June 18, 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 Commissioners Dunfield, Rundle, Henry, and Kennedy present. 

Mayor Hack recognized 19 Lawrence students who will be visiting our Sister City Hiratsuka, Japan in July.

Cassandra Baldwin, Special Projects Officer, KDHE, presented a report concerning a joint effort between the Neighborhood Resources Department and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment on a lead based paint education pilot program.  She said they were trying to spread awareness and educational material to contractors and remodelers in Lawrence and in Douglas County regarding the Pre-Renovation Education Rule which was a State regulation that requires contractors renovating a home built before 1978 to inform the homeowner that there could be a lead hazard.  The main concern was to prevent childhood lead poisoning.  She said of all the Children in Kansas who were exposed to lead poisoning 42 percent were exposed from some form of renovation or remodeling.

Mayor Hack recognized Sue Neustifter, the retiring Douglas County Register of Deeds.  She will be honored at a reception on June 21, 2002, from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. at the Douglas County Court House.  The City will present her with framed artwork of the Douglas County Court House.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 11, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 22, 2002 and May 29, 2002; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of June 3, 2002; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 8, 2002; and, the Public Health Board meeting minutes of April 15, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 362 vendors in the amount of $1,443,456.03 and payroll from June 2, 2002 to June 15, 2002 in the amount of $1,298,256.43.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda,it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Jefferson’s Restaurant, 743 Massachusetts; Royal Crest Lanes, 933 Iowa; and, the Retail Liquor License for Harper Corner Liquor Store, 2220 Harper, Suite C.  Motion carried unanimously.

            The City Commission reviewed the bids for The Masters at Alvamar and Sigma Nu Place, Concrete Street Repair and Storm Sewer Improvements for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to award the bid to Graybeal Construction Co., in the amount of $124,065.50.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to set a bid date of July 2, 2002 for 21^st Street, Stewart Avenue to Naismith Drive Storm Sewer Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                 (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-07-02) of approximately 2.02 acres, from RS-1 (Residence Single Family District) to RS-2 (Residence Single Family District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is located at 1829 Riverridge Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-12-02) of approximately 4.64 acres, from RS-1 (Residence Single Family District) to RS-2 (Residence Single Family District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is located at 1819 Riverridge Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-08-02) of approximately 14.36 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located south and west of Wakarusa Drive (extended northward) and east of East 1000 Road (Queens Road).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-09-02) of approximately .025 acres, from RS-2 (Residence Single Family District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located south and west of Wakarusa Drive (extended northward) and east of East 1000 Road (Queens Road).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                      (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-10-02) of approximately 2.09 acres, from PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District) to RS-2 (Residence Single Family District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located south and west of Wakarusa Drive (extended northward) and east of East 1000 Road (Queens Road).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                      (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the annexation (A-04-05-02) request of approximately 23.20 acres of land north of Clinton Parkway and south and west of Lake Alvamar (formerly known as Yankee Tank Lake); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                         (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-11-02) of approximately 37.09 acres, from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District) to RS-E (Residence Single Family District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and south and west of Lake Alvamar (formerly known as Yankee Tank Lake); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                               (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield,to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-10-02) for The Sanctuary at Lake Alvamar, a 23-lot residential subdivision.  The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and south and west of Lake Alvamar (formerly known as Yankee Tank Lake; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Publication of the rezoning (Z-04-11-02A to RS-E) prior to recording the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;

2.                  Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following notes:

 

a.                  “A variance to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 1000’ in length was approved by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2001 [PP-12-21-01]”;

b.                  “Direct access from Lots 1-3, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 and Tract A to Clinton Parkway is prohibited”;

 

3.                  Provision of a revised Final Plat to include a table to list and identify the MEBO’s for each lot adjacent to a drainage easement per section 21-301.5(b);

4.                  Provision of a revised Final Plat to graphically show access restrictions along Clinton Parkway;

5.                  Provide a legend on the face of the plat to identify what L/E, U/E a, P/E and D/E mean;

6.                  Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;

7.                  Execution of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection improvements for Clinton Parkway and Sanctuary Drive;

8.                  Pining of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;

9.                  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 Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request for a “stop sign” on Oxford Road at Sunset Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.                                         (11)

As part of the consent agenda,it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the south side of 9^th Street, west of Tennessee Street and to mark the area for a right turn lane.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                (12)

Commissioner Dunfield requested that the approval of an agreement with GLPM architects in the amount of $16,500 for architectural evaluation of Carnegie Library Building be pulled from the consent agenda for a separate vote.  He said because GPLM is his architectural firm he would abstain from the vote on the agreement.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to approve the agreement with GLPM architects in the amount of $16,500 for architectural evaluation of Carnegie Library Building.  Aye:  Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle.  Nay:  None.  Abstain:  Dunfield.  Motion carried.  (13)

                Following his request to remove the issue from the consent agenda, Commissioner Kennedy commented on the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to deny the request to remove the pedestrian refuge islands on Louisiana Street.  He said the reason why there were pedestrian islands on Louisiana Street was because it was requested by numerous neighborhoods in order to reduce traffic speeds on Louisiana Street.  

            Commissioner Dunfield, speaking as a bicyclist who, on occasion, rides on Louisiana Street, asked motorists to understand that the road is to be shared among them and when the road narrows for a pedestrian island motorists should wait for the bicyclist to go through that narrowed area near the island.

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the unanimous recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to deny the request to remove the pedestrian refuge islands on Louisiana Street.   Motion carried unanimously.                                                                     (14)

Following her request to remove the adoption of Resolution 6391 from the consent agenda, Jane Eldredge, an attorney representing Rubinstein Real Estate the contract purchasers for the property at issue, said she received the proposed resolution and legal description just yesterday.  She said her client was asking for a one-week deferment on this issue so the legal descriptions can be verified. 

Dan Watkins, an attorney representing the developer, said he visited with Eldredge about the request for a one-week deferment.  He said his client believed they should move ahead with the project.  The resolution only starts the process in motion for setting up the ordinance for condemnation.   He said they believed the legal descriptions had been refined and reflected what exactly is needed.  He said the contract purchaser is fully aware of what is going on and the City plans to work with them on trying to come to a resolution, short of condemnation, but they need to be in a position where construction can take place this construction season which means they need to be in a position with the City to acquire that property if an acquisition agreement can’t be negotiated.   He said they would not like to see any slippage in this schedule if they are going to get the project done.  He asked the Commission not to delay this project, but to pass the resolution at this time and proceed with the ordinance.  In the meantime, City staff and the applicant will be meeting with the new property owners to try to work this out.

Commissioner Kennedy asked Watkins if the engineers felt confident that the area they had designated for condemnation was what was planned originally.

Watkins said there had been some changes and refinements such as installing a light to serve both the K-mart property and the Post Office and a deceleration lane.  He said City staff had been working hard to try to make sure these improvements benefit these properties.  He said there have been a lot of refinements.  He said hopefully it will not need any more refinement, but if it did, in order to accommodate the property owner, he said he was sure those refinements would be done.

Commissioner Rundle asked David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, if it was necessary for the resolution to precede the ordinance, or if they could be done simultaneously.

Corliss said the resolution could be adopted with the ordinance, but it could not follow the ordinance.  The City’s traditional process was to adopt the resolution followed by the first and second reading of the ordinance.  He said essentially, the contract purchasers for the property, who are hoping to close on the property in July, would then have an opportunity next week and again the following week, if they still had concerns about the legal descriptions.  He was optimistic that they would be able to come to some resolution on the acquisition, changing the design of the project, or whatever was necessary to meet both the City and property owner’s interests.  

Commissioner Rundle asked if it would be possible to adjust the documents if the contract purchaser had some exceptions.

