[E-minutes] December 9, 2003 City Commission meeting minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson at ci.lawrence.ks.us
Mon Dec 15 09:33:29 CST 2003
December 9, 2003
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 Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
Lawrence High School representative Jacob Gage was present.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Schauner to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of December 2, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Schauner, to approve claims to 326 vendors in the amount of $1,431,472.82.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to approve the drinking establishment license for Buffalo Wild Wings Grill &
Bar, 1012 Massachusetts; the Bottleneck, 737 New Hampshire; West side Deli &
Market, 4931 West 6th No. 106, (Contingent Upon State License); and Jackpot
Saloon and Music Hall, 943 Massachusetts Street (Contingent Upon State
License) and (Continuation of C-3 Food Sales and Non-Conforming Use).
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for water treatment chemicals for the
Utilities Department. The bids were:
PRODUCT VENDOR BID
QUICK LIME - BULK, PEBBLES Mississippi Lime Company
$65.59/ ton*
Global Stone Corporation 76.21/ ton
QUICK LIME - BULK, POWDER Mississippi Lime Company 70.50/ ton*
Global Stone Corporation 78.21/ ton
CHLORINE - 1 TON CYLINDER DPC Industries 349.00/ ton*
Brentag Mid South 400.00/ ton
Altivia Corporation 475.00/ton
G.S. Robins 560.00/ton
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON - BULK NORIT 634.00/ton*
Cal Pacific Carbon 680.00/ ton
G.S. Robins & Co. 664.00/ ton
Univar 713.40/ ton
Carbon USA 746.00/ton
CARBON DIOXIDE - BULK Air Liquide 53.00/ ton*
EPCO 54.80/ton
BOC Gases 120.00/ ton
SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE - 50# BAGS Carus Chemical Co. 839.80/ton*
Shannon Chemical Corp. 848.40/ ton
Calci Quest 880.00/ton
G.S. Robins & Co. 960.00/ton
NALCO Co. 967.00/ton
Univar 969.80/ton
Harcros Chemicals 1,066.75/ ton
SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE - 50# BAGS Harcros Chemicals 574.50/ton
Brentag Mid South 579.00/ ton*
GS Robins & Company 640.00/ton
Univar 680.00/ton
Calci Quest 900.00/ton
SODA ASH - BULK Harcros Chemicals 175.00/ton*
BHS Marketing 184.00/ ton
Univar 185.00/ton
Thatcher Co. 185.05/ton
G.S. Robins 185.50/ton
AQUA AMMONIA - BULK Harcros Chemicals, 2000 gal/min order 169.50/ ton*
Univar 172.00/ton
GS Robins & Company 288.00/ton
ALUMINUM SULFATE - BULK G.S. Robins & Co. 244.00/ ton*
Harcros Chemicals 246.75/ ton
Univar 247.40/ ton
General Chemical Corp. 295.00/ ton
GEO Specialty Chemicals 305.00/ton
POLYMER - BULK Polydyne, Inc. 430.00/ton*
G.S. Robins & Co. 620.00/ ton
Univar 680.00/ ton
Consolidated 800.00/ton
QUICK LIME - BULK, PEBBLES Mississippi Lime Company
65.59/ ton*
Global Stone Corporation 72.21/ ton
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE - BULK Brenntag Mid-South .449 /gal*
Univar .557/ gal
DPC Industries .61/gal
Vertex Chemical .72/ gal
Altivia Corporation .81/gal
G.S. Robins & Co. .98/gal
SODIUM BISULFITE - BULK Univar 1.3649/gal*
G.S. Robins & Co. 1.75/gal
Harcros Chemicals, 2000 gal/min order 1.8675/gal
Brenntag Mid-South 2.389/gal
FERRIC CHLORIDE - BULK Eaglebrook, Inc. .62/ gal*
Kemiron Company .645/gal
Univar .721/gal
Fini Enterprises .8738/gal
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATTE Carus Chemical Co. 1.49/gal*
G.S. Robins & Co. 1.52/gal
Univar 1.5275/gal
POLYMER, TOTES Univar 1.136/lb.
Ciba Specialty 1.20/lb.*
Consolidated Equipment 1.34/lb.
Polypyne Inc. (alternate bid) .75/lb
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to award the bids to the (*) low bids meeting specification. Motion carried
unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to approve the change order for additional paving and modifications of the
road surfacing for the Kaw Plant Lime Residuals Project to CAS Construction,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $37,557.11. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7719, amending Section 17-212 of the
City Code concerning truck routes and truck delivery routes. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7720, amending the schedule of truck
delivery routes. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to adopt Resolution No. 6513, declaring the boundaries of the City of
Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to approve the recommendation from the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals to
clarify that a building permit is not required for the replacement of
evaporator coils in air conditioning systems; and authorize staff to prepare
the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to approve Administrative Policy No. 83, concerning the planting of street
trees in residential City Subdivisions in RS and RM-D zoning districts, as
amended, pursuant to City Commission approval. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
Approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve TA-09-03-03,
text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to add to the preliminary plat
review criteria for evaluating water/wastewater capacity and to establish a
one-mile service area standard for neighborhood parks, was pulled for
separate discussion.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission was adopting those changes to
the regulations in isolation without looking at the rest of the subdivisions
regulations that were currently under review, or was that a free standing
amendment which could be considered without reviewing all of the other
regulations that the Commission would be considering in the future.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said those two sections that were being
amended were initiated by this City Commission in response to the adequate
public facilities report. She explained that staff had received additional
public comment after the Planning Commission meeting along with comments
from Parks and Recreation. She said there was no reason to hold back on
those amendments with regard to the subdivision regulations changes because
most of those changes that were proposed were behind the times. There was
language in the subdivision regulations that corresponded to Plan 95 and not
to Horizon 2020 which was adopted in 1995. She said those amendments would
bring staff up to speed. She said those amendments incorporated some of the
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan recommendations.
