet north of West 6^th Street.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                 (10)

Ordinance No. 7519, rezoning approximately 12.3 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential District), was read a second time.  The property is generally located east of Queens Road, approximately ¼ mile north of West 6^th Street.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.             (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6375, declaring the vacant lot on the southwest corner of North 8^th Street and Lyon Street environmentally blighted, and ordering the property owner to remove the blight within 20 days. Failure of the owner to comply will result in the City contracting to abate the environmental blight.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                      (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6376, authorizing $400,000 in General Obligation Bond Authority for Public Building Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                 (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-06-02) of approximately 23.48 acres from A-1 (Suburban Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planed Residential District) and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar.  Motion carried unanimously.                                   (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-02-02-02) for The Ridge at Alvamar, approximately 23.48 acres (the property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar), subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Approval of a Traffic Impact Study prior to the submission of a Final Development Plan and that necessary public improvements be included as part of the Final Development Plan;

2.                  Provision of a revised note on the face of the development plan for the driveway detail that states “Driveways provided to residential structures shall provide a minimum setback of 20’ from the street or sidewalk (if one exists) per section 20-1007(E)(1)”;

3.                  Provision of a revised development plan that removes the references that state; “Future pedestrian tail to be installed by the Home Owners Association.” And includes a note that states; “All sidewalk and pedestrian path improvements shall be included in the initial construction phase of the development, prior to occupancy”;

4.                  Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development plan that notes the land use restrictions as follows:

a.                  Uses are restricted to duplex and single-family land uses, excluding commercial and retail uses; and

b.                  Maximum residential density be limited to 5 dwelling unites per acres; and,

5.                  Execution of an agreement not to protest improvements to Clinton Parkway and

            Clinton View Drive Intersection.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (15)

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the annexation (A-02-01-02) request of approximately 59.63 acres generally located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar; 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 Henry, to authorize the initiation of annexation of approximately 40 acres (property donated to the City by Bob and Betty Lichtwardt), located north and west of current City boundaries.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                  (17)

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, reported to the City Commission that the bond sale was rescheduled from April 23^rd to April 30^th because the owners of property along Clinton Parkway would like to pay-off approximately $620,000 in assessment in cash.  As a result, the City would have that cash upfront and would not need to bond as much.  He said it was worth the effort for both the property owner and the City to delay the sale.

            David Corliss, Legal Services Director, presented a staff report concerning City laws governing fireworks.  He said the memo prepared by Casey Liebst, which surveyed other city laws and, Kansas laws, was fairly self-explanatory but he would address any questions from the City Commission or the public. 

            Commissioner Henry asked if bottle rockets are prohibited by State law.

            Corliss said State law prohibits the use of bottle rockets in Kansas.

            Patricia Sinclair, Lawrence, spoke against the use of fireworks by un-licensed private citizens.  She urged the City Commission to take a courageous stand and change the fireworks ordinance to allow only a public display by a licensed company.  She said there is much information available in support of her opinion, both nationally and locally.  There are also resources within our community, people who could be called upon to speak from experience and from an educated background in support of such a ban.  She urged the Commission to not reach a hasty decision to allow fireworks, but instead, to listen to other voices and then make an informed decision that represents public opinion as well as the public good. 

            Sinclair said last year’s fireworks and their negative effects were the worst in recent memory.  Many citizens expressed their outrage with the current City policies and related their personal stories and asked for a ban on fireworks.  She relayed information about her friend’s elderly neighbor who spends his Fourth of July with a garden hose outside his home so to prevent his home from burning down. 

            Sinclair said the City ordinance is unenforceable and no amount of pleading with the community to obey the rules will make it enforceable.  She said in her experience police officers did not know what the ordinance and regulations were.  She said it was not possible to enforce the hours, location, or types of fireworks allowed.  She said fireworks go off at all hours of the day, every week, in her neighborhood.  This disturbs the peace and deprives the public of their right to quiet enjoyment and sleep. 

            Sinclair said the City had a very dangerous Fourth of July last year with multiple fires associated with fireworks, the most serious being, the apartment building on Colorado Street.  According to Fire Chief, Jim McSwain, this fire was seconds from being much worse.  Every time the Fire Department responds to a fire, the public and the firefighters are in danger while the vehicles travel too and from the site, during the course of fighting the fire, and because firefighters and equipment are diverted from other places where they might be needed.  She said she thought this was the year that the City should look at the issue of cost since last year many more firefighters were required to work on the holiday thus costing the City much more in payroll costs. 

            Sinclair said the American Lung Association opposes the use of fireworks and has a lot of information available on their effects on air-quality and on those who suffer from lung disease such as asthma and emphysema.  She said she imagined a lot of these folks could put together a class action law suite against the City for knowing allowing the air quality to endanger their health. 