Corliss said yes.  Staff could adjust those documents if they needed to be amended.

Eldredge pointed out that she was just engaged yesterday and she asked if the contract purchaser knew that this resolution was on the agenda.  She said they were not aware it was on the agenda. She said she telephoned to get a copy of the resolution and it was not yet ready.  The resolution was ready in the afternoon and it was provided then.  She said the resolution and the ordinance could clearly be done at the same time.  She said it seemed to her that it was not reasonable to say that a week was a significant problem in a project that has been approximately 3 ½ years in the making when the new players are not slowing down the process at all.  She said the legal descriptions were not available at the time the agenda was handed out for review.  She said this was not a problem the contract purchaser caused, they were just asking for a reasonable opportunity to look at them.  She said when she has worked on legal descriptions on other matters they had wanted to make sure all the parties were in agreement.

Mayor Hack asked Eldredge if her only issue was the legal descriptions.

Eldredge said yes.  She said they need time to verify the legal descriptions and to get the current plans and then if the Commission were dealing with the resolution and ordinance at the same time, the City would be on the same track as they would if the resolution was adopted now.

Corliss said staff has done everything in their power to work with the current property owner.  The current property owner has been well advised about the project and had representatives at the meetings to discuss the project.  He said the applicants for the project, the Home Depot purchasers, are anxious to ensure that all the necessary rights-of-way and easements are being acquired.  Unfortunately, their design consultant was unable to get staff the final legal descriptions until last week.  The resolution was prepared last week and took some for final review time because he was in meetings last week but it wasn’t prepared after she called.  He said staff has known the legal descriptions since last week and the project is currently out to bid.  He said Home Depot is currently shopping the plans with contractors to get started with construction in July.  He said to some extent time was of the essence.  He said he did not say they would not find problems with the legal description, the City may find a problem.  He said the representatives from Home Depot asked that the Commission initiate the condemnation process on this property so that the project could get started because they were concerned that the property was in transition and if the current property owner is unable to enter into a dialogue with staff in order to acquire the property, then it is in a transition state until it is closed.  He said different people have different roles, but we all have the same goal, which is to build a good facility and to accommodate the Malan/Rubinstein tract until all the development plan requirements are in on time.

Commissioner Rundle asked if this could work if the City adopted the resolution and first reading of the ordinance simultaneously.

Corliss said the hardship is on the Home Depot side knowing is everything in place so they can do some of the things they want to do.

Commissioner Kennedy said the resolution should be started at this time and in the process make sure staff has all the correct legal descriptions.  He said by the Commission adopting this resolution at this time, it’s not impacting the new buyers because they are still in a transition period. 

Corliss agreed.  He said Watkins could comment on the needs and perceptions on the part of Home Depot and their landlord as far as getting the necessary public improvements.  He said this is a partnership that was unique in the sense of how we are going to build these public improvements.  Staff is committed toward putting in the necessary work to make sure it is accomplished on time, but it is going to be a challenge.  At their suggestion, staff has prepared this resolution. 

Watkins said the bankers were performing their due diligence and there will be a closing ten days from now.  If the resolution is not adopted this week, it creates doubt and holds the process up.  He said the resolution is not an irreversible action it’s just a step along the way.  He said the Planning staff wrote a letter finalizing the approval of the Final Development Plan.  He said this was one step along the way.

Commissioner Rundle asked Watkins if the Commission moved to defer for one week with the understanding that the Commission was going to consider the ordinance on first reading simultaneously with the resolution would that give enough reassurance to whoever had a concern.

Watkins said it accomplishes the same thing but the signal is it might not happen next week.  If there are legitimate reasons to delay this project they could be determined in the next week and that would be the appropriate time to do it.

Commissioner Rundle said he did not understand the “signal” that the Commission would be sending.  He said it seemed the Commission was sending a strong “signal” that they would have the ordinance and the resolution on next week’s agenda.

Watkins said Eldredge was retained yesterday.  He said her clients sent her in with a contract to purchase the property a considerable time before.  Malan has a duty to forward this information to them.  He said he was sure this was not new and was sure they were familiar with the refinements.  Again, it is the same net affect, but you have a lot of people out there to get final closures on KDOT permits, City building permits, contracts for the roadway, and many other things.  He said they did not anticipate a delay.  

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry,to adopt Resolution No. 6391, authorizing the survey and condemnation of certain property interests adjacent to 31^st Street (Malan Realty).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (15)

Commissioner Rundle said the Commission wanted to send the same reassuring signal to Eldredge’s client that the Commission would be sensitive to any concerns they have about the legal descriptions.

During the City Manager’s report Mike Wildgen reported that representatives from Black & Veatch would like to meet with the City and County Commissions and the Planning Commission to discuss regulatory issues that impact the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan Project.                                                                                                                                  (16)

Mayor Hack briefly outlined the discussion process before the public comment of the initiation of rezoning for Agricultural zoned properties in the West 6^th Street and Folks Road vicinity.  She said this has been an issue that has generated a lot of conversation and controversy.  She said all parties involved need to remember that this is a land-use issue and comments must be directed to that issue.  She said the Commission would not have comments directed to the neighborhood, property owner, developer, or the Planning Commission.  She said there are two issues for discussion.  The first issue was consideration of initiation of rezoning and second was the deferral of taking action on two additional pieces of property.  She asked that comments be directed to those points only.  She said an individual could discuss both issues at the same time during the public comment period.  She said the Commission values input from all interested parties, but input needs to be done in a civilized and respectful manner.

Brian Pedrotti, Planner, said there was an original zoning of the entire property from A (Agricultural District) to RO-1B (Residence-Office District).  The Planning Commission directed staff to look at concept plans for the rest of the area that was zoned A (Agricultural).  After looking at concept plans, staff came back with other options.  The Planning Commission then recommended a split zoning of the property, rezoning the northern 348 feet to RO-1B and rezoning the southern 612 feet as PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) subject to the following conditions:

1.                  An overall density of the south PRD portion of 10 units to the acre;

2.                  Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan within 18 months; and,

3.                  The density of units abutting the west and south would be the same as the Moundridge neighborhood to the west.

 

            Pedrotti said a protest petition was timely filed by the owners of 46% of the property within the notification area and only 20% was needed, therefore it was a valid protest petition. He said pursuant to a zoning ordinance zoning approval now requires at least 4 of the 5 Commissioners to vote in favor of the rezoning.  He also said the applicant has requested a deferral until August 27, 2002 at which time he would present a Preliminary Development Plan.

            Dan Pennington, Lawrence, said he was glad to hear the Mayor indicate that this is a land-use issue because most of the people in that neighborhood feel that way.  It was the neighborhoods opinion that the City has a responsibility to citizens to follow the plans and the guidelines that are set out.  He said when a citizen is looking to purchase a home and seeing how our City would develop, he or she can rely on the City’s Master Plans and other documents that are in place.  Horizon 2020 calls for the use of this land to be zoned as RS-2.  It was their feeling that the development should follow zoning rather than zoning following development.  He said he was surprised to find himself advocating and coming before the Commission on a rezoning issue.  He said we were talking about peoples’ homes and their neighborhoods that are personal to them.  He said they had Commissioners’ comment that this should be a respectful discussion and it shouldn’t be personal.  Unfortunately, it is personal because we are talking about the lives we lead everyday, but he agreed it could be respectful.  He asked for a zoning of RS-2 for this land that would be consistent with the other uses in the neighborhood.  The development that has been proposed for that piece of land is a multi-family development that juts into a single-family neighborhood and he said that kind of development on this piece of property, with the adjacent uses and the adjacent zonings, is inappropriate.  He said he was involved in addressing the traffic issue along Harvard Road and working with the City to try to come up with solutions.  He said we all know that Folks Road will eventually go through whether it is done by this Commission or a future Commission because it makes logical sense to alleviate traffic along Harvard.  He said if the Planning Commission’s recommendation occurs with a multi-family development on that tract of land there be increased traffic along Harvard Road to get to the University.  This only exacerbates an already bad problem along Harvard Road. 

