July 18, 2006

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.

It was then moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session for 75 minutes for the purposes of: 1) discuss personnel matters of non-elected personnel and consult with the City Attorney on matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship; and then 2) preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property. The regular session will resume in the City Commission meeting room with the Commission expected to take a short recess for dinner and resume the regular meeting at approximately 6:35 p.m. The justification for the executive session is to keep confidential matters confidential at this time. Motion carried unanimously.

The Commission resumed the regular meeting at 6:40.

Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda the Final Plat (PF-05-13-06) for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition. Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to defer the final plat until August 15, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of May 15, 2006; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of June 1, 2006; and the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting of June 1, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 330 vendors in the amount of $1,926,780.00. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to La Parilla, 814 Massachusetts Street; Zen Zero, 811 Massachusetts Street; and Rick’s Place, 846 Illinois Street. Motion carried unanimously. 

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of replacement basketball goals at the Holcom Center. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Athco $22,590.00

Porter Athletic Equipment $24,975.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid from Athco in the amount of $22,590.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the purchase of 80,000 pounds of Nalcolyte 8186 polymer from Nalco Chemical Company in the amount of $52,320. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the disposal of obsolete Oce copy machine through a recycling firm. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-04-06-06) for a 150’ monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter, located at North McDonald Street and I-70, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement; and

2. Provision of a revised site plan to correct the street name from “S. McDonald Drive” to “McDonald Drive” on Sheet 1 of 1 and Sheet A01.

Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-04-36-06) for Lawrence Board of Realtors, for site improvements to 3838 West 6^th Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submittal of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.

2. Submittal and approval of a photometric plan.

3. Provision of a Cross Access Easement for the southern access point and inclusion of the Book and Page number on the site plan.

4. Revision of the site plan to include the following:

a. Clarification of the phrase “4-inch concrete walk” at the south end of the existing building. The note should be altered to note the pavement type and width of new walkway to match the width of the existing walkway (5 feet wide).

b. Replacement of the Broadmore Juniper with Nick’s Compact Phitzer or Gold Tip Phitzer and replacement of the Little Princess Spireas with Red Mentor Barberry, Anthony Water Spirea, Sunrise Forsythia or Sunrise or Kalm’s Hypericum.

Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the proposal from The Lawrence Art Guild Association for shared use of the Carnegie Building. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

Commissioner Schauner pulled the Hierarchy of Plans approval from the consent agenda for discussion. He said in looking at the letter from the League of Women Voters it discussed the order in which planning took place and neighborhoods being planned in advance. He said he was not sure he understood the hierarchy or the exact plan well enough to understand whether that was a legitimate concern by the League, or a concern that had already been addressed regarding the planning sequence.

Michelle Leininger, Planner, said the Planning Commission did not want to get into that type of detail at that level. She said she did not have an answer to Commissioner Schauner’s question.

Commissioner Schauner said he was curious about the basis of the League’s concern and whether it was something that had been addressed by the Planning Commission and whether or not the Planning Commission decided not to move forward with it in that regard.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said in reviewing the Planning Commission’s minutes, specifically a comment from Commission Burress, those minutes stated, “The League’s point about the need for a detailed list of elements found in each kind of plan was well taken, but he did not feel this document was the appropriate place to list those details.” She suspected as they continued the long range program, they would build this document and flesh the document out a little bit more over time so they might be able to provide more detail after they were doing those things on a regular basis. This was the attempt from the Planning Commission to define those terms so that when they used the term “neighborhood plan”, they all knew what they were talking about and help them eventually tie that into the comprehensive plans so that there was a better understanding of what the weight of those documents were in relation to the comprehensive plan. The majority of the Planning Commission did not believe that there should be that level of detail in that document at this time.

Commissioner Schauner said the part of that paragraph that concerned him the most was the last sentence that said, “There must be an overall map of the physical framework into which the ghost plats could be designed to fit that would allow the suburban developments effectively be re-subdivided as portions of future neighbors.” He said when thinking about the City’s urban growth area build out, it did seem to be a point well taken. He was not sure how that process could be effectively engineered, at an early stage, to accomplish the more seamless subdividing as the City expanded into the County.

Stogsdill said the build through plans would be recognizing where they had designated collectors in arterial streets in the urban growth area and that would be the basic framework that they would be asking a land owner to fit into so if their property was supposed to eventually have a collector street through it, their build through plan should accommodate that as opposed to going down to the local level where they would be designing someone else’s property.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a matter of degree.

Stogsdill said she thought so.

Mayor Amyx said the options would be to defer the Hierarchy of Plans issue, which he was not sure he saw a need for deferral, or send the plan back to the Planning Commission if the City Commission wanted further explanation.

Commissioner Schauner said sending the plan back to the Planning Commission would satisfy him. He would like more information about their thinking in response to the League’s request. There might be an easy and quick answer from the Planning Commission or there might not be.