            Sinclair said many children and adults are injured and killed each year through accidents in handling fireworks and there are national statistics available.  She said we could ask our local emergency room and other doctors who treat eye and other injuries for their personal experiences and opinions.  The National Humane Society and our Local Humane Society oppose fireworks on the grounds that they frighten, injure and kill animals.  Many pets are lost or being frightened by fireworks. 

            Sinclair said she stood in her yard last year with missiles being fired from every side and air so thick with sulfur, that it was hard to breath, she wondered how many birds were injured, killed, or thrown from their nest that evening.  Most of the fireworks remain in the streets, sidewalks and public parks after being discharged.  If they are not swept up, most will end up in the storm sewers and then in our river.

            Sinclair said proponents of the private use of fireworks say it is an expression of patriotism.  She said she did not believe that and had been unable to find the right to set off fire works in the Constitution.  Those who support a ban of fireworks are not necessarily less patriotic. 

            Sinclair said there were several reasons to ban private fireworks in Lawrence, including I health, safety, cost saving, less environmental pollution, cleaner air, less frustration and work for our police department, safety for our domestic and wildlife animals, and peace and rest for those who desire or need it. 

            Marvin Pine, Lawrence, said his family has been selling fireworks for approximately fifty years.  He said he was in sympathy with neighborhoods or neighbors who deal with people who did not use common sense and in many cases, are shooting illegal fireworks, such as bottle rockets. 

            Pine said if you ban fireworks entirely, as long as Missouri and surrounding counties are selling fireworks, you would still have enforcement problems in Lawrence. 

            Pine said he respected the viewpoint of patriotism and obviously there are two sides to this story.  He said the tradition of fireworks originated with Thomas Jefferson.  He said after the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said let every Fourth of July be celebrated with fireworks. 

            Scott Morgan, Lawrence, spoke on behalf of allowing fireworks.  He said we tend to focus on the negative aspects of this issue and do not realize what a big part of our culture it is.  He said he thought it was important to this community and thought there are a lot of good things that come out of it in terms of holidays.  He said he supported the efforts to educate this community.  He said he would ask the school superintendent if they could make it part of their curriculum to educate students in the school systems. 

            Mayor Hack said the reason why she wanted this issue on the agenda was because she had received several letters and e-mail of peoples concerned with fireworks particularly because of recent Fourth of July fires.  She said her intent was not to alter the ordinance as it stands, but to educate people.  She welcomed Scott Morgan’s to educate students in the school system.  She said as the City’s ordinance is difficult to enforce, it would be difficult to enforce a ban.

            Commissioner Rundle said this issue generated a lot of letters and e-mail and for the most part these letters and e-mails supported banning fireworks.  He said for the last ten years he has gone to a 3^rd of July gathering and shot off fireworks and would be giving up his own tradition of almost ten years.  He said, as the City grows, the more we multiply the risk and it is impossible for the police and fire department to respond.  If we don’t ban fireworks this year, he said he thought the years are numbered.  Most large Cities have a ban on fireworks.  He said he would be happy to look at educational efforts, but would want some hard data that these efforts would be effective.  The reason why people don’t follow our ordinance and shoot them off in their residential property was because the streets are safer.  He said he did not know if education would be an effective resource.  He was willing to place this on the agenda to ban fireworks in the future.

            Commissioner Henry said as a child he had a lot of fun with fireworks but it did not take long to figure out that it was expensive and therefore gave them up.  He said he recognized that people do enjoy them.  He questioned why the ordinance allowed for fireworks on July 2, 3^rd and 4^th, when he just heard someone say they enjoyed fireworks on the 4^th of July.  He said he was not sure having an ordinance that was that broad serves the community.  By the same token, he thought there could be a designated area where people could go to light fireworks as was done by other communities.  He concurred with Commissioner Rundle that the City is growing to the point that this is a significant public safety issue.

            Vice Mayor Dunfield, said he grew up with fireworks and enjoyed shooting them off and had a son that worked at a fireworks stand three years in a row.  He said he lived in New York State where fireworks are banned and his family still had good Fourth of July celebrations in New York.  He said there were legitimate concerns, but thought the Commission should not address a ban this year but should take up the issue right after this July 4^th.  He said the Commission also needs to find out more about Douglas County’s position.  Enforceability was going to be a problem whatever was done with fireworks.  If the City had a set of restrictions that were radically different from the County’s set of restrictions, then enforcement becomes an even bigger problem.  He agreed that we need to encourage the public to act responsibly and reasonably with fireworks and see what happens this year and revisit this issue soon after.

            Commissioner Kennedy said he has been around for fifty years shooting off fireworks, but not since he made a trip overseas.  He said he still enjoys the fireworks and thought that everyone else should do their thing in the community if that’s what they desire.  He said he just doesn’t pay attention to them.  He said we, as a community need to be aware this is a safety issue and to make sure everyone acts sensibly and logically.  He did not see this issue being addressed before this 4^th of July. 