Pennington said the neighborhood thought this was a “no brainer” because of the existing uses of land and adjacent uses of land. He suggested that the Commission zone this property RS-2 and do it immediately and not defer it until August so the neighborhood could count on the City to do what is in the best interest of us as citizens as opposed to any one developer.  He said it was the job of the City Commission to ensure the public interest and not to any one individual.

            Commissioner Kennedy asked Pennington was he requesting this issue not be deferred and not allow the developer a chance to work with the neighborhoods, the City in order to provide a road system that would be compatible with our City and all of the safe uses of the streets. 

            Pennington said it was his opinion that it is not the developers job to do that kind of planning, that it is the Planning Commission’s job to develop an area plan, to develop the use, that if this is truly a land use issue, that land should be designated as RS-2 by Horizon 2020.  He said they would suggest that use of that land is what is appropriate, so zone it RS-2, direct the Planning Commission or Planning staff to develop an area plan.  It is not up to the developer to put that plan together.

            Commissioner Kennedy asked Pennington if he thought deferral was not appropriate.  .

            Penning said correct.

            Mayor Hack said she wanted to make sure the Commission everyone understood what the topic was this evening.  It is not the rezoning of the two tracts but whether to defer or not to defer.

            Michael Fink, President, Quail Run Neighborhood Association, discussed reasons not to defer this issue.  He said their neighborhood has spent countless hours on this rezoning issue and it is the primary reason that the Quail Run Neighborhood Association has grown so quickly.  This rezoning request first came the neighbors in the month of March.  Since that time they met the developer, once at the rezoning meeting and then again at the Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 2002.  The applicant wanted to meet with the neighbors again in April, but chose the night of the Planning Commission study session.  He said they wrote letters to the applicant, the Planning Commission and the City Commission stating they would not be attending that meeting because it was on the same night as that study session.  The applicant then asked for a deferral, which was granted at the Planning Commission.  The rezoning request then came up again in the month of May at the Planning Commission meeting.  Then the issue comes before you on June 11, 2002 with a deferral request.  Now we are here tonight again.   The issue should be resolved at this time and not deferred until the August 27, 2002 meeting. 

            Greg Polk, Lawrence, said he owns a three-acre tract on the west side of the private Folks Road.  He said what he wanted to talk about was the agricultural zoning.  He said he had a letter from Sheila Stogsdill that states the City Commission has already granted him an RO-1B zoning from Agricultural on two parcels of ground.  The property has yet to be platted, but he anticipated platting in the near future. 

            Todd Thompson, representing the contract purchaser of the property, said he attended the Planning Commission meeting at which the Planners suggested the approach of deferring this and developing a specific plan to discuss and consider so that a more knowledgeable decision process could be followed.  He said deferring his issue was appropriate so that approach can be followed.  It’s consistent with what the Planning Commissioners suggested and is certainly consistent with what Commissioner Dunfield often advocated and that is to sit down and talk about things and not rush into a decision.  The issue of the use of this property isn’t going to be decided tonight, no matter what anyone does.  He said the PRD approach, which is a recognized planning technique, is appropriate.  He said they offered and volunteered to spend the money to develop some additional planning concepts.

            Jeff Moran, Lawrence, said he lived across the street from the planned development.  He discussed reasons not to defer discussion of this issue until the next meeting.  He said they were regular citizens in this neighborhood.  They were not getting paid to come to these meetings and the continued deferrals make it difficult for them.  The general technique that he has seen was that occasionally a developer will keep putting things off until finally interest runs away because it is difficult for them to muster all the people who are interested in this issue to come each time whereas to the developer, it is in his interest to show up each time.  He said they have had a lot of people who have had a chance to look at the development plans and discuss the general concepts.

            Moran said another reason not to defer it is that they’ve seen a couple of reiterations of development plans for this area already.  He said they have also seen the developer’s plans for other areas.  There has been consultation with people in the neighborhood, but it has never been a two-way street.  Consultations that he has seen have always been a matter of the developer proposing something, usually out of order for what is proper for an area, and then claim that the neighborhood has been consulted.  He has not seen any type of rigorous way of including neighborhood consultation in any of these plans that have come forward and for that reason the Commission should look at this issue tonight and not defer it until sometime in the future.

            Commissioner Kennedy said the deferral for the meeting tonight was to allow for Commissioner Dunfield’s request that the Commission take a look at the whole area and to develop this area in one precise plan.  The deferral puts that back in play.  It is being able to work with the developer and the people that own all this property that we are now trying to rezone.  He said he wanted the neighborhoods to have a voice, but also wanted to say lets all get together with staff. 

            Moran said it was the neighborhoods sentiment that there is no way that you can have ten units to the acre as is proposed in this most recent plan and the zoning that is being asked for and come up with anything that is acceptable to the neighborhood.  He said that is what the neighborhood is asking for, that they don’t think planning within the perimeters that we have right now is going to be proper.  As far as the traffic, there is a fear once you start building apartments in great concentration in that area there is no way to make that traffic acceptable to the rest of the neighborhood unless you build a freeway over the top.

            Marilyn Bittenbender, representing the Oakley Tract owner, said she was there to ask for the Commission’s support to give the parties the opportunity that the last speaker mentioned and to try to find some common ground.  She said vigorous debate between people with different viewpoints has traditionally been considered one of the strengths of our community, but it can also be a negative when it becomes confrontational.  She said this City Commission has recognized both sides of that coin. 

            Over the last two years the Commission has made some significant positive steps to create opportunities for dialogue with people with different viewpoints.  Under the leadership of Commissioner Henry during his term as Mayor, the Commission created the Tax Abatement Task Force and the ECO2 Group.   Both of these groups began with a variety of political and ideological business and environmental viewpoints.  They also began with mutual mistrust and apprehension, but after a number of meetings, the Tax Abatement Task Force arrived at a reasonable agreement and a conclusion that everyone could live with. 

            The proposed development for the Oakley Tract is another topic that has generated a great deal of community controversy.  The zoning request made by the applicant was given conditional approval by the Planning Commission in May pending the approval of a development plan and that is as far as they have gone so far.  Immediately following that meeting, Doug Compton began conversations with Linda Finger, Planning Director, and some of the Planning Commissioners about incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Commission into his plan because they sent some clear signals that they wanted to see something different from what he had submitted.  Compton is still working on this.  He is in the process of developing a plan that will show some single-family residences and a gradation toward office buildings on 6^th Street and that plan is in the early stages, but it needs considerable refinement.  An important part of that plan includes incorporating the portion of the lots on the west side of Folks.  She said Compton has had meeting with the City Manager and Assistant City Manager to discuss his willingness to be a participant in letting this be a part of his plan.  She said Compton has talked about sharing in a benefit district for Folks Road.  She said they are making progress, but they were far from having a product that would warrant discussion let alone a decision tonight.  On behalf of the property owner she asked that the Commission agree to defer the discussion of this zoning until the August 27, 2002 City Commission Meeting and during the time between now and then that will give the developer time to work on a plan that will incorporate not only the recommendations of the Planning Commission, but also make some attempts to address the concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood.  She said most importantly, there may be time, if given the opportunity, to come up with a win/win solution.  She said Mayor Hack had made a suggestion to help us see if we can find some kind of common ground and has offered to facilitate an actual dialogue instead of a presentation by one side and to see if there is a way to reach some level of agreement.