She said staff received comments from Parks and Recreation regarding three
areas in Section 21-604(c) which were for points 2, 3 and 4 as shown in
italics below:
2. Neighborhood parks should be a minimum of five (5) acres to ten (10)
acres in size, have a service area of one-half (1/2) mile, and serve the
immediate neighborhood in which they are located;
3. Community parks should be over thirty (30) acres in size, have a
service area of two (2) miles, and serve adjacent neighborhoods; and,
4. Easements and/or connections to existing parks and open spaces may
be required for trails, sidewalks or other pedestrian ways whenever
donation, reservation or dedication of parkland is deemed inappropriate for
the proposed subdivisions.
She said staff also received public comment with the language concerning the
septic systems. That language brought staff up to speed in the subdivision
regulations with the sanitary code that was adopted after the Horizon 2020
Comprehensive Plan was first adopted. The proposed language changes in
Chapter 21-706 were to strike the word "floodplain" and insert "floodway";
and to strike the word "may" in 21-707(b).
Finger said those amendments were the minor editorial recommendations that
staff had in response to public comment and Parks and Recreation.
Mayor Dunfield asked if approving this amendment would hurt or harm the
ability for staff and the Planning Commission to complete the work on the
subdivision regulations.
Finger said approving the amendment actually helped because it would be one
less thing to do later.
Commissioner Schauner said if in the City's long-range plan was to have in
the UGA a planned park system with connecting trails and bikeways, he asked
wouldn't it be more consistent with the hope to achieve that goal to require
the donation of certain easements and/or connections from developers as part
of their platting process.
Finger said it might, but that was not part of the Comprehensive Parks and
Recreation Plan that as recently adopted. There was also the issue of the
sales tax which was brought up in the Adequate Public Facilities Report
where there was one form of funding and it might appear inconsistent or
duplicitous to have a required dedication as well as a sales tax.
Commissioner Schauner said the sales tax and a required or donation were not
inconsistent with one another. He asked if they could require the donation
of certain ground for easements, parks, and connections to bikeways as a
condition of plat approval.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said as a
condition of plat approval the Commission would have the legal authority to
require the dedication of easements. As moving toward parkland, pathways,
and recreational trails you would run into more substantial legal hurdles.
When the United States Supreme Court had looked at the ability of
governments to require the dedication of property interest, they had gone
through a series of decisions that was known as "Noland" and "Doland." The
best case was "Doland vs. the City of Tigard," Oregon which was a suburb of
Portland. He said that suburb tried to require the Dolands to dedicate an
easement for a pedestrian path. He said that went all the way to the United
States Supreme Court and they said that there was no nexus between the fact
that the Dolands wanted to replat and reconstruct their plumbing store and
the requirement that they dedicated a recreational trail. He said that the
Commission needed to be careful in saying that every time property
subdivides or replats that it could be required to dedicate a recreational
trail or parkland.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City was platting or was being asked to
replat significant acreage in the UGA, south of the Wakarusa, for example,
he asked if there was a nexus between a donation requirement and that
replatting approval.
Corliss said there was a substantially better argument to require that than
in the situation where there was actual case law.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City was trying to develop a parkland
system in the UGA, he thought it was appropriate for City Commission
discussion about how they caused that parkland to be made available for the
public use and enjoyment.
Mayor Dunfield said that was a considerably larger question than the City
Commission could deal with in a text amendment. He said that was one
question that was touched on in the last meeting of the Pubic Improvement
Task Force. He said part of the goal would be to have standards about the
level service and be able to provide people with alternative ways of meeting
those standards. He said one of those alternatives might be the donation of
parkland. If they allowed more options, then they might skirt some of the
legal issues.
Commissioner Schauner said in the Planning Commission staff report dated
November 19, 2003, there was a comment about "approval of any plat requiring
connection to the City's wastewater system is contingent upon the
availability and adequacy of the City to provide wastewater services to the
area being subdivided", he asked what was the process for the City to assure
itself that there was availability and adequacy on the part of the City to
provide water and other services.
Finger said staff used the Wastewater Master Plan in conjunction with the
Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Improvement Budget. She said staff
would look to see if it was shown in the master plan or the long-term plan
and if was budgeted. She said Utilities would make comment when they
believed service would be established in those newly annexed areas.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a requirement that the City had a
capacity to treat wastewater that would be developed by the subdivision.
Wildgen said yes. Water and wastewater had master plans and staff would go
through the same analysis.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Marci Francisco, Lawrence, said she understood that there were some
significant changes to the proposals for waste and wastewater capacity, but
that was in regards to urban growth and the areas.
She said the one change that might exist was reducing the area from 5 acres
to 3 acres that would allow a septic tank. She said that reduction would
cause proliferation of septic tanks in that UGA. She said it might be
appropriate to keep that requirement at 5 acres rather than making the
change to 3 acres.
Finger said the area that Francisco was discussing staff had added the
language from the sanitation code but Francisco was correct.
Moved by Hack seconded by Rundle, to approve the amendments (TA-09-03-03) to
the Subdivisions Regulations to add to preliminary plat review criteria for
evaluating water/wastewater capacity and to establish a one-mile service
area standard for neighborhood parks and to authorize drafting of an
ordinance for placement of a future agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's report, Mike Wildgen said substantial completion
was achieved on the expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
(9)
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider adopting findings of fact; approve rezoning request; authorize
drafting of ordinance for placement on future agenda.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the staff report on rezoning
(Z-10-31-03) a tract of land approximately 26.712 acres from A (Agriculture)
to RM-1 (Multi-Family Residential District), located north of Harvard Road
and east of George Williams Way. The area was an isolated piece that was
left for rezoning between George Williams Way and the proposed Diamond Head
development on the west side of that road.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, said they agreed with the analysis
provided by City staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval on
an 8-1 vote.
Mayor Dunfield said in the Planning Commission discussions, they talked
about concept plans. He asked Herndon if he had any of that material.
Herndon presented to the Commission the concept plans of that area. He said
they had anticipated, over time, with the development of Fox Chase south,
which was a recently approved final plat, that the dedication development of
the 10 acre park and the greenbelt that surrounded it, Langston Hughes
Elementary School to the southwest, and the Diamond Head Development, that
would be an appropriate location being situated with that major
intersection.