            Mayor Hack said what she was hearing was to monitor the issue this year and have the school board distribute information to children. She said we should continue to reinforce the ordinance and take a look at this issue right after the 4^th of July.                                                 (18)

            Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report on the denial of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-06-05-01) for Wakarusa Village, a planned commercial development to be located on the northeast corner of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  The plan proposes 31 retail structures (133,416 sq. ft.) and three restaurant structures (15,000 sq. ft). 

            Roxanne Miller, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the property owners, Carolena Ltd and Henrysflower LLC.   She said they received a lot of assistance from City staff and Commissioner’s in seeing what they could do with this property.  She said the property owners and Bartlett & West spent a lot of time working on the design of this plan and said she thought they did a great job with the guidance of City staff on a variety of issues and has turned out to be a great plan. 

            Miller presented a map of the plan and described the plan’s features.  She said the general design was referred to as a life-style center or a village environment.  The reason  was there was an internal focus to try to put a large amount of parking in to accommodate the highest density use of the property during peak times of year.  It has an internal focus, the parking is spread throughout.  The south side had a longer building.  The buildings will face the inside of the property.  The external or south side of that building is going to have a false front so that it is attractive from the street. There is twice as much landscaping and greenscaping on this plan that is required by the Code so it looks very friendly.  She described a lane that goes through the plan with trees on both sides that gives one a feeling of driving through a lane in the community. 

            Miller said the plan is pedestrian friendly.  There are pedestrian sidewalks all throughout the building and around the fountain.  If you look to the south, the building has an open area so that from 6^th Street you can see through to the fountain.  There is a gazebo and lots of space for people to spend time outdoors.  The building on the north was actually designed much like the town center.  The building on the south side faces the internal part of the development for the pedestrian interaction.  On each side it faces outward and on the north side it faces the school and the Aquatic Center. 

            Miller said there are accommodations for the public transit systems, a bus stop where the bus could pull over to get out of traffic.  Even though the bus may stop at other locations, there was not actually an official bus stop for the transit system at any of the other centers nearby.  She said this was welcomed very warmly by the transit system.

            Miller asked why they received a unanimous denial by the Planning Commission even though everyone agrees that it is a great plan and most everyone has positive things to say about it.  She said she thought it basically came down to the square footage and Horizon 2020 as a guideline.  She said this particular intersection was designated as a Community Commercial Center and that type of commercial center has a maximum square footage, as provided in Horizon 2020, of 450,000 square feet.  This was the issue before the City Commission and the issue that the Planning Commission’s decision was based on.  She said staff has worked through the issues of square footage, but there was still a little bit more work to do.  She said mixed use was one of staff’s recommendations. 

            Miller said there was also an issue about Champion Lane.  She said Champion Lane was shown on this plan as a cul-de-sac.  She said they started out with the recommendation from the City for a cul-de-sac and met with the City and a representative from the School Board and there was a strong view that a cul-de-sac would increase the safety for traffic flow from students and the interaction with retail development as well as a stop light.  They presented information that would work better with the street open and continued to work with the school district.  They ended up conceding on this issue concerning the cul-de-sac.  The fact is they prefer this to be a through street with a roundabout.  After submitting their final traffic study making this adjustment, the City Engineer and City Staff took another look and said it really did work best with the through street if you add a roundabout so the traffic calming devices of a roundabout could keep the flow of traffic at a reasonable and safe speed.  She said they are more than happy to go back and work with the school board to work with this issue.  If they receive the assistance of staff and their traffic engineer, they could help the School District understand why a through street with a round about would work best.

            Miller then discussed the 450,000 square feet maximum and the reasons behind it and how it was supposed to work with other planning principles.  She said she thought it was important to remember that Horizon 2020 had many planning principles especially for Planned Unit Developments.  She said this development addressed almost all of the things that we would like to see as a community in our planned development.  The square footage perimeter is one of the guidelines in Horizon 2020.  She said if you decide that 450,000 square feet of retail at this intersection is the most you want to allow because of the plan what it could then mean is they could put in less retail, but actually put in more buildings than they were proposing.  They could propose several office buildings and multi-family residential apartment buildings and actually end up with more square footage in a more dense development and be within the Horizon 2020 guidelines.  She said she would like the City Commission to consider that Horizon 2020 is an entire document of planning principles that has been presented to the Commission through many hours of community effort and believed if they talked to people in the community, this was the type of development the community had in mind.

            Miller suggested that the Commission can in good conscience approve this plan and fit within the guidelines of Horizon 2020 overall.  She mentioned other options.  One was they had spoken to a public library representative about the possibility of a branch of the public library being located there.  She said as she understood it, the library was interested in looking at leasing 500,000 square feet and they would like to work with them, but are not really able to work with them until they had a developer and a plan approved.