            Loren McVey, Lawrence, said he would like to be zoned single-family but they were currently zone agricultural.  A contract that they have with the City said that while zoning can’t be guaranteed, the City understood that this was their desire to be zoned single-family. 

            McVey said he agreed with Moran, the developer can divulge much time to pursuing their goals, but it was difficult for neighbors to be there at all the meetings.  They are at a disadvantage every time there is a delay on the decision process.  He said the neighborhood wants single-family zoning.  He said they would like to see the City Commission say “no” to the Planning Commission’s multi-family high-density of this area and zone it single-family which was appropriate.  He said they had over 300 signatures on a support petition.  He said there were numerous people in town who support the single family zoning of this area. 

            Commissioner Kennedy asked McVey if he is not in favor of a neighborhood and a developer getting together to resolve any type of conflict.

            McVey said he is not in favor of it because we were at complete odds over the type of zoning that was appropriate.  He said if the developer would do some single-family development, then yes, we might, but that is not what is on the board.  It is multi-family high-density.

            Kristen Fink, Lawrence, said she would support the issue, but would request the Commission to deny the request to defer because they did not want to talk about the zoning that the Planning Commission approved.  Ten units per acre is too dense for the area.  This is not the plan they want to talk about, so even if we had time to talk, we don’t want to talk within the ramifications of what the Planning Commission approved.  That is why they request tonight that the City Commission deny the deferral because they wanted to inform the Commission why what the Planning Commission approved is not within the guidelines of Horizon 2020.

            Jordan Lerner, Chairman of Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said Quail Run is a newer neighborhood organization and a lot of their existence is based upon this specific issue and the traffic problems on Harvard Road.  He said he requested that the City Commission deny this motion to get to the meat of this issue and talk about it.  The neighborhood organization and neighborhoods in general have some concerns over the Planning Commission’s decision in regards to how it reflects on Horizon 2020.  The neighborhood and the developer can still come to some kind of an agreement, just because we want to talk about it tonight and talk about the issues and look and see if there is a super majority to approve this, doesn’t mean that the developer is going to walk away from the development.  He said there is a concern about what the Planning Commission has approved without the development plan. 

            Commissioner Kennedy asked Lerner if he was an activist for deferral tonight because then they can come to common ground to be able to establish what Commissioner Dunfield has asked for and that is that this whole area be looked at as a plan rather than a specific development.

            Lerner said let’s do this without the gun of a development in front of us.  This is something that should have been done before this development came before us. 

            Commissioner Kennedy asked if he was in favor of a deferral.

            Lerner said let’s not defer this, but vote on whether this is the appropriate zoning and then will see where it goes from there.

            Walter Emerson, Lawrence, said he did not think Commissioner Dunfield recommended an area plan because that is not what they heard or read in the meetings.  All they did was pass a PRD for part of the area in question, the Oakley property.  He said in fact, one of the Planning Commissioners said we could not hold up this development to take the time for an area plan.  He said he joined his neighbors in requesting the City Commission deny the request for deferral.   He said he did not see any interest in the Planning Commission creating an area plan.

            Doug Compton said his request to defer until August was because it was obviously a unique project.  With the uniqueness of how the land lays between the sliver of land between the Oakley property and what would be Folks Road.  He said they were not in a hurry on this project.  The reason why they asked for a deferral until August was to work on the overall plan and take advantage of working with the neighbors.  The plan they are working on now is much different from the plan that was presented back in March.  This plan has changed four or five times since March.  It’s changed from the first neighborhood meeting they had that the Mayor and Commissioner Rundle attended.  He said they took all the comments from the neighborhood that night and came up with two or three different concepts from all that input.  He said they did call another neighborhood meeting and they did have it on the night of a Planning Commission study session, and did not have a great turnout from the neighborhoods, but they did have some different options of plans to show that night.  It’s changed since that night and after they attended the Planning Commission and heard the wishes of the 7-3 vote.  The vote that was approved that night was up to 10 units an acre, but no one has said there would be ten units per acre.  Because there is not a completed plan, because it has not been determined how Folks Road is going to go through, it is best to defer until August.  He said they have made great strides such as conversation with the City Manager and Assistant City Manager.  He said it is going to take much longer to get all these details worked out.  He said they were not trying to push the issue.  He asked the City Commission to defer this issue until the August 27, 2002 meeting.

            Jane Eldredge said her firm represents the seller.  She said the seller is not in a hurry and appreciated the time the City staff has taken and the time that the contract purchaser has taken to try to do this job right.   She agreed that deferral is appropriate.  She said for more than 35 years she has worked in real estate and development issues in Lawrence, and during that time, as President of the Pinckney Neighborhood Association, suing the City of Lawrence, working on behalf of the East Lawrence Businessmen with the East Lawrence Neighborhood, every time they had the opportunity to sit down and take the time to work through an issue, we have had a far better result.  That did not mean that everyone agreed, but what it did mean was that we’ve taken the time for most people to find common ground.  She urged the property owners and the contract purchasers involved in this issue to sit down and work together like what occurred with the Northwest and Southern Development Plans.  She said with those plans not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone got a better plan.  She said through efforts like this community is better off.  The polarization that occurs when people refuse to talk only gets worse.  She urged the City Commission to accept Mayor Hack’s invitation and also honor the contract purchaser’s request to defer until August.

            Debra McVey, Lawrence, said one of the concerns she has was that there seems to be a concept that the only way the developers and the neighborhood will talk is if you defer this issue at this time.  There are major concerns about what the Planning Commission voted to recommend and it makes it difficult to open up a good discussion under those circumstances.  It is our belief that if the City Commission does not defer this issue, but acts to reject what was recommended by the Planning Commission, at that point in time, discussions about plans for this area can continue.  She said there will then be a much greater feeling among the neighborhood people that we’re not under a gun of a recommendation from the Planning Commission for a zoning that they feel is totally inappropriate. 

            Commissioner Rundle asked Compton if he was willing to talk about making the changes, because he thought one of the major concerns of the neighborhood was the density. He asked Compton to let everyone know how far he was willing to bend.

            Compton said they were anticipating some single-family in their new mixture.

            Commissioner Rundle asked what the density was expected to be.

            Compton thought they have not yet ran the density calculations.  What they have looked at was coming up with a plan that incorporates some single-family to the southern edge of the property with duplexes and triplexes as they get closer to 6^th Street.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if they had a rough idea how much of the southern property would be single family.

            Compton said no because they were not actually sure how far they would come all the way up to 6^th Street.  Whether they would come all the way up to 6^th Street or whether they would stop at the 348 feet of the plan that is set right now.

            Commissioner Rundle said single-family density tends to be like 4 units per acre and was he talking about single-family of that kind of density in the southern part.

            Compton said he did think somewhat in that area, but could not tell him how many feet on the southern edge of that property.  He said one of the concerns at the first meeting back in March was they would like to see that same single-family buffer on that south part and they now have a plan that has that and was less transitional.  It’s nowhere near that 10 units per acre on the southern edge of that property.  He said it might be four units per acre but was not certain.  He wanted to make sure everyone understood that they would not have a plan that showed 100% single-family on the 15 acres at the August 27, 2002 meeting.  

            John Kriss, Lawrence, said he thought the question boiled down to the rezoning.  He said he wanted the Commission to address the issue the Planning Commission acted on tonight rather than defer it until August.  After addressing the zoning issue everything else can be addressed.            