He said in subsequent studies, they looked at a series of concept sketches
that showed that it would be similar to a duplex, tri-plex, four-plex or a
mixture which was Concept 1. He said Concept 2 were duplexes, Concept 3
were other types of units other than duplexes within in the development, and
Concept 4 differed in that it showed a connection to the northeast which was
recommended by staff and proposed by them at the time when subsequent plans
were submitted.
He said there would be a couple of connections to George Williams Way.
There were conversations and coordination with Diamond Head representatives
to the west as well as with the engineers that were designing George
Williams Way itself in terms of determining and preliminarily locating
access points. He said there was also discussion with City staff over the
potential of connecting the street down to Harvard Road to help defuse that
traffic further without one other release point to the northeast. He said
they expected that this would be a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 plexes AND owner
occupied as well as some rental properties.
Commissioner Schauner asked Herndon about the release point to the north and
what street that would be on.
Herndon said Stoneridge. He said that aligned to Fenceline Road, north of
6th Street, which was a collector street. He said it would be a signalized
intersection as would George Williams way along with Branchwood Drive. He
said that separated that development from the areas east of Wakarusa Drive
and there were a series of release points so that the traffic was not
concentrated along Harvard Road.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked about the entries onto 6th street and what the
spacing between those entries was.
Herndon said a quarter mile as prescribed by KDOT.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger what were the access points to 6th
Street.
Finger said the access points started at George Williams Way and came
eastward to Stoneridge/Fenceline, Branchwood, Congressional to Wakarusa.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the density was expected to be.
Herndon said the density was as follows:
Gross Density (units per acre) Net Density (units per acre)
Concept 1 4.53 5.54
Concept 2 4.53 5.58
Concept 3 4.89 6.01
Concept 4 4.89 6.1
Commissioner Schauner asked if currently there was no plat and no specific
proposal, but just those four Concepts.
Herndon said he thought there might be a 5th and 6th Concept. He said they
did concept and macro scale planning, establish what zoning density would be
appropriate at a given location, concept plans within the context of that
proposed zoning, and then they came forward with a request for zoning,
understanding that subsequently there would be a development group that came
in that would have the license and reasonable assurance that the investment
that they made in engineering the traffic studies, hydrological studies, and
everything else would not be for not because they would get hung at the
zoning stage.
Another consideration in that approach was that they also had approximately
100 acres of single-family residential coming on line and a significant
amount of residential development happening immediately adjacent to the
west. Again, there was a matter of disclosure. Obviously, once all those
lots were occupied by single-family owners and they get a letter in the mail
from the City that said there was a rezoning request for multi-family medium
density then those owners would be discontented. He said if they
systematically approached that area planning and development then the
disclosure was in place and those people that buy their homes in Fox Chase
south would have the knowledge of what was going to happen in that area. He
said that was a very practical and reasonable way to approach that type of
planning.
Mayor Dunfield said he appreciated that statement from Herndon, but what
Commissioner Schauner was looking for was the other side of that assurance
which was what they ultimately saw, in the way of a development plan, was
something that approximated what they were seeing on the concept plans. He
said that was a way to assure that was part of that process.
Herndon said they would be totally agreeable to some type of control that
would dictate that this be a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 plex units. He said when
looking at the plan and the series of concepts, it became clear that it was
physically impossible to exceed those densities that were previously cited,
by much as long as they stuck to that type of product. He understood that
it was not Finger's favorite way to approach zoning by placing limitations
and specific conditions.
Marci Francisco, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, said
platting and zoning should go hand in hand. She said it really was both the
platting and zoning that assured the community of the streets, easements and
rights-of-way that would be dedicated as part of the zoning process. She
said platting was a way that allowed you to identify possible lot lines or
appropriate places to draw distinctions between different densities within
an area.
Because the proposal was for zoning one area that was not platted, Herndon's
clients were asking for one zoning for different types, but there was no way
that they could be assured that it would be those different types because
there would be a possibility of a single building that met that density on
that property. She said their concern with that was because of City staff's
findings in their report talked about the character of the area. She said
one of the paragraphs stated: "Any development should include local street
connections to the neighborhood including a connection to the northeast."
She said staff was clearly stating that was an important piece of that
development.
In the presentation at the Planning Commission they said that some of those
transitional elements could be dealt with during the site plan and platting
process, but they went on to say that: "depending on the housing type, site
plan approval would be required." She said they might not see a site plan
for that area. It was her understanding that it was developed as duplex and
tri-plex and there would be no site plan.
She said staff's findings were: "approval of a final plat to show how lots
and streets would provide both transition and connection between the subject
property and the surrounding area was recommended", which was a condition of
that zoning request.
Francisco said under "staff review" in the report staff said some of the
goals and policies in Horizon 2020 could not be assessed. She said without
being able to look at the plat, it was hard to say if that proposal was
going to meet that. Again, there were concept plans, but there was nothing
tying the concept plan. Staff's final recommendation was that the City
Commission approved that issue subject to the following condition which was
recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
She said they believed it was important to record that plat and that
building permits would not be issued until that plat was recorded. If the
plat did not include streets, then the City Commission would not accept
those easements and rights-of-way. If it was developed as one building on
one lot that was the last time a site plan would be seen. She said the
street was functioning as a way for some of that other traffic from adjacent
areas. She said if the Commission was agreeing with those staff findings
that there should be additional street connections in that area. She said
they believed that the City Commission did not have the information to know
that those streets would be included, unless there was an accompanying plat
to that proposal.
She said when looking at those concept plans, Landplan has been diligent
about thinking those plans out and the community needed to be equally
diligent in making sure that happened.
Mayor Dunfield said he was not sure what conditions could or could not be
placed on that rezoning request and on the other hand, where the danger
would lie in that something would be developed at that location that they
would not find if with keeping with the concept plans. Whether it was a
plat or site plan that came back, it seemed clear from the Planning
Commission's discussion that they intended to see something that showed a
layout that conformed to the idea of duplexes, tri-plexes, and four-plexes.
He said this City Commission could certainly send the same message and would
feel no compelling reason to approve something other than that.
Finger said when going through the concept plans with the gross and net
densities, what was allowable was 12.4 dwelling units an acre and that was
significantly less. She said there wasn't a category that actually did less
with the exception of the RM-D District which was the same density, but it
restricted one structure per lot.