Commissioner Highberger said local streets were not private property but public property. He thought they needed to more active role in designing local street networks.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to refer back to the Planning Commission the Hierarchy of Plans, for a specific response to the second request listed in the League of Women Voters letter dated June 25, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said there was some interesting correspondence from one of the local contractors, Stephen Glass, LRM Industries, regarding the impact of asphalt and oil prices. In this community asphalt and oil prices were being monitored because of the amount of work being done on streets. (9)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Direct staff concerning assessment method for Resolution No. 6656, ordering the improvement of Stoneridge Drive south of West 6^th Street.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said a spreadsheet that was distributed indicated the different costs on two properties that were in the proposed benefit district whether it was based on front footage basis or an area basis. The City Commission had up to 6 months, after the hearing was conducted, in order to adopt a resolution establishing a benefit district. Staff drafted the resolution based on a front footage basis, but staff could change how that area would be assessed if the City Commission desired.

Mayor Amyx said the total cost of the project was $675,000. The front footage costs was $337,500 per property and by square footage was $408,000 versus $266,000.

Corliss said correct, that was based on the estimated total project cost of $675,000. The total project cost was $725,000 and the City-at-large was paying $50,000.

Mayor Amyx asked whether, in this particular area, were there any parcels in the area that were considered in any other way other than front footage.

Corliss said the staff memorandum showed what the City’s practice had been regarding other benefit districts. He said the majority of projects and similar street projects had been assessed on a front foot basis, but some projects had been assessed on an area basis.

Mayor Amyx said the areas where square footage had been assessed, generally that property had been owned by the same individual on either side of the road.

Corliss said he thought that was a generally accurate statement where properties had been assessed by square footage had been when a property owner desired to include more property in the area that was being assessed. The statute was clear the City Commission had the ultimate discretion as to determining the method of assessment.

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss what type of instrument someone needed to show, depending on the assessment method, that this obligation had been deferred and when and who had to pay that obligation.

Corliss said in other situations, they had executed an agreement that was approved by the City Commission, ran with the property, and deferred the assessments on the property until the property redeveloped. The definition of redevelopment was a change in zoning or change in single family use, which was done on Folks Road. Staff provided the property owner with a sample agreement for George Williams Way. The assessment for George Williams Way was not finalized even though that street was open and running. He said staff wanted to place that dollar amount in an agreement so the property owner or any successors in title that might come in future years, would know what that dollar amount.

Commissioner Schauner said the square footage difference between the MS Construction property and the Collister property was 600,000 square feet versus 390,000 square feet. He asked if Collister’s property was equally developable on a square foot basis as the MS Construction property or were there differences in what was developable within those two plats.

Corliss said he could not answer that question because he had not performed an analysis to the development potential on either of those tracts. He knew there were development proposals pending on MS Construction Tract. He was not aware on any analysis on Collister’s property as whether it could be developed to the same level of density to the other tract.

Commissioner Schauner said his observation was the MS Construction property was essentially 50% bigger than the Collister property in terms of square footage area. It seemed if in fact all of the property was developable at the same percentage of gross square footage, it seemed that a 50/50 share might not serve the Collister tract as well as it served the MS Construction tract. It seemed the MS Construction tract had 50% more land to develop, but not sharing the same percentage of the cost of the benefit district.

Commissioner Hack asked if they shared in the participation of the benefit district of Stoneridge south of where those improvements were in place.

Corliss said it was his understanding the street south of what they were going to improve was paid for by other property owners, including MS Construction. It was not paid for by a benefit district. There was no City-at-large participation and it had been paid for by other property owners, including MS Construction.

Commissioner Schauner said regarding the lots that backed up to tract 2 on the east, he asked if that was Stonecreek Drive and was that a privately installed street.

Corliss said yes.

Commissioner Rundle said if considering fairness of having that small portion already having paid for a street, it seemed they should be taken out of the benefit district. The applicant had deemed they received value from this improvement, thus the applicant was included in the benefit district which would probably be supported by case law and statutes. If it was going to be in the benefit district, it seemed the City Commission should not be worried about what they had already paid.

Commissioner Highberger said if taking into consideration the other road improvements that the eastern tract had already paid and balancing out those per acre costs, the front footage made most sense and seemed most fair.

Vice Mayor Hack concurred with Commissioner Highberger’s comments.

Mayor Amyx said Commissioner Schauner brought up a good point concerning the 600,000 square foot area, versus the 400,000 square foot area that was to be considered in the benefit district. He said if they were to assess on a square foot basis, they would most likely see a petition indicating someone opting out of the benefit district and then the City Commission would need to decide how the benefit district was going to be paid for again. He said when looking at the square foot amounts being equal when looking at the map, they could always question the fairness. He asked if there was an equal benefit to the Collister tract and to the MS Construction tract. He said based on the law there probably was an equal benefit because access could be gained from that road and that would be a benefit to those properties. He said assessing on a front footage basis was probably the best way to assess as long as the property owner’s assessments, which would be deferred, had the necessary legal contract to show those assessments had been deferred until such time changes happened and those assessments were due.