            Dan Pennington, Lawrence, said the issue is that this is a land use issue and we shouldn’t be sitting down at the table talking with the developer about his development until we’ve decided how the land should be used.   He said the City Commission, Planning Commission, and City staff should decide how that land should be used.  Should it be single-family housing, commercial, or multi-family?  He said by deferring this issue the City is giving false information to the developer that there is a chance that this development should be multi-family.  He said we as a neighborhood feel that all the documentation, area plans, and all the things that have been developed thus far as Horizon 2020 and other issues call for that land to be single-family housing.  Until you decide differently by action that it shouldn’t be single-family housing, then we shouldn’t be talking to the developer about single-family.  He reiterated that this is a land use issue and let’s make the decision of how that land should be used.

            Commissioner Rundle asked staff, if this issue is deferred and the Commission moves towards approval with some change or restriction, given the recommendation of the Planning Commission to zone PRD with the density specified at 10 units per acre, what is the power of the City Commission to alter that without sending it back.  He also asked whether the City Commission could invoke the lesser change table and go to a lower classification.  He also asked whether restrictions can be put on the density and whether the Commission can adjust the lines of dividing the area up into graded single-family and multi-family zoned areas.

            Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the City Commission’s authority is somewhat limited without referring it back to the Planning Commission.  She said the lesser change table is not a City Commission tool to use.  If the Commission wants to move the lines, that is probably a significant change to the Planning Commission’s recommendation; therefore, that should be referred back to the Planning Commission.  If you defer the issue and then have discussion and decide that you want to make some significant alterations, you are at this point in the discussion on August, 27, 2002 which means you are where you are today, trying to decide to defer the issue. 

            Commissioner Dunfield said the Planning Commission has sent us recommendations for PRD-2 and RO-1B on another tract.  The City Commission authority is only to act on RO-1B and PRD-2 on those two tracts.  He asked Finger if that is correct.

            Finger said yes and the Commission could also act on the original request, which was RO-1B for the entire area.

            Mayor Hack asked if the issue was the request to defer and was that what was on the agenda this week. 

            Corliss said that was what the agenda read, to consider the recommendation from staff and also continue the discussion of the request to defer.  He said the City Commission had the ability to modify the agenda so long as they did not modify it to include an item that had statutory public hearing requirements.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if the City Commission voted not to defer, then we would have to take some action.

            Corliss said that is correct.  The Commission could decide whether or not they wanted to take action this evening or could agree on taking action August 27, 2002.

            Mayor Hack said they have not discussed the initiation of rezoning.  

            Commissioner Dunfield said what we really have not discussed at all was zoning and land use.  We’ve been talking about whether to defer or not defer the particular request and he said he did think they needed to focus on land use and this particular piece of property, both the Oakley property and the remainder of the agriculturally zoned property east and west of the private Folks Road.  He asked to see the map for the proposed land use for the western part of the City from Horizon 2020.

            Pedrotti presented the maps.

            Commissioner Dunfield said there are two specific references in Horizon 2020 to this particular piece of property.  There has been a lot of discussion of guidelines about how we develop next to arterial and collector streets and those are appropriate.  There also had been previous discussions about how you maintain the character of the neighborhood, how you infill with compatible housing, and other issues.  He said you can chose the guideline that you want to talk about in order to support the point you want to make to some extent.  Again, there are only two specific references to this property in Horizon 2020.  One of them was this land use map, which clearly shows low density residential and nothing else.   The other one is referenced in the commercial section of Horizon 2020, which he quoted “the plan seeks to terminate the current plan of lineal strip commercial development along this corridor (6^th Street) at Monterey Way.  West of Monterey Way distinct commercial nodes are anticipated only at the intersections of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive and West 6^th Street and the South Lawrence Trafficway.” 

Dunfield said, in other words, this land use map is also making a specific reference to the language in Horizon 2020, which says we do not want a commercial strip along this portion of 6^th Street.  He said it seems to him those were the clearest indications of what our Comprehensive Plan envisions for this property and because of that, he said he had difficulty understanding how any dialogue can resolve the immense difference between a residential zoning and an RO-1B zoning and a PRD zoning at a significantly higher density than single-family residential.  He said he was not sure what was to be gained by deferring this item because again, the differences between these visions for what happens to this land are so far apart, that he did not think anything other than a predominately single-family zoning for this area would be acceptable or should be acceptable to the neighbors or to him.  He said he did not think any other zoning of this property is in keeping with Horizon 2020 as he read it.  He also felt because the City Commission action is limited to voting up or down on the Planning Commission request, frankly to put the cards on the table, he did not see a four vote majority in favor of this recommendation, whenever they vote on it.  It is true that dialogue should occur and encouraged it because he certainly did not want anyone to stop talking with one another about the future of this property, but the City Commission’s job is to rule on PRD-2 and RO-1B and those zoning categories are outside the realm of what Horizon 2020 considers appropriate for this property.  He said he would like to see the City Commission take this issue off the table and ask that this process of dialogue begin with a clear understanding from this City Commission of what kind of zoning we expect to see on this property.

            Commissioner Kennedy said he did not see any commercial development planned for this property.  He said that was what Commissioner Dunfield was talking about, the continuation of lineal strip commercial development down 6^th Street.   He asked Commissioner Dunfield if he considered office as commercial.

            Commissioner Dunfield said yes.

            Commissioner Kennedy said Commissioner Dunfield said there should be no lineal strip commercial development along 6^th Street according to Horizon 2020, but they have designated that 320 feet at the front of this property be office development and office is not commercial according to the land use plan.

            Finger said the land use plan doesn’t really state clearly what office is.  We’ve used it as a transition because it does discuss it in those terms. 

            Commissioner Kennedy said so then it is a transition for someone that wants to live in an apartment and walk to his office on the front.

            Finger said it was a different type of transition then she thought, but yes.

            Commissioner Kennedy said so you have a transition there.  It’s not commercial.  It could be a doctor’s office or other types of offices, but it’s office not commercial property for retail sales.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if some of the uses are allowed in office considered commercial uses.

            Finger said some of the uses, such as banking facilities, you could look at as retail because they fall within the service category.  As far as intensity of use, certainly being next to a doctor’s office could probably generate as much traffic as being next to a drop and go dry cleaners, so as far as intensity, it could be similar.

            Commissioner Rundle said he thought the impacts might be similar. 

            Commissioner Kennedy said the map did not indicate any kind of commercial development.

            Commissioner Henry said Bittenbender suggested something earlier in the discussion that when he was Mayor, he created a task force which brought together eighteen people in this community with vastly different views on what should happen to this community.  He said they got together and argued, but after 7 months they had consensus.  He said the dialogue worked extremely well for the benefit of the community.  He said in a few minutes they would vote to defer or not.  He said if he decides to defer until August 27, 2002, he said he is not voting for a PRD.  He said he would be voting to look at a much-modified plan because he could read Horizon 2020 and form his own opinions about what it meant.  He read from Horizon 2020 which stated,  “Low density residential development, reflecting the density of 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre would continue to be the predominate land use in the City.  This could encompass some duplex and townhome housing with an emphasis on single-family.”  He said Horizon 2020 goes on to say “there are several vacant parcels scattered throughout the community when newer low density residential development should occur in the future.  In general, new development should be of a scale and character, including building type, the same as compatible width existing or planned homes in the immediate area.  Medium density residential development reflecting an overall density of 7 to 15 dwellings units per acre is recommended at select locations along major roadways near high intensity activity areas.”  He said low residential development is what is required in a residential neighborhood.  He said he thought we needed an area plan and would like to see a comprehensive plan that is predominately single-family zoned.  He said he could vote against a PRD as easily on August 27, 2002 as he could tonight.

            Mayor Hack concurred with Commissioner Henry.  She said she thought this issue needs time.  She said she did not think staff has had adequate time to come up with an area plan.  She said she wanted to accept the request for deferral of the two rezoning requests and in addition defer the initiation of rezoning to allow for staff to come up with some proposals.  This also would answer the question of what the City Commission wants to do with Folks Road.