            Miller said another suggestion was an educational facility sharing part of the space.  If the City Commission is not able to approve this plan as presented, they would like to go back to the drawing board and do something that would work.  She said they would like to get guidance on how they would go about this.  She said they had a few ideas that they presented, in fact the Planning Commission, at least mentioned, that there was always a possibility of a Regional Commercial Center at this intersection.  She said they had taken a look at that and have taken an informal poll of people in the community and thought it would be hotly debated and will not be a popular idea with many people.  She said they had presented the idea that if 148,000 square feet is too much, that 48,000 with the current perimeter really isn’t enough for these nineteen acres of property to be a viable development.  She said what they would like the Commission to consider is sending them back to the Planning Commission if they are not able to approve the plan as is and let them process a reconfiguration of development on this property that could be processed in tandem with the five-year update to Horizon 2020 that is underway.  She said to keep in mind this village environment was shown to be successful with projects a little larger than their particular plan.  The smallest one identified was 200,000 square feet, so they have taken a risk of putting together this plan at 148,000 square feet.  The reason why they think they can go much lower than what is out there is because of the vicinity.  Studies have shown that big box developments near this village environment of these life style centers help to make it work.  In addition, any kind of a community use such as the adjacent Aquatic Center would also help make it successful.  If you take a look at this vicinity and how it is developed, it may well be that this small of a village could be successful.

            Commissioner Henry asked why there couldn’t be the same village concept with 100,000 square feet.

            Marilyn Bittenbender, Lawrence, said retail centers have a kind of synergy and developers who take on projects typically have a track record of going to a project of this nature with someone they would have confidence in that they have done this type of project before.  Usually it would be someone who is familiar with the lifestyle center concept and there are a number of developers around the country and even the Midwest who are doing these.   They typically will have relationships with a number of specific retail uses that they had developed over time that work well together.  Without a certain amount of critical mass and the ability to attract shoppers from a certain radius, it just won’t work.  This was why they were taking somewhat of a risk to look at something and try to go to market it to developers at this size.  This is typically smaller than what the smallest center that they had looked at has been. 

            Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said she believed this was a good development plan and would like to thank the applicant for all the work that went in to developing such a good community-friendly design.  She was encouraged that plans such as this one are being submitted for approval by our community, however, at the same time, she said she was also discouraged because of the somewhat narrow, somewhat arbitrary interpretation of Horizon 2020 in this particular instance that caused the Planning Commission to recommend denial of this plan because of the square footage issue.  She said basically there is not an adequate amount of square footage remaining for a community commercial node.  This is also the same community commercial node that was recently rezoned with an approved big box use, something that is clearly not what Horizon 2020 recommends for a community commercial center, yet, for that development, we are able to broadly interpret Horizon 2020 to find a way to allow big box use across the street from this corner.  Henderson said the regional commercial center along South Iowa was at the maximum of square footage at the 31^st and Iowa intersection, yet somehow, we did find a way to be able to rezone almost the northeast corner to make way for Home Depot and additionally to allow it to front onto 31^st Street with a curb cut.  Again, clearly not recommended in Horizon 2020.  She said she has just given the Commission two examples of other ways to interpret the entire Comprehensive Plan.              

            Henderson said there was some discussion of whether this development would conflict with downtown as our primary commercial center.  She said she did not believe it would be in direct conflict with downtown when you consider that we recently annexed approximately 500 acres to the north and west of this intersection with a large part of that to be developed as residential.  These residences will need the kinds of services that this center is designed to provide.  She said she could not see everybody who lives out in that area driving downtown all the time to do that particular kind of shopping and as we grow, we need to consider, where are we going to have services for the residents. 

            Henderson said she disagreed with the recent comment that was made by Planning Commissioner Chair, Ron Durflinger, that “timing was everything”.  She said she believed that “planning” is everything.  She said they did plan appropriately for this intersection and this development plan fits within the confines of that plan.  She said here we are with the kind of development plan with features that the community has been asking for.

            Henderson said it was not clear to her when we follow Horizon 2020 and why and when we don’t and why or when we broadly interpret Horizon 2020 or when we narrowly interpret Horizon 2020.  She said she believed the City needed to find consistency with our land use decisions.  To not approve this development plan would seem to her to be a textbook example of appearing to be business unfriendly, especially with the recent approvals and the broad interpretations of Horizon 2020 for Home Depot and the northwest intersection of this particular intersection.

            Joanne Garrett, co-owner of Great Harvest Bread Company supported the denial of the plan.  She said it was in direct conflict with downtown businesses.  The downtown layout is a village concept.  She had a problem with the plan being presented as an aesthetic addition to Lawrence.  Gazebos, winding paths, landscaping, and a library branch possibly some kind of connection with the High School for an educational facility.  If the owners of this property want to present it this way, she suggested they donate the land to the City so a park, library and whatever other facilities are needed could be developed on this property.  She said she did not think we need this type of shopping area at this time.

            Commissioner Rundle asked staff, since the Commission does not look at final development plans, if this is approved the only reason why they would see this again would be if there was some substantial change and asked what constitutes “substantial change.”