As far as conventional zoning, the applicant's willingness was acknowledged
and they were willing to restrict that to duplexes, tri-plexes or
four-plexes. The issue with conventional zoning, such as RM-1 was separate
and made it different from a plan district. She said there was a
requirement for uniformity. All of the RM-1's in the City needed to have
the same restriction or State law would be violated as far as the uniformity
within the district.
She said there was no requirement today that a rezoning application needed
to be submitted with a plat. She said the City Commission could make that a
code requirement and certainly there was policy within Horizon 2020 that
spoke to looking at transitional zones which was information that was
helpful to make a thorough review.
Finger said if this zoning was moved forward, the City Commission might want
to give direction to the applicant on the size of lots that they would like
to see which would convey what density or transition they would like to see.
Another idea for the City Commission was to send this rezoning back to the
Planning Commission and ask them to consider a lesser change for some of the
peripheral or boundary areas that would limit by zoning to duplex or RM-D
and that would give the City Commission the transition that they were
looking for. Without a plat and a filing of final plat, there was no
assurance of what the use would be.
Mayor Dunfield said when talking about "without the plat, there was no
assurance of what the form of the development would be", he asked if that
was not why the Planning Commission required the conditioning of the zoning
on the recording of a final plat.
Finger said that was why staff recommended that idea along with Planning
Commission. She said it was so they would have a form to place with the
request for the density.
Commissioner Highberger said he was concerned about the filing of plat being
required because that did not give the City Commission any control of what
that plat would look like.
He said if the City Commission approved that rezoning request conditioned on
the filing of a final plat and the final plat looked like something that the
Commission did not want at that location, he asked if the City Commission
had any control at that point.
Finger said the control would be limited because a plat was an
administrative process and if it met the standards then it would be
approved. The only ability the City Commission had was not to accept the
easements or rights-of-way because of inconsistency. The City Commission
would need sound logic as to why it was inconsistent with the proposed
rezoning.
Commissioner Schauner said this body was in a business relationship with the
applicant. He said the City Commission had the authority to either rezone or
not rezone, based on the legal factors that would apply. He said he did not
see how the Commission could be careful in that relationship, unless they
had more information about what was going at that location and what it would
look like. He said he wanted to know upfront what the project would look
like. He asked Corliss whether what the Commission was doing was
legislative in nature.
Corliss said the City and Planning Commission's review were quasi judicial
in a sense that the law was being applied to the facts. He did not disagree
with any of those analyses from a legal standpoint. It was entirely
appropriate if the City Commission believed that the rezoning did not meet
any of the factors. He said any of the factors that were listed could speak
to that and it would be appropriate to find the path to have affirmative
findings of fact and proceed with the zoning.
Commissioner Schauner said he could not support the rezoning request without
more information. He said he did not have any problem rezoning that area,
if the City Commission had enough information that it would comply with RM-1
Districts.
Vice Mayor Rundle said if the City Commission wanted to make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission, in terms of a lesser change, it
was hard to do that without knowing where the streets were located and what
property would be facing the school. It would make more sense to have those
streets to know where transitions would be appropriate. He said they did
not need to do a lesser change to the whole property, but part of it and the
rest of the property could remain at a higher density.
He asked if there was a statute that required a plat before a rezoning
submittal.
Finger said there was no state statute that required a plat before the
zoning, but some neighboring communities required platting and site planning
with the applications.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the City Commission's only real leverage to direct
where the streets would be was zoning and the Commission could require the
plat. He said if the City Commission wanted to be the commission of managed
growth, which was one of the City Commission's goals, he said they needed to
make this an exceptional event when the plat came after the zoning.
He said the City Commission needed to be fair and protect the developer's
interest, but the Commission also needed to protect the City's interest. He
would like to see the City Commission take this issue as a general topic to
have plats come as part of the zoning. He said in this case, he would like
to see that happen so the Planning and City Commissions could make a more
careful comment on how this should be zoned.
Mayor Dunfield said during the Planning Commission discussion one of the
Planning Commissioners made a statement that those concerns, namely the type
of development that was going to be developed at that location, could be
addressed at later stages of development and that Commissioner encouraged
the applicant to return with a plat showing duplexes along the streets with
tri-plexes inter-dispersed internally.
He asked Finger if that directive from the Planning Commission could be
enforced as part of the planning process.
Finger said that statement would apply if the entire area was site planned.
She said individual lot could be developed. She said in was not a foregone
conclusion that this RM-1 area, once it was platted would come in as a
single site plan. The only other way to assure types of uses was to
legislate through lot size, but that was not a 100% tool because lot lines
could be built across.
Mayor Dunfield said we seemed to be in a Catch 22 situation. On one hand,
the City Commission wanted to give both that property owner and surrounding
property owner's assurance about the intentions of the City Commission as
far as the future use of the land. On the other hand, it sounded like if
they approved the rezoning, the Commission could not enforce those
intentions at a future date.
Finger said the reason staff recommended conditioning the rezoning on the
final plats filing was because that was about as much assurance that could
be gotten out of the current process using conventional zoning. She said
those sizes of lots either comply or not with what the Commission felt the
context of the neighborhood design was. If the City Commission did not take
final action on the zoning, until the plat was forwarded, then the
Commission still had that hammer to apply.
Mayor Dunfield asked if it would be significantly different for the
Commission to approve the rezoning conditioned on the final plat versus
deferring a decision on rezoning until the submission of a final plat.
Finger said it would be significantly different if the Commission did that
based on the submission because she did not know what the outcome was. If
it was on the filing of the final plat, the end result would be the same.
She said staff would not be able to file that plat until there was zoning of
that land.
Commissioner Hack said without the zoning there was no assurance that the
plat would be the way the Commission would want it.
She said looking at the staff report and compliance with Horizon 2020 it
seemed that the fear that came out in the Planning Commission's discussion
was one larger building with many apartments which would not conform to
either Horizon 2020.
She said there was an issue of trust and it was something that the
Commission needed to take into consideration. She said she did not have a
problem with approving the rezoning and then going on with the types of
things that the applicant had planned. She would like to know a timeline if
this issue was deferred until there was a submission of a plat.