            Commissioner Rundle asked about the density of this area and whether it would look similar to the Moundridge area.  He also said he thought the density would not guarantee that it looks the same.

            Finger said the density is a beginning point, until you look at design, structure and layout you don’t have any assurance that 6 dwelling per acre in one part of the City is going to look like low density in another part of the City.

            Commissioner Rundle asked how long did it take to do Horizon 2020.

            Finger said the community meeting took at least 36 months and 2 ½ years to get Horizon 2020 done.

            Commissioner Rundle said then it took 5 ½ years.  He said he would not support this rezoning based on all the information they had received.  The questions about what the City Commission’s authority would be.  He agreed with Commissioner Dunfield’s comment that the result would be the same unless there is substantial change.  He said 5 ½ years was for a comprehensive plan was substantial community dialogue.  He said there should only be deviations from the plan if there is good cause.

            Commissioner Kennedy concurred with Mayor Hack.  He said he would like additional dialogue between the neighborhoods, the developer, and City staff.  He said it was important that the neighborhood understands that Mulberry/Folks Road will go through.  The reason this road has to go through is to provide citizens adequate public facilities to be able to access your property safely.  He asked the question of where a school would go in this neighborhood and where would we bus all the children if there was no school built.  He said the Mayor had a common sense approach and we should get together to talk about this issue and defer this item. 

            Commissioner Dunfield said he wanted to comment before the Commission voted.  He said it seemed to him if we want staff to help us with the planning and put together some proposals and if we want a dialogue to be able to progress between the neighbors, the property owners, and the potential developer, then the Commission needs to send a clear direction.  He said he did not think the Commission could give a clear direction as long as this particular request is hanging over us.  We are not going to find the super majority for PRD-2 and RO-1B on these properties whether now or in August.  He said he thought we should clear the table and move on.

            Commissioner Rundle said as other people commented, resolving this now does not close the door on discussion, compromise, and public dialogue.

            Mayor Hack said deferring now also does not preclude conversation and dialogue.

            Commissioner Henry said as he said earlier he planned on being here on August 27, 2002 and by voting for the deferral did not mean that he was approving the PRD.

            Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to defer until August 27, 2002, rezoning items Z-02-05-02A (a request to rezone approximately 11.0975 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District)) and Z-02-05-02B (a request to rezone approximately 3.995 acres from A to RO-1B (Residence-Office) (both properties are generally in the 6^th and Folks Road area.  Aye: Hack, Henry and Kennedy.  Nay:  Dunfield and Rundle.  Motion carried.                                                                                                                      (17)

Commissioner Rundle asked the City Clerk to make a good effort to put in the public record all of the different viewpoints.

Commissioner Dunfield, in order to try to give some direction on this issue and help staff move this dialogue along, presented a map of his proposed suggestion for zoning this piece of property.  It shows single-family residential from a point approximately 350 feet south of 6^th Street onto the south and into the neighborhoods.  This means that all of the development of this currently agricultural area that touches on single-family would continue to be single-family.   The transition which Horizon 2020 talks about between lower density uses and arterial roads could be accomplished with a residential zoning which might be a PRD-1 for example to allow the buildings to be clustered away from 6^th Street and to allow some of the natural buffering which is already in place in the form of mature trees along the west edge and the northwest portion of that property to stay in place.  If we had a zoning there that was a medium density residential zoning that would allow for clustering some kind of a PRD situation, then we would accomplish that transition, meet the clear indications of Horizon 2020, and allow for that transition to occur.

Commissioner Rundle said the Planning Commission in dealing with this issue also requested that staff provide them with some alternatives, which perhaps go towards accomplishing the goal of neighborhood compatibility.  He said he did not believe they really spent any time discussing those, they were just simply received.  Those may be useful in forming this dialogue. 

Finger said they did hold a mid-month study session prior to their main meeting on the concepts.  From the concepts staff originally proposed, they were asked to come back with at least two others and possibly three and would include more of a developer point of view, more of a neighborhood point of view, and if staff was different, a third point of view.  She said they came back with those, but there was not a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Hack said she is assuming the direction for staff is to work out some proposals with staff, neighborhood representatives, and the developer.  She said she would be glad to attend any of those meetings.

Commissioner Henry reiterated that he would be attending the August 27, 2002 meeting and urged predominately single-family in this plan.

Commissioner Rundle said he has not seen any evidence that citizens that are close to this proposed development had acted in anyway that stepped out of the bounds of decency. 

Mayor Hack called a five minute recess.

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report concerning the Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR-03-01-02) request for an open shelter, to be located in the gymnasium at St. John’s Campus of the Lawrence Catholic School, 1208 Kentucky.  She said the Planning Commission considered this item at the extended version of their Planning Commission meeting and had a lengthy discussion regarding the definition of an open shelter.  She said they also discussed several conditions that were added to staff’s recommendation which were reflected in the Planning Commission minutes.  They talked in length about the operations of the open shelter. 

Day said, following the Planning Commission’s action, which was for recommendation subject to several conditions, staff received a protest petition.  Staff determined that this particular petition was not valid because of a lack of eligible signatures.  Less than 1 percent of eligible property owners signed the protest petition.   Therefore, the Commission did not need a super majority vote to approve the request.  Both the applicant and one property owner was there to speak regarding several elements of this request.  The proposed use would be located in the gymnasium portion of the building.  It would be recommended for approval only for this summer.  The future use would need to come back to the City Commission prior to be reopened next summer.  Staff’s opinion was that this would allow the opportunity to establish appropriate neighborhood relations within that neighborhood.  A similar operation had operated last summer without the benefit of a public hearing and a Use Permitted Upon Review and there were some issues that were difficult for the residents in the area to address and it didn’t come to staff’s attention until much later as the operation was ending last summer.

Commissioner Kennedy asked about the type of notification required because there were some rentals and some private residences.

Day said the notification that is required and the practice City planning staff follows by state statute and local zoning ordinance is the property owner of record is notified.  She said several years ago the Commission also required the posting of signs to help notify property owners of the request.  Certainly, there was a comment during the public hearing that the locations of the signs were not immediately visible.  In addition, there was an issue regarding the of this request in that there are people that are transitioning that were not aware of this particular use and this is a notification issue that many cities struggle with.  This is an ongoing issue to make sure we have good communication to the public to let them know what is going on in their neighborhood.

Mayor Hack asked Day if she wanted to comment on the issue of insurance.

Day said the applicant was here to comment on that.  The Planning Commission made a recommendation regarding the provision of a specific type of insurance coverage and she preferred to let the applicant talk about it.   She said staff’s understanding was that the overall umbrella insurance was not a policy that is generally available, but the applicant stated to the Planning Commission that they are going to have certain insurance policies in place as part of their operation.

Mayor Hack said the UPR states that the Commission wouldn’t have to wait until the beginning of next year to review this issue and that it could be reviewed at anytime.

Day said that was correct.  The City Commission’s prerogative is to bring an item back to their agenda at the Commission’s request or if a property owner made a request to be on the agenda. 

Commissioner Kennedy said he wanted to comment on the conditions that were applied to this UPR because some members of the public may not be aware of what they are.  He read some of the conditions, including:

1.         Approval of the request be permitted during the summer months for June                                       25 to August 15^th 2002 and 2003;

2.         Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

3.         Provision of a copy of the approved license from the Douglas County Health Department prior to operation;

4.         Provide copy of agreement/contract specifying dates, times, terms of occupation of facility;

5.         Certificate of Occupancy per the approval of the Neighborhood Resources Department prior to occupancy; and,

6.         Completion of an inspection by the Fire Department and minimum compliance necessary prior to use;

 

a.   Documentation of Maximum occupancy be established through inspection prior to use; and,

b.   Provision of a minimum of two (2) direct exits to exterior from shelter.