            Bryan Dyer said the City Commission only sees the Preliminary Development Plans and not the final plan.  He explained substantial change by reviewing what happened with the Home Depot project.  He said the applicant came back with a different plan and presented it to the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission looked at square footage and layout and made a determination that it was substantially different from the plan that was denied.  He said there is nothing in the Code that defines substantial change

            Commissioner Rundle asked what would happen if the plan was approved but it failed to develop.

            Dyer said if this planned is approved tonight, and they wanted to change it, they would have to make a substantial change to the plan.

            Mayor Hack asked if the Planning Commission would determine what a substantial change would be?

            Dyer said again, with the Home Depot project, the Planning Commission made a determination that it was substantially different, therefore, that allows the applicant to submit the application to the Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission treats the plan as a regular Preliminary Development Plan.

            Commissioner Rundle said this was a very unsatisfying position to be in.  He said he did not vote for the larger acreages that were rezoned and did feel they were clearly out of line with Horizon 2020.  He said he tries very hard to be consistent with his approach to planning and has spoken about the City Commission trying to adhere to these planning documents which are, whenever it seems to serve the Planning Commission, a flexible guide.  He said the scale of this development is appropriate for this corner.  This corner was already zoned and it is very difficult to look at this opportunity and see it disappear when it is such a good proposal and appropriate for this corner.  He echoed Melissa Henderson’s questions of why the Planning Commission does not follow the plan in some cases and in this case is very strict in applying their denial.  He said even though it opens him up to comments of being inconsistent he was prepared to approve this plan because he hates to see this opportunity slip away for something that would be a great asset and serve the newly developing area.

            Commissioner Kennedy said Horizon 2020 needs to be amended to increase this property.  He said he was the one that asked for some type of educational center at this location.  His vision of seeing how this corner could incorporate some really nice uses and complements the City’s new high school in this area.  He said hopefully someone with the funding could join in with this development and improve our continuing education programs that are needed for our trades. 

            Kennedy said, as most people know, he generally found the Planning Commission to be on track and working hard to ensure they bring workable developments to the City.  This intersection will be the largest intersection in town in approximately 4 years.  It will be capable of holding a lot more cars and we will have continued growth in the northwest corridor.  He believed it would be mandatory for the City Commission to amend Horizon 2020 to change it from a commercial community center to a regional commercial center with the possibility of increasing square footage for commercial and retail use.  He said Horizon 2020 is a planning instrument and it has been flexible at times and thought the Planning Commission has addressed each one of these issues and has taken it upon themselves to try to make the Horizon 2020 Plan work the best they could for the community.   

            Mayor Hack said she thought this was a very good plan with the lifestyle center of the village environment and appreciated the work that has been done.  She said she is fully aware of the hard work the Planning Commission does and their logic for recommending denial of this plan; however, she supported this plan as it existed. 

            Vice Mayor Dunfield said he was not able to support this plan.  He said he hated to throw cold water on something that obviously has shown a degree of vision of planning that goes beyond what we see in a typical shopping center proposal.  He said we need to expand the vision a little more and discuss the larger implications that go beyond the particular site.  There are some positives and negatives as we do that and as we look at the bigger picture.  He said Marilyn Bittenbender’s comments about synergy were particularly appropriate because we really wouldn’t be looking at a center of this type at the square footage it is if it were not for the fact that we have already approved the big box store across the other side of Wakarusa.  There is synergy there in a sense that they are not talking about just a nineteen acre piece of land, but a whole intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa and the fact that we have a great deal of retail space already developed and approved the big box store along the northwest corner as well.  This is not a village by any means in the sense of a self-contained unit, it is something that relies on the traffic that is generated by all of the other uses around it.  The vehicular traffic is one of the reasons why looking at numbers is important.  The numbers are not entirely arbitrary.  The fact that the number of people trying to get in and out of that intersection affects how well the intersections works and how well our high school students are able to get in and out of their school and how well the neighbors are able to get in and out of their houses.  We do have to look at the larger picture beyond what does seem to be a nicely focused well thought out 19-acre parcel.  There are some good things this potential development could bring to that area as well.  He said he thought Champion Lane being allowed to go through to the next street was a good thing and would help relieve congestion in and out of the high school.  There is demand for the kinds of services that might be provided in the center of this sort that could be helpful to the neighbors in a growing area. 

Dunfield said, on balance, we need to ask the applicant to do a couple of things which were to show a more comprehensive view of how this development fits into what’s already there and what is proposed in the area and also the tract east of Champion Lane should be incorporated into a vision of how all of this village begins to work together.  He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable overruling a unanimous Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendation on this project at this time. 