Finger said if that rezoning was tabled, it would become an inactive file
after twelve months and staff would need to bring the rezoning back to the
City Commission for action or dismiss that item and the process would need
to be started again.
Commissioner Hack said Vice Mayor Rundle brought up the issue of Folks Road
and that was a good example to use in terms of what was assumed to be
multi-family, ended up being built as single-family. She would not want to
see the City Commission in that situation.
Finger said the new code would not permit single-family in the
multiple-family districts.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked when the storm water engineer would look at this
area.
Finger said at the preliminary plat stage.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was good to be reassured about any easements that
would be required or topography that would limit the development.
Mayor Dunfield asked Herndon if he had any suggestions.
Herndon addressed the timing comments. He said what had not been clarified
in the course of the discussion was the implication that the requiring of a
recorded final plat occur prior to adoption of the new zoning. He said
there was an ordinance that was adopted that dictated that a file had become
inactive after a period of 12 months if there was no activity on the action
by the City Commission. He said when working through the staff conditions,
he implored staff to not put that plat recording requirement on the
rezoning. The reason why they did not have a plat for the Commission was
because there were a lot of things that happened in the market that would
have some sway over how many duplexes, tri-plexes or four-plexes there would
be.
He said the timeline issue was because of the ordinance that dictated that a
file had become inactive after a period of twelve months. The requirement
on that rezoning request that stated that the zoning would be validated
until a final plat was recorded really meant that if a final plat was not
recorded within one year, then the zoning became null and void. In order to
get a plat recorded within one year, that would mean that they would need
the City Commission accept rights-of-way and easements in eleven months and
they would need to submit the final plat in nine months which meant they
would need to submit the preliminary plat within seven month within that
time.
He said the stipulation that the plat be recorded within a year really set
in stone a limiting time frame. He said if they could identify what that
area would be specifically enough to engineer a plan to bring to the
Planning and City Commission, they would.
Commission Schauner reiterated that this was a business relationship. He
was confident that the professionals that were working for Landplan and
representing the owners of record were capable of producing a plat within
the required time. He said there was no reason to rush into this rezoning.
He said there was no businessperson in town that would enter a business
relationship without knowing all the conditions and the City should not do
that either. Again, he said he could not support a rezoning without a more
complete piece of the package that he was being asked to approve.
Mayor Dunfield said that was a good point, but the flip side was how much
was the property owner willing to invest without some assurance of approval
further down the road. He said if the City Commission was to indicate their
intention to approve that zoning based on the concept plans, but defer
action until such time that the City Commission saw proof of that concept,
he asked Herndon if that would allow the owner to move forward.
Herndon asked if Mayor Dunfield was suggesting that this issue be tabled or
indefinably deferred. He said that would be better than a denial. He said
if the preliminary plat was filed simultaneously with the rezoning, the City
Commission would still see the same documents. He said the Commission was
not going to have a preliminary plat come before this body and the final
plat would come to the Commission with acceptance of rights-of-way and
easements. He said it was basically the same type of animal.
Commissioner Highberger said the problem was conventional zoning process did
not give some of the Commissioners the control they would like.
Commissioner Schauner said he would not be opposed to tabling the rezoning.
He said he understood that this area would be developed as residential,
medium to high density, but as long as a plan was brought to the Commission
that looked substantially like one of those four possibilities, he did not
have a problem with a rezoning request. He said the City Commission needed
to keep closer hand on that process. If tabling the rezoning and allowing
the developer to come back with more information, he would not have any
objection of approving it if it was something consistent with what was seen.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he had not thought about denial of the rezoning until
it was mentioned, but he was considering options for sending this issue back
to the Planning Commission.
He said the staff report indicated that key elements related to appropriate
development are: connectivity and integration of the subject property with
the surrounding low-density development to the east and transition of land
use between the subject property and adjacent parcel, compatibility with the
comprehensive plan, and how lots and streets would provide transition. He
said he thought they could not do all that without a plat.
Finger said that information was added to the staff report from Horizon 2020
to forecast those areas of Horizon 2020 that staff would use in the review
of the subdivision regulations. The regulations stated that the
comprehensive plan would be used. She said when staff reviewed whatever the
applicant submitted, those specific areas staff would look at when they were
provided a plat.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern was that ultimately was a
responsibility that the City Commission owned as opposed to staff. He said
he wanted the opportunity to look at those plans before it was approved.
Commissioner Hack said she could support tabling or deferring so long as
there was some assurance that the rezoning would happen provided the plans
ultimately look like the concept plans that were seen.
She said in the Planning Commission minutes there were the same concerns
that the City Commission discussed.
Mayor Dunfield said deferring or tabling the action gave the City Commission
an extra element of assurance. He asked what the language for tabling would
be.
Corliss said there was a question of a time limit on the tabling of the
action.
Finger asked that the City Commission revisit the application when looking
at the new zoning code because the rezoning would not carry over and there
would need to be an amended application. There would not be an RM-1 after
the City Commission adopted the new zoning regulations. She suggested
revisiting the action in 90 days.
Commissioner Highberger said he thought some businesspersons might dispute
the fact that this was a business relationship. He said they were not
operating under a lot of constraints that business people were.
He said if the City Commission tabled rezoning, the Commission had some
obligation to pass the zoning if they get a plat that looked like the
concept plans that were seen, but he was not sure he wanted to do that. He
said he was not sure he wanted to table the rezoning because that was not
fair to the applicant. He said the only way this could be done was by a
planned unit development. He said the Commission should either approve it
the way it was or deny it and send it back to the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Commissioner Highberger if a planned unit
development was his first choice.
Commissioner Highberger said that was the only real way to get control of
it.
Mayor Dunfield said before the City Commission headed in that direction, the
Commission should review it in light of the new zoning regulation because
that might be another way at getting at what they were trying to accomplish.
He said the new zoning regulations would be trying to de-emphasize the
planned unit developments.
Finger said it would be more difficult to do a new planned unit development
under the new regulations because it would take you back to the purest
approach in doing planned unit developments which was an environmental
feature or to preserve a historic property.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there would be a zoning category that mediated the
question between RM-D and RM-1.