 

            Kennedy said these were great recommendation from staff and they had taken the time to review this UPR and bring to the City Commission their recommendations.

            Elizabeth Smith, Secretary, Lawrence Open Shelter, presented an outline of the proposal.  The location would be St. John’ Catholic Center and would be using the north end of the school in the gymnasium for the shelter.  The days of operation would be June 25^th through August 12^th, from 8:30 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. with admissions until 10:00 p.m.  Between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. there will be no admission or departure of guests other than extreme exceptions like police referral, professional referral, or referral from another local shelter.  The contract would be renewable for summer sessions pending approval by the City Commission.  She said there would be no physical modifications to the building other than the outdoor lighting near the main entrance.  They will post hours to discourage loitering and will provide trashcans and ashtrays during operation. 

            The property is owned by the Kansas City Archdiocese.  The shelter will be cleaned and maintained by the regular St. John’s custodial and maintenance staff.  Lawrence Open Shelter is a non-profit organization founded last year with a Board of Directors of 12 members, which includes a clinical psychologist, masters of social welfare, doctorate of social welfare and 3 certified alcohol and drug counselors. 

            They have engaged in an outside policy consultant who is the former director of the Boulder Shelter, which has a reputation as one of the best in the country.  They hired a shelter coordinator who has a Masters Degree in Social Welfare and is certified as an alcohol and drug counselor.  They are hiring four trained shelter monitors also degreed and will be training shelter volunteers that will be present. 

            The gymnasium capacity is 50 individuals and the expected occupancy will be 30.  They will be serving primarily adult men and women with an average age of 40.  33% are veterans, and 37% identified as having some type of substance abuse at sometime in their life.  She said they were serving the Lawrence area at large because this is a community service. 

            She said staff’s training includes components on crisis intervention, mandated reporting to government agency, substance abuse issues, recognition and response, links to other community resources and referrals, as well as their rules and policies which include a screening intake, confidentiality, personal boundaries and a component on basic medical training.

            One of the rules and policies the City may be interested in is upon the first admission any guest is required to understand and agree to abide by their shelter policies that are written out.  These include:

1.                  No consumption of alcohol on St. John’s property.

2.                  No alcohol allowed in the sleeping area.

3.                  No illegal substances or firearms allowed on St. John’s property.

4.                  The smoking policy allows only two individuals outside at a time accompanied by a staff member.

5.                  Everyone should treat everyone else with respect and courtesy.

 

            She said in their policy manual they tried to address as many things as possible like cleanliness and sanitation to emergency protocols to neighbor relations and were working with the Fire Marshall, City Staff and County Staff to ensure safety of both persons and properties.

            Smith said their insurance policy has a $100,000,000 aggregate that covers Workers’ Compensation, general liability, fire, assault and so on. 

            She said they met with representative from Oread Neighborhood Association and learned that they had some concerns anticipating their shelter based on their experiences with the Coalition Shelter and the Winter Shelter.  She said she wanted to point out that these shelters were staffed primarily by volunteers and thought they did a great job.  This is a new kind of shelter for Lawrence and a learning process for the whole community.  

            Smith wanted to talk about some of the neighborhood concerns.  She said neighbors expressed concerns about guests loitering outside the shelter both during the hours of operation and during the day and that guests might not respect their property rights.  Another concern was that the shelter might introduce a population that would not be there otherwise.  Citizens also had concerns about potential violence and reduction to property value.

            Smith said she has actually modified the contract with St. John’s to include a section on neighborhood review in the process and would allow them to renew their contract with St. John’s.  They will make sure neighbors know how to contact them if they do have concerns so they could be addressed immediately.  They would like to have a meeting with neighbors in July after they have operated for a couple of weeks so they can address any concerns they might have.  Their admissions and smoking policies are sufficiently different that they believe they will alleviate some of the problems of outdoor loitering and their policy of no admissions and departure during lights out should eliminate anything happening during the night that might be of concern to neighbors.  She said they were working on establishing a different main entrance than was used last summer.  She said they had requested a foot patrol in the area from the Lawrence Police Department.  They haven’t been able to make a guarantee, but if staff is available, they will patrol the area.  She said they believe that since this is a temporary project the effect on property value in negligible.    

            Alicia Rodriguez-Hanley, Lawrence, said she was not aware of this information and found out about this meeting a few hours ago.  She said she had a concern about proper intake and screening.  She wanted to know exactly that meant.  She asked whether some form of Breathalyzer or other testing would be incorporated for this new shelter. 

            She said she disagreed with the loss of property value being negligible statement.  She also had a concern about no guarantee of a police foot patrol.  She said she lived close to 14^th Street and already had a situation where someone used her backyard as a personal bathroom.  She said she had conflicting feelings about this issue because she was soon to be a clinical psychologist so there is a part of her that is compassionate.  From what she was informed of a few hours ago, this plan for a shelter is less aggressive than the plan utilized by the Salvation Army.  She said if it was an aggressive treatment plan she would be more in favor of this shelter.

Elizabeth Smith said she should have addressed what exactly an open shelter is.  The requirements for an open shelter are not whether you can pass a breathalyzer or a urinalysis test, but simply the test of whether they can stay if they can behave in a manner that is respectful towards others and whether their presence doesn’t endanger the safety of the environment.  The number one priority of staff is to keep a safe shelter environment.  She said the best guarantee she can give is to offer, but not force, individuals if they want to make choices to change their lives.  She said she wished they could get a guarantee for a foot patrol, but everyone knows that the Police Department is understaffed and overworked.  She said if any property owners or tenants in the area have difficulties, she encouraged them to call the police.

            Toni Retonde, Lawrence, said she wanted to address the period of time the shelter was open last year.  She said she has a bird’s eye view of the children’s wading pool as well as the restroom area in South Park.  When the shelter opened they endured large gatherings of 18 to 25 individuals that never left the area of the shelter.  She said she called the police on several different occasions, with a total of 36 calls made from the area that year.  There were individuals observed that were using drugs and alcohol while there were children in the pool and in the park.  She said there were large gatherings of people after midnight.  She said one individual was so intoxicated that they fell on top of her car, rolled off onto the ground, and then tried to enter her car.  She said she has a lot of compassion for individuals, but she did not think that her neighborhood should be ignored.  She said individuals were in her yard when her gates were closed, sleeping in her yard, coming to her door wanting to know who was home.  She said it was a frightening experience and lasted day and night.  She said she saw that a lot of changes were being made and discussed, but she had to ask herself if we were really taking a hard look at the community.   She said the homeless shelter last year was a party place and it was not college students, or people coming from downtown through the park.  She said she had to call the police at some point several times a day.  Running the homeless out of town is not going to solve the problem.  She asked the City Commission to look at the safety of the community and the residents in the area and consider them along with the individuals that they are trying to be help.

            Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said she was part of the original coalition that helped last year.  She asked what is the alternative for this community.  It is not that these people do not exist.  It is not that they have another place to go, because they don’t.  She asked if we really feel the best alternative is to do nothing.  The trouble is these people are working as hard as they can for this overnight shelter but it still is inadequate.  She said Lawrence needs a detoxification center in this community to give these people 24-hour care.  This proposed shelter is making the first step toward a beginning and have found trained people to begin this process.  This community has to get behind the idea of supporting a detoxification center and it won’t just be for the homeless, but for young people.  She said we need a solution to this problem. The Salvation Army has tackled part of the problem, but those people that are vulnerable are not being helped.  She said this is an illness and deserves recognition and treatment.    