            Commissioner Henry said he has been struggling with this type of issue for some time.  He said he agonized over the 6^th and Wakarusa, northwest corner along with the Home Depot project and when he voted for those, he felt that the Commission was not throwing Horizon 2020 out the window.  He said there are elements within Horizon 2020 particularly the acreage and square footage that are not being exceeded and would need to go back and look at it and felt comfortable at that time.  He said he did not believe that we should go ahead and disregard a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission and Planning Staff.  He said this issue needs to be tabled and amend Horizon 2020, not necessarily to amend it to make this a regional commercial center, but look at the square footage for community commercial center to see if 450,000 square feet is limiting for a community commercial center.     

            Commission Rundle asked if staff could explain the difference between a Regional Commercial Center and a Community Commercial Center.

            Dyer said both of these centers had definitions within Horizon 2020 in regards to acreages and square footages and specifically the area that a Regional and Community Commercial Center is to serve.  Regional Commercial Centers serve an area outside the community, for example, Douglas County.  A Community Commercial Center is the next size down and that is why the acreage is smaller.  Horizon 2020 designates a number of intersections that could possibly be Community Commercial Centers.  It specifically states that there should be no other Regional Commercial Centers during the planning period.

            Commissioner Rundle asked, in terms of uses, if the big box use is generally considered a Regional Commercial Center or a Community Commercial Center  

            Dyer said the big box uses are specifically called out for in Horizon 2020 and are to be for Regional Commercial Centers.

            Commissioner Rundle said he completely respected everyone’s views.  He said what has happened was the Planning Commission has changed Horizon 2020 by their decision by allowing big box uses in this area.  They basically tipped the scales toward this being a Regional Commercial Center.  He said the City is amending the plan we’re just not having the public process and public hearings to do that.  Rundle moved to approve the Preliminary Development Plan.  There was no second.

            Mayor Hack asked staff what the Commission’s options were.  She asked if it was denied did it need to come back with a substantial change or wait a year and she also asked if the Commission tables the issue was there a limit.

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said there was no real timeline, but the property owner would want a date.  He said with three votes you could override and you did not need to have a super majority.

            Commissioner Rundle said if the Commission did send it back, would the property owner need to start over.

            Dyer said the City Commission could send it back to the Planning Commission with your suggestions on how they should re-evaluate the plan.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if initiating a rezoning is an option. 

            Dyer said it is conditionally zoned commercial.  The first and second reading for the rezoning ordinance to rezone it to commercial has not occurred.

            Commissioner Kennedy said he appreciated Commissioner Henry’s and Vice Mayor Dunfield’s suggestion to send it back to the Planning Commission to find out what is going to happen to this other parcel of land.  We have Tract one and Tract two.  Tract two is 25 acres larger and could possibly be developed as apartments or maybe office space.  This could become just as intense with the amount of traffic that may occur.  He said with Vice Mayor Dunfield’s suggestion, the Commission could ask the Planning Commission what would happen on Tract two, which would actually plan in favor of Tract one being the commercial center that it is right now with an amendment to Horizon 2020 adjusting the square footage on commercial or retail to accommodate some kind of square footage in that area.

            Commissioner Rundle asked what is the zoning on Tract two.

            Dyer said Tract two retains its County agricultural zoning.

            Mayor Hack asked if there was a motion to approve the Preliminary Development Plan.

            (No response)

            Mayor Hack asked if there was a motion to table the Preliminary Development Plan.

            Commissioner Henry moved to table the Preliminary Development Plan.

            Commissioner Rundle asked the applicant if this is workable and if it could be expanded to include both tracts.

            Roxanne Miller said “yes” and asked for clarification.  She said they are willing to put together a concept plan for the 25 acres.  At this point, there is no developer for this land.  She said putting together two blind development plans did not make a lot of sense.  She said they are willing to put together a concept plan to show the Commission what they had in mind and to include many of the things that were discussed tonight.  She asked to clarify the motion to table the Preliminary Development Plan and are they being sent back to the Planning Commission with the idea that they will reconfigure the plan and the Planning Commission would review it after the reconfiguration and after the five year update to Horizon 2020 was ready to go.

            Commissioner Henry said he understood that Horizon 2020 was in the process of being amended and asked if there was a timeline.

            Dyer said there was no definite timeline.  There is a Comprehensive Plan Committee that is made up of Planning Commissioners who are reviewing that section of the plan right now.   There have been a number of initial drafts that had been done for the initial part chapter, but there was no set timeline.  He said he would hope by the end of the summer they would have something back.  There are still a number of issues within the Comprehensive Plan Committee that they have not resolved.

            Miller asked if the commercial chapter could be passed on its own, or did the entire document get reviewed at the same time.

            Dyer said the intent was to move forward with only the commercial chapter.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if Dyer could explain what the options are for the applicant in terms of tabling versus denial.

            Dyer said the denial would not allow the applicant to bring back this same plan within a year.  They could bring it back with a significant change to the plan and ask the Planning Commission to make a determination.  If the Planning Commission determines the plan is substantially different then they could start the process all over again without waiting a year.  Another option is to send it back to the Planning Commission with some suggestions for how the plan may be modified. 