Finger said RM-12 was the lowest multiple-family zoning district that was
proposed. She said it was the same density as an RM-1. She said there was
nothing lower if getting to the multiple-family density that Herndon
proposed. She said presently, there was no RM district that was like an
RM-6 or RM-7.
Commissioner Schauner asked Commissioner Highberger if it was his preference
that rather than tabling the rezoning, that the City Commission either
approve it or deny it and if it was denied, to send it back to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Highberger said he was not sure if that would be more
satisfactory to the landowner. He did not want to get into the situation
where the City Commission tabled the rezoning with some expectation that the
City Commission would pass the rezoning in the future. However, if he were
in the landowner's position, he would not want to be in the position of no
assurance after expending substantial resources.
Finger said the City Commission had the ability to require site planning.
She said there could be a second condition on the rezoning that it would be
subject to site planning and to filing of a final plat. She said in a
backward way that would get you the same elements that were in a planned
unit development and delay action on the RM-1 until the Commission saw the
site plan for the area.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if a site plan would normally be required.
Finger said not if it was developed as individual lots.
Vice Mayor Rundle said that was when you get into the evenhandedness in
trying to make something that wouldn't apply to everybody. He said he was
less comfortable with conditioning zoning on things that the Commission
would not condition zoning on in all cases.
Finger said site planning was not something that was atypical in RM-1, it
was based upon how the development project was proposed. She said
individual lots could be done with one proposal.
Mayor Dunfield asked if the City Commission could approve this zoning
request with the statement that it was the understanding of the Commission
that in order to meet their requirements of Horizon 2020, as outlined in the
staff report, that required a development that was similar in density and
orientation to those that the concept plans indicated. He said the
Commission understanding of the findings of fact in the staff report was
based on the types of development that the concept plans showed.
Finger said that would give you legislative intent and the Commission could
require similar density and orientation. She said staff would prefer that
the Commission hold the ordinance before publication until staff had a final
plat in hand that met that intent.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there had been discussion about how everything was
going to be solved through the planning process, but the City Commission has
no approval over the plat, the Commission merely accepted the easements and
rights-of-way. He said the Commission could not say that they did not like
the plat and send it back because the Commission did not have that power.
Commissioner Schauner said it was this type of conversation that frustrated
developers more than anything else. He said it was a lack of a forethought
plan that was followed with some consistently. He made a motion to reject
rezoning and send back to the Planning Commission for a development plan
that was consistent with Horizon 2020 and would require that a plat be
approved by the Planning Commission as a condition precedent for approving
zoning recommendation.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the concept plans were two-dimensional ideas. The
piece of property at that location was a three dimensional reality and until
fitting the plat to the conditions that existed there then you can't know
for sure if those concept plans would work.
Herndon requested that the City Commission indefinably table the rezoning
and he would take the discussion as a guidance to come forward with a plan
to accompany their rezoning request in the future. He said that would be a
good way to simplify this matter and not force the City Commission into a
vote and he would leave with some understanding with the next step to take.
Francisco said one of the major concerns of the Women's League of Voters was
the establishments of the streets and connectivity for the neighborhood.
She said it was certainly possible to look at a preliminary plat that would
plat the street that went to the northeast and look at zoning for that area
that backed on to the easement and do that separately from the rest of the
property. One of the issues discussed was as soon as that was divided with
streets, there would be some ways to look at that and it would allow the
developer to go ahead and have multi-family zoning between that street and
George Williams Way and also take care of a plat for the street that
connected to the northeast. She said if the rezoning request was deferred,
that would still be a possibility that allowed some assurance of what was
happening with those streets and some flexibility to the developer.
Moved by Schauner seconded by Rundle, to defer indefinitely a request to
rezone (Z-10-31-03) a tract of land approximately 26.712 acres from A
(Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District; the
property is generally described as being located north of Harvard Road
(extended) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Motion carried
unanimously.
(9)
Consider adopting the following Comprehensive Plan Amendment and approve
joint ordinance/resolution on first reading.
Mayor Dunfield said the action to expand the Urban Growth Area was already
taken by the County Commission. He said there was one correction to the
description which referred to the southern boundary extending North 900 Road
and that should be North 950 Road.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report. He said there had been a
lot of discussion about this item in study sessions as well as in
conjunction with the Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates. The County
Commission had approved the urban growth boundary (UGB).
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if this substantially complied with the agreeable
discussion the Commission had.
Dyer said yes.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve the amendment (CPA-2003-3), an
amendment to Horizon 2020 to expand the Urban Growth Area as shown on the
Transportation 2025 Land Use Map with the addition of the southern boundary
extending to N900 Road and with an expansion northeast of Lawrence to N2000
Road, east to E1700 Road and south across the railroad tracks. Motion
carried unanimously.
(10)
Consider tax abatement performance agreement for AMARR Garage Door Group.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the
staff report. He said the City Commission approved a tax abatement to AMARR
Garage Door Group conditioned upon the execution of the performance
agreement between the City and AMARR that would follow the new ordinance on
tax abatements and incentives for economic development (Ordinance 7706). He
said that ordinance included the wage floor and health insurance
requirements that were discussed earlier in the fall.
He said the Commission had a draft performance agreement which incorporated
the requirements of Ordinance 7706 in setting out the reporting and
compliance measures that were found in that ordinance.
He noted there were some changes to the agreement from AMARR representatives
and he recommended those changes favorably and it would be incorporated in
that draft document. He said in Section 5 of the agreement that talked
about the wage floor and health insurance requirements, if there was
non-compliance, then AMARR would be paying certain dollar amount to the City
based on the wage floor gap which was suggested by May 20 of the following
year because we're looking back of the year of auditing so that an
applicable year of non-compliance and May 20 of the following year, that
wage floor gap payment would be due.
He said in Section 5 in the second paragraph it stated that AMARR shall pay
to the City for the applicable year of non-compliance by May 20th of the
following year. Also, at the end of the agreement in Section 8, second
paragraph indicated that the agreement shall expire one (1) year after the
expiration of the tax abatement granted pursuant to this Agreement.