            Jason Fizell, Lawrence, Member of East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said he was a resident for two years of a rental property at 1201 Kentucky during the time there was not a shelter.  He suggested putting an entrance on the west side of St. Johns and it would draw away traffic.  He said this shelter needs to be done for the benefit of the community. 

            Mary Siegrist, member of Coalition for Homeless Concerns, said a year ago she came before the City Commission and asked that the Commission include in the budget 2 million dollars to provide for a permanent shelter for the homeless in this community.  She said it was wonderful that for the first time in the history of Lawrence that homeless people can sleep in a building every night of the year.  She commended the City Commission for their courage.  She said she has faith that the City Commission will take the next step.  One of the leaders in the Lawrence community, Commissioner Henry, said they need to step up and take care of these helpless people.  She said her suggestion is that they need to do it because it is the right thing to do.  With a city that has marketability worth over 9 billion dollars surely this city can provide a permanent shelter 24 hours for these people.

            Kathy Wright, Coordinator for the Homeless Shelter, presented a map of the other services in central Lawrence for the homeless.  She said these services are already drawing this population into the area and it is not accurate to say this open shelter will draw a group that is currently not there.  She said she doesn’t understand the logic that the shelter is a problem because it plans on treating people in a humane way.  She said she understands that this is the logic that she is going to need to be familiar with because if the permit is approved then the shelter will continue to be a scapegoat for the homeless problem.  They are not saying that they are going to fix these people, but they may help some and they will offer opportunities but she cannot say she is going to fix these people.  What happened before with people of this nature was that they were put away in institutions and now these institutions have been closed.  She said a high percentage of people seen in the shelters are veterans.  The question what do we believe needs to happen with the “lepers of Lawrence.”  This is how this is being viewed as bringing a disease into a neighborhood.  She said all they were asking for was a few weeks for the shelter.  She said their hopes where that someday, something will happen.  She said she is the newest member for the Lawrence Open Shelter and she is amazed at the dedication and work effort.  She said she recently finished her Master degree at K.U. and prior to that she worked in the alcohol and drug field for nearly 20 years.  She said she had a specialized degree in addictions and knew that one of the things people will say is that your “enabling” these people.  She said she wanted it to go on record that this is a misuse of the term “enabling.”  The term “enabling” means you do something for someone that they should do for themselves.  By the time a person reaches homeless classification, there is no more talking “enabling.”  

            Cherlyn Wells, Lawrence, said she knows of mentally ill people that don’t have a substance abuse problem that are sleeping in either vans or on the ground.  She said she hoped by the 21^st century that we would think that people who have these kinds of problems are not lepers.  Once people become homeless, their symptoms of mental illness only become worse because of how they are living.  By alleviating a homeless persons stress they will be able to function better and become more contributing members of society. 

            William Dann, Lawrence, discussed the definition of enabling and perhaps one factor to consider that those benefiting from the shelter should be willing to take a step out of trouble and enter a detoxification program.

            Mary Rosenthal, Lawrence, said the statement that people should be able to transform their lives is relevant and accurate.  If you are able to offer a person enough support, trust, and humane treatment, there is a chance for that person to begin to want to turn their life around.  By doing that you are giving this community a service that right now is not being offered.  It is up to the citizens to begin to build a place where people that cannot help themselves are helped and allowed to begin to help them. The plans for Lawrence Open Shelter are to develop that kind of organization and they have got to take the first step.  She said what they are asking from the City Commission tonight is just seven weeks for the first step.  Without that step there is no journey at all. 

            Herman Leon, member of the board of Lawrence Open Shelter, said the proposal being presented to the City Commission is outside the box thinking.  Inside the box thinking focuses on issues like enabling, allowing panhandlers, are these people worth anything, or what damage they can cause to us.  Outside the box thinking tries to put the dots together before the catastrophe.  The real question proposed by the issue of danger with respect to the homeless is the local version of a problem the entire U.S. society is facing with fear of terrorism.  He said the challenge they were discussing tonight was what do we do with our fear.  Our fear of the mentally ill and things that can’t be controlled was the real issue.  The issue is when there is fear around, do you forever keep trying to make new restrictions, prohibitions, and punishments.  This is the approach that has been tried in this society since World War II.  This isn’t the way people thought back then.  They weren’t afraid of fear.  He said he was concerned about the issues that were raised tonight, but it seems to him, the issue of leadership that we need from our City government requires you to participate in helping citizens engage their fears.  The members of the Open Shelter Board see these questions as an opportunity to have dialogue.  He said he would like the Commission to give an affirmative response to this so they could move forward with additional efforts.  He said the Board of Directors was looking at a property that would cost near $1,000,000.  He said if they get this support from the Commission, they would be able to raise that kind of money in this town with private support.

Alicia Rodriquez-Hanley said she would like to work for a shelter and even maybe this shelter.  She said she did not want to be misunderstood because she did believe all individuals need our help.  She said her objection was the location and did not feel it was the correct location because there were too many small children in the area.  She said she would propose that the shelter be in a business district part of town.

            William Dann said a function of our government is to provide for everybody.  He said he objected to any one person or any small group of people who have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if the UPR was approved could the Commission review this issue at anytime.

            Finger said yes.  If there is an issue any of the Commissioners could put this back on the table for consideration.  It would be helpful if it were an issue related to the conditions.

            Commissioner Kennedy said his only concern was the safety for the neighborhood, individuals, and staff.  He said he did not see how they could operate an open shelter if you don’t search the people.  He said he encouraged a west entrance to the shelter.

            Commissioner Rundle asked whether the contract with St. John’s had a provision for breach of contract.

            Smith said she did not remember any particular clause, but her understanding was that St. John’s could unilaterally revoke the contract as the property owner.

            Commissioner Rundle said he did not want to play down the problems that still exist that haven’t been addressed.  The fact that the Commission can revisit this issue and St. John‘s is going to be trying to ensure that this is a success are both positives.  He said he did not think we have been breaking any records as a Commission such as congregating gathering, providing an array of services, and facilities that we need and those are long-term goals.  He said we should pledge to try to bring other resources, including a detoxification center, into our community.

            Commissioner Dunfield said no one was claiming that this was a permanent situation or a complete solution to a problem, but it is a step.  He said he was personally very much impressed with the professionalism that has been shown in the way that this proposal has been put together and the presentation made at this meeting.  He said he believed with the conditions that have been discussed, this is a step we need to take.

            Commissioner Henry concurred with Commissioner Dunfield.  He said he was also impressed with the board and thanked them for all their efforts in taking this first step toward a real solution for this problem.

            Mayor Hack said the most compelling thing she heard tonight was the willingness to work with the neighbors.  She said she is hopeful that concerns can be worked out.   There are risks involved anywhere we put this shelter, but it is a service that is important for our community.  She asked the board to look at the proposal to change the entrance to the west side.

            Moved by Henry, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-03-01-02) for a homeless shelter located at 1208 Kentucky (St. John’s School), subject to the following conditions:

1.         Approval of the request be permitted during the summer months for June                           25 to August 14^th 2002 and from June 25^th to August 14 2003;

2.         Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;

3.         Provision of a copy of the approved license from the Douglas County Health Department prior to operation;

4.         Provide copy of agreement/contract specifying dates, times, terms of occupation of facility;

5.         Certificate of Occupancy per the approval of the Neighborhood Resources Department prior to occupancy; and,

6.         Completion of an inspection by the Fire Department and minimum compliance necessary prior to use;

 

a.   Documentation of Maximum occupancy be established through inspection prior to use; and,

b.   Provision of a minimum of two (2) direct exits to exterior from shelter.