            Dyer said as for the tabling suggestion, he assumed that meant the plan would stay with the City Commission until such time as the City Commission wished to address it again. 

            Wildgen said there would not be any action other than placing it aside and that would leave the plan in limbo.

            Miller suggested either sending it back to the Planning Commission and giving them some guidance on how to change it or tabling it until the five year update to Horizon 2020.  At that time, they could present a concept plan for the twenty-five acres, but she did not know what the City Commission’s preferred.

            Mayor Hack said tabling the Preliminary Development Plan would allow Miller to work more with the library and vocation/technical school ideas.

            Dyer said tabling the plan freezes the plan.  When it is un-tabled the plan will be what you see tonight. 

            Commissioner Henry withdrew the motion to table the Preliminary Development Plan.

            Commissioner Rundle asked about the concept plan.

            Dyer said a concept plan would not be a Preliminary Development Plan.  The plan would be additional information for the City Commission.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if the additional information would give guidance, if the City Commission did send it back to the Planning Commission.

            Miller said they could do that all at once.  If they go back to the Planning Commission, they could probably do everything at once.  She said they could make an adjustment to the plan if they needed to and do a concept plan for twenty-five acres.

            Commissioner Henry said he would like to see a concept plan along with Horizon 2020 amended to increase the square footage.  He said he would also like to see a concept plan that included an educational facility and a satellite branch library.        

            Vice Mayor Dunfield said a motion to deny the Preliminary Development Plan would be a way of saying that the City Commission thinks this plan requires substantial change in order to meet approval.  He said given the Planning Commission’s decision, he thought this was the appropriate step for the City Commission to take at this point.  He said, as the Commission has seen with numerous developments in the past, a denial did not kill the project; it simply requires a new planning process and a substantial change to the new design.

            Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Henry, to deny the Preliminary Development Pan (PDP-06-05-01) for Wakarusa Village.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Rundle.  Motion carried.                                                                                                                              (19)

            Julie Wyatt, Neighborhood Resources Environmental Inspector presented a staff report on the status of the repairs at 1307 Brook, which was previously declared unsafe and dangerous and ordered repaired or removed by March 12, 2002.  Wyatt reviewed the recent history of the property.  She said the property owner was given notice of violation for a substandard building.  On February 8, 2002, the property owner secured a rehabilitation permit.  Framing work on the inside and some siding has been done.  The basement window has been boarded up and the door has been secured.  She said she believed the structure was secure at this time, however, she felt the property owner has not met the deadline of repairing or removing the structure by March 12. 

            Wyatt said she has had recent discussions with the property owner in regards to the repair or removal.  The owner said the failure to meet the deadlines was due to weather and health concerns.  She said she knew the property owner wanted to repair the structure and there are volunteers to help do some of the work.  She said it was her understanding that the exterior of the house would be started within the next couple of weeks.  She asked the City Commission if they wanted to continue to allow the property owner the time to work on the structure or did they feel it was a more urgent issue to be addressed.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if all the workers are volunteers or did she hire a carpenter.

            Vice Mayor Dunfield asked Wyatt if “unsafe and dangerous” was a particular term that is tied to the City’s ordinance and indicated a structure that has real serious concerns for the safety of the public.  With this property now being secured and the property is not accessible, would it be reasonable to say “unsafe and dangerous” was no longer the term that the City wanted to apply to this structure.

            Wyatt said she believed that this would be correct at this time.  It is still a structural blight issue and needs to be pursued in that fashion.  She said in her opinion as long as it is secured and the siding has been placed on all the lower levels of the structure, she did not think anyone could get into the building unless it was vandalized.

            Vice Mayor Dunfield said the City’s history with dealing with blight as opposed to unsafe and dangerous structures tends to be to allow more time and more flexibility in terms of giving the owners the opportunity to get these types of repairs made.

            Wyatt agreed.  She said staff tries to work with property owners as long as they have a contractor or someone lined up to make the repairs.

            Brent Crouse, son of the property owner, said they are going to put up more siding on the house and that was there basic plan of action.

            Commissioner Kennedy asked him to submit some type of a construction schedule.

            Wildgen said staff could submit a progress update memo within 90 days.                    (20)

Frank Reeb, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk presented a staff report on expected increases for the building/property insurance and the separate policy insuring the Fire/Medical emergency vehicles.  Reeb stated both policies are with CNA insurance and Charlton Manley is the broker for both policies.  He introduced Darrell Robertson, the City’s broker with Charlton Manley.  Reeb stated Administrative Services expected a 30-50% increase for the building/property insurance and 25% increase in the emergency vehicles policy when they both renew in July 2002.