He said there was also a suggestion that in the event that a tax abatement
pursuant to this agreement was not granted by the State Board of Tax Appeals
or was completely removed by the City pursuant to this agreement, this
agreement shall be null and void.
Commissioner Highberger asked why the agreement referenced 76 positions when
the application stated 80 positions.
Corliss said the agreement should state 80 positions so that would be
changed in the agreement.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Hack asked about Section 6
which stated: "The failure of AMARR to provide accurate timely information
to the City in preparation of the annual report shall be grounds for the
modification or repeal the tax abatement." She asked if this was in no way
to suggest that it was okay to turn information in June, July or August, but
she wondered if there could be some unforeseen circumstances that might
prevent that from showing up on May 1st. She said she did not want that to
automatically null and void the tax abatement. She asked if the word
"shall" could be changed to "may" to protect future Commissions and tax
abatements.
Commissioner Schauner said he would oppose that suggestion because then it
could be any time they wanted to submit that information.
Mayor Dunfield said the fact that the sentence said "shall be grounds for
the modification" was sufficient to cover that.
Corliss concurred with the Mayor. He said on the second page of the
agreement where there was an automatic action if there was two years of
non-compliance it stated "The City Commission shall take appropriate actions
to completely remove the tax abatement." The clear intent of that statement
was that it was not a discretionary item.
Commissioner Hack said that statement was fine with her and she did not want
the record to interpret that she meant any time a company felt compelled to
give the City Commission the information.
Vice Mayor Rundle said in the future he suggested that the Commission make a
decision on whether or not the agreement would follow the trend of the KDHR
wages as they went up or down and to have language about claw backs.
Corliss said in Section 5, Additional compliance Requirements, stated, "The
City shall also require the monitoring of the average wage criteria of the
Kansas Department of Human Resources." He said his intent under the new
agreement was that they were making that an additional monitoring tool. He
said it was not the automatic consequence that flowed from the wage floor
requirements.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it seemed like some of the language was fixing the
wages that were part of the application as the standard that they would be
measured against every year.
Corliss said that was not the intent. He said that sets the KDHR
classifications so that staff would be able to know how KDHR monitors those
classifications over time.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to approve a tax abatement
performance agreement for AMARR Garage Door Group. Motion carried
unanimously. (11)
Consider adopting joint City Resolution No. 6507 and County Resolution No.
_____, concerning the identification and establishment of future business
parks in Lawrence and Douglas County.
Mike Wildgen introduced the item and said the County had already approved
the Resolution.
Commissioner Hack said the language in the fourth line down in Section 2
could be interpreted differently. She said County Commissioner Johnson
indicated that was within one of the 200 to 300 acre sites should exist a
contiguous 80 to 100 acre site. She said that could be interpreted as
looking at a single 80 to 100 acre site. She asked if it could indicate
that "it is deemed appropriate that within at least one of the
aforementioned sites should exist a contiguous 80 to 100 acres site."
Finger said staff asked the County Commission to do legislative intent so
that it did not start that ball going back and forth. She said if
Commissioner Hack liked that clarity, then passing a motion with that
wording in the motion then it would be very clear that was a legislative
intent.
Commissioner Highberger said he had heard some concerns and wanted to note
for the record that this resolution would not circumvent the Eco2 process.
In fact it was meant to compliment the Eco2 process by providing staff
support to Eco2.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt joint City Resolution No. 6507
and County Resolution No. _____, concerning the identification and
establishment of future business parks in Lawrence and Douglas County with
changes as noted by Commissioner Hack. Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
Receive letter from Kansas Water Office concerning possible reduction in the
City's water contract rights from Clinton Reservoir.
Mike Wildgen presented the letter. He said this district was a tri-party
district on the west side of the Clinton Lake area. He said they had made a
request for additional water rights out of Clinton Lake. He said staff was
in the process of reviewing the findings.
He said staff met with the head of the Kansas Water Office Authority and
they understood that this would not happen quickly. There was a process
that had been established where this analysis would be more exact.
He said staff thought that those rights that the City had been paying for a
number of years were important for the growth of the City and it also looked
like this was a regional situation where the lake provided water for a large
area and the City was treating that water for a number of agencies and
districts.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City's water rights were perfected.
Wildgen said some of the City rights were perfected. He said there was one
contract that had not been used and there was one contract the City used all
the time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City had to draw all that water in order
to perfect the City's rights.
Corliss said these water rights were different. The contracts that the City
had for the water out of Clinton Reservoir were different than appropriation
rights that the City had along the Kansas River, both taking from the river
and the wells along the river. Those do have perfection requirements and
beneficial use requirements in order to maintain them. Concerning those
rights, the City continued to work with the Division of Water Resources
making sure the City had continued legal rights to use that water.
He said there were two different contracts. One was executed right after
Clinton Reservoir was established and another contract that was executed in
1990 that indicated while the State owned the water, the City had the right
to withdraw certain quantities of water. He said the City had not withdrawn
all the water that was contracted. He said the City's contracts with the
Water Authority, while they give the City the legal rights to use that water
it also gave the Water Office the legal right to go through a process. He
said now the City was figuring out a process to reduce the contractual
rights if there were others that could make use of it.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the City paid for only what they used or did the
City pay for what was contracted for. He also asked how much the other
jurisdictions were asking for.
Wildgen said 200 million gallon per year.
Corliss said the Commission had the request from Rural Water District No. 3
that was submitted on October 2001. He said they wanted 200 million
gallons.
Mayor Dunfield said he was not in any position to make the arguments about
the processes. He said clearly the City wanted their rights protected any
way they could. He said when looking at the map, it was a huge area that
was asking for the additional water and it looked like a majority of that
area was either in Shawnee or Osage Counties. He did not know rural
subdivision requirements or other types of land use regulations that might
be in place. He said they know what access to water meant in terms of the
City's own rural development and this had to have similar types of
consequences in those counties. He said whatever support they could lend as
a Commission, he would hope they would lend.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this area was in the watershed of Clinton
Lake.
Wildgen said it was mostly in that western watershed.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Osage County had any current usage of Clinton
Lake.