            Reeb presented a spreadsheet showing several categories of properties covered in the building/property coverage.  He indicated the City now had over $150,000,000 in insured property.  He said almost 50% of the property was Utilities property, approximately 30% was general city properties, such as City Hall, the Library and the parking garages, and about 15% were Parks & Recreation properties. 

            Reeb stated the expected increases were due to several factors.  He said the events of September 11^th were partly to blame but the biggest factor was because of low investment yields, which meant that carriers are tightening underwriting practices.  Low investment yields mean that insurance companies cannot make up losses with investment income so they have to be more selective in the risks they accept.  He also stated increases were due to the fact that the City was adding more property to the policy.  He said when the policy was renewed in July 2001 the total insured value was about $135,000,000.  Since then the City has added the Indoor Aquatics Center, the new parking garage and the new Arts Center.  Reeb said the claims history with this policy was very good so if there was some good news it was that the expected increases are not as bad as they could have been if we had filed several claims against the policy.  Reeb also said that the expected increase of 30-50% was not as bad as some local municipalities and stated Topeka experienced an 80% increase and Shawnee County experienced a 30% increase. 

            Reeb also provided background on the Fire/Medical emergency vehicles coverage.  He said this coverage only included Fire/Medical emergency vehicles.  The other City vehicles are self-insured.  He said 18 vehicles are covered including ambulances, ladder trucks, and pumper trucks.  He said the policy is similar to an auto policy that people may have to insure personal autos.  He said the expected increases were partly due to the insurance market in general the same as the property insurance.  However, another factor was that the City filed several claims on this policy in recent years and that was driving up the cost.

            Reeb said staff was working to minimize the expected increases.  He said Charlton Manley was already marketing the coverages.  In addition, he said staff was working on a property audit to make sure the property values were accurate and that all properties that should be on the policy actually are.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if the new Arts Center was included in the total insured property. 

Reeb said yes.  He pointed out, while the Arts Center was covered, the total premium of $67,137 did not include the amount for the Arts Center coverage since it was added so recently.

Rundle said he was interested in staff research on the comprehensive drivers’ safety program referenced in the memorandum.

Reeb said that staff was reviewing implementing such a program.  He said insurance companies would like to see it and it would help with both the insured vehicles and the City’s self-insured vehicles.                                                                                                              (21)

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Kennedy, to recess into executive session at 8:25 for 30 minutes to discuss the possible acquisition of real property with the justification for the executive session is to keep possible terms and conditions confidential at this time.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (22)

                The City Commission returned from executive session at 8:55 p.m.

After returning from executive session, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 9:05 p.m.   Motion carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    APPROVED:

                                                                        _____________________________

Sue Hack, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2002

1.                  Bid Date Set – 2002 Overlay & Curb Repair Project, Phase 3.

2.                  Bid Date Set – 6^th, Monterey Way to Wakarusa – Mill, Overlay & Pavement Marking, May 7, 2002. 

3.                  Bid – 2002 Overlay & Curb Repair to LRM for $190,654.85.

4.                  Change Order – Computer Hardware for $18,500 for Wastewater Treatment Expansion Project.

5.                  Bid – McGrew Nature Trail to BA Green for $162,500.

6.                  Purchase – Cable Installation & Technology Infrastructure Improvements for 947 New Hampshire Bldg & Municipal Ct.

7.                  Ordinance No. 7521 – 1^st Reading, Rezone (Z-11-50-00) 144.74 acres, A, I-3 & RS-2 to M-1, E of Queens approx 2300’ N of W 6^th.

8.                  Ordinance No. 7515 – 2^nd Reading, Tax Abatement, Phase II, Allen Press.

9.                  Ordinance No. 7517 – 2^nd Reading, 27.9 acres, A to RS-2, E of Queens, 2300’ N of W 6^th.

10.              Ordinance No. 7518, 2^nd Reading, 13.4 acres, A to RM-D, E of Queens, 673’ N of W 6^th. 

11.              Ordinance No. 7519, 2^nd Reading, 12.3 acres, A to PRD-2, E of Queens, ¼ mile N of West 6^th.

12.              Resolution No. 6375 – Vacant Lot, SW corner of N 8^th & Lyon St, environmentally blighted.

13.              Resolution No. 6376 – GOB, $400,000 for Public Bldg Improvements.

14.              Rezone – (Z-02-60-02) 23.48 acres, A-1 to PRD-1, N of Clinton Pkwy & W of Lake Alvamar.

15.              Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-02-02-02) The Ridge at Alvamar, 23.48 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy & W of Lake Alvamar.

16.              Annexation – (A-02-01-02) 59.63 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy & W of Lake Alvamar.

17.              Annexation – 40 acres, N & W of current City boundaries.

18.              Fireworks – Discussion.

19.              Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-06-05-01) Denied, Wakarusa Village, W 6^th & Wakarusa.

20.              Unsafe & Dangerous Structure – 1307 Brook.

21.              City Insurance Issues.

22.              Executive Session – Possible Land Acquisition.