Wildgen said there was a Water Plant on the west side of the lake that fed
their allocation.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Vice Mayor Rundle said this was one of
the areas where staff had been thinking ahead and had been proactive for
decades. (13)
Receive presentation and discuss status of web-based City Commission
agendas.
Ron Hall, Information Systems Director, presented the staff information. He
said the trial web based agenda was done with existing software. He
informed the City Commission of the following steps that staff would take
concerning the web-based agenda which were:
1. Review the test packet for acceptability;
2. Determine the connectivity method (Staff was recommending that it
those computers were to be taken off-site and connected to other networks,
that the connectivity preference was Sunflower wireless);
3. Determine the equipment to order notebook computers and scanners and
place those orders;
4. Finalizing the staffing and training to go over all the issues.
He said the departments send their documents in Word, HTML, or PDF to the
City Manager's office and they incorporated those into the agenda creating
the links and uploaded those links to the website. Every night there was a
program that updated the search engine indexes so the search ability through
the packet was made.
He said the search web-based agenda enabled you to search for word or
phrases of content contained anywhere in the agenda packet. Hall said there
were a couple of minor problems that involved scanned documents, but staff
resolved those problems.
Commissioner Schauner said those scanned documents that had problems, the
typeface was much smaller.
Hall said some of the issues that staff had in preparing the test packets
were:
1. Staff was preparing both the paper format and scanned packets;
2. Minor HTML conversion issues;
3. Scanned documents converted to PDF files;
4. Finding a simpler method for downloading the packets and select
items;
5. The adobe acrobat button;
6. Scanned plats being acceptable or would they need paper format; and
7. Method of handling walk-ons after the agenda was published.
Assuming the packet trial was reasonably successful, he asked if the
Commission wanted to set a goal of mid January for going live with this
paperless agenda. If so, staff would like to proceed with an order for
notebook computers and setup Sunflower wireless accounts.
Hall said after the packet was prepared for the web based agenda, a CD would
be burned for security purposes.
He said there was also discussion about the Commission wanting email
accounts on the City's domain. He mentioned that it could be done and they
could forward it to their existing home accounts. It was also possible to
access City email over the web with outlook web access. Hall said he
recommended keeping an archive of the packet information on-line for some
designated period of time.
Hall said staff had some questions for the City Commission which were:
1. Did the City Commission want to take the notebooks home on a routine
basis;
2. What software would be installed on the notebooks;
3. E-mail issues;
4. Would the City Commission continue to want a hard copy of selected
packet documents;
5. Can the paper packets be delivered on Tuesday, once the web-based
agenda was established.
Mayor Dunfield said he didn't see any compelling reason for a separate email
account through the City. He said he did not want a hard copy of the site
plan and as far as the notebook being taken home, he would leave his
computer at City Hall. He said it might be useful for some Commissioners.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that taking home their computer would be an
individual Commissioner's choice.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he did not want hard copies. He said there might be
a rare occasion where he would want a hard copy, but he would do that on a
case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Hack agreed with the Mayor concerning email. As far as the
taking home the computer, it should be a personal choice.
She said she was not excited about having those computer screens between the
City Commission and the public. She said it was important that public
comment would need to be taken at meeting opposed to via email during the
meeting.
Commissioner Schauner commended Hall for all the excellent work.
Commissioner Hack agreed and also commended staff for their great work.
Commissioner Schauner thought that a couple of years were not too long to
store material so that it would be accessible.
Corliss said a box on the website would be dedicated to any type of walk-on
items or changes or corrections. He said the web site was ready to go on
January 13, 2003. (14)
Public Comment
Greg Seibel, Lawrence, said the issues about water rights related to the
growth of Lawrence. He said that should be a red flag that resources were
not unlimited and he reminded the City Commission that when considering
issues of growth and how to actively promote growth that unlimited growth
for its own sake wasn't necessarily good. He said maybe water issues could
be a reminder that growth needed to be managed.
He said the newspaper article regarding the water issue made a comment that
Lawrence was predicting a population of 150,000 in the year 2025. A city of
150,000 was probably going to have a different character than a City of
80,000. Again, when the Commission was thinking about promoting growth,
maybe the Commission should consider if the City was unhappy with the
character of Lawrence.
Commissioner Highberger explained the purpose of the urban growth area and
it was about managing growth. The problem with cutting off growth was that
it ended up changing the character of the City by making it unaffordable to
live in.
Vice Mayor Rundle said staff was working on a project for resource
conservation or a plan.
Wildgen said the City had a Water Conservation Plan that was required. He
said that would be in line with Seibel's concerns.
Mayor Dunfield suggested moving the December 30th City Commission meeting to
9:00 am. The Commission agreed to change the meeting time to 9:00 a.m.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2003
1. Bids - Water treatment chemicals for Utilities to lowest bidders.
2. Change Order - Kew Plant Lime Residuals to CAS Construction for
$37,557.11.
3. Ordinance No. 7719 - 1st Reading, Amend 17-212, truck routes &
delivery routes.
4. Ordinance No. 7720 - 1st Reading, Amend schedule of truck delivery
routes.
5. Resolution No. 6513 - City Boundaries.
6. Text Amendment - (TA-09-03-03) Subdivision Rags, add prelim plat
review to evaluating water/wastewater
7. Mechanical Code Board of Appeals - Bldg permit not required for
replacement of evaporator coils in air conditioning systems.
8. Administrative Policy 83 - Planting street trees on residential City
Subdivisions in RS & RM-D zoning districts.
9. City Manager's Report.
10. Rezone - (Z-10-31-03) 26.712 acres, from A to RM-1, N of Harvard & E
of George Williams Way.
11. Amendment (CPA-2003-03) Horizon 2020, expand Urban Growth Area on
Transportation 2025 Lane Use Map.
12. Resolution No. 6507 - Future Business Parks
13. KS Water Office - reduction in City's water contract rights from
Clinton Reservoir.
14. Web-Based Agenda.
_____________________________
Lisa K. Patterson
Communications Coordinator
City of Lawrence
PO Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 832-3406
fax (785) 832-3405
lpatterson at ci.lawrence.ks.us
http://www.lawrenceks.org
More information about the E-minutes
mailing list