Corliss said that was staff’s plan to recommend that idea for City Commission approval. He said Collister’s argument was that assessment would be an encumbrance on her property, but the assessment would be picked up by a future property owner or perhaps by Collister if there was a change in use on that property.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Collister property sold their access on 6^th Street to KDOT.

Corliss said KDOT acquired right-of-way and access rights for the northern portions of the Collister tract.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the only access to tract 1 would be off of Stoneridge Drive.

Corliss said he did not know, but he believed there was a driveway. He also did not know if they had bought access off of George Williams Way.

Commissioner Schauner asked if part of the property that Collister owned extended to George Williams Way.

Corliss said yes, that was why Collister was in the benefit district for George Williams Way.

Commissioner Schauner said he knew there was a policy and if that policy could be cast in more objective terms in some way, it might be a difficult challenge, but it would make it easier.

Corliss said staff could try and cast those terms in a more objective way. One of the items on his table was rewriting the development policy to reflect a number of items. He said staff wanted to talk with the development community and others about that draft in the coming weeks. Staff could try to write language that would be more expressive. It would still be a policy a future City Commission could alter. He said each property was somewhat unique in benefit districts, but they there was also a very important value because of the dollar amounts in wanting to be consistent.

Commissioner Schauner said there could be a policy that stated all assessments in benefit districts would be based on square footage or all on front footage. Or they could take the two and average them.

Corliss said some benefit district, for example, would be different than streets. On street districts, front footage basis made sense. If going on a number of other public improvements, it did not make sense at all.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss was aware of any cities that took front footage and square footage and averaged the two.

Corliss said he could not say that he had seen that approach, but he was sure it had been accomplished somewhere. He said if they were going to assess on area, he asked what area would be included.

Commissioner Schauner said to some extent, those were self selected benefit districts.

Corliss said in this benefit district, they took half of Collister’s tract and all of tract 2 the applicant submitted.

Commissioner Schauner said they could have cut tract 2 off at essentially the back property line of those lots which back up to tract 1 on the west side of Stoneridge Drive.

Corliss said tract 2 could have been drawn to where it had 392,000 square feet. The problem was it would likely go across lot lines and property lines. There were arguments with tract 2 that the entire tract was obviously benefiting. If that area was not benefiting with the improvement, it should not be included in the benefit district.

Commissioner Rundle said at the last major discussion on this general topic during a discussion of Peterson Road, a now former staff member said that front footage was fair, but no clear explanation by what criteria of fair was given. He said if residential land on both sides of the street was the same price, the land on the east side had a lower assessment making either hidden or attractive to the buyer because the cost might be lower, on the other hand, more profitable to the developer because it had the lower fees included and that made the square footage method seem fair. All the land that had been sold had the same per lot or per square footage assessment. He said he would vote against front footage assessment.

Commissioner Highberger said in this instance he did not see that idea as fair. If looking at the cost being paid for the already constructed portion of the street those costs were going to be allocated to the lots on the east side and there was another local street on the east being born by the development also. He said if averaging all those costs out, they would be closer by assessing on a front footage basis on this particular proposal.

Commissioner Rundle said it seemed the developer would not have included that portion if they were not ready to make those particular lots pay for both assessments.

Mayor Amyx said at the public hearing concerning this item, Collister said she had not received the information about the assessment being deferred. He asked Collister if the contract provided indicated that the assessment would be deferred based on the following reasons and what had to happen to bring that due.

Collister said she received a sample draft agreement, but she had questions about the language in the sample agreement.

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss if he would provide the information to Collister on what that sample language would be.

Corliss said staff provided Collister with a draft agreement for George Williams Way and indicated if this benefit district was successfully established, they would do the same for this street as well.

Mayor Amyx asked if it would be the same identical language.

Corliss said yes, but if she had questions about the language, he wanted to respond to those questions and improve the language so there were not any questions. The agreement would come back to the City Commission as an agenda item for approval and if the City Commission had questions, staff needed to respond to those questions as well.

Mayor Amyx said the resolution was for ordering the improvement and establishing the method of assessment and the details would be worked out between Corliss and the affected properties. That item would come back to the City Commission after Corliss had those discussions with the property owners for the City Commission’s final approval.

Corliss said if the City Commission approved the benefit district, staff needed to know what the assessment method would be. That resolution would then be published. If there was not a successful protest within 20 days, it would be an established benefit district that would come back to the City Commission with the recommendations to which engineering firm to hire to design the road; staff would execute a contract with that engineering firm; establish the maximum assessments on the property that would follow one of those two schemes depending on the method of assessment; and that ordinance would be adopted. He said they would bid the project, construct it, and execute a deferral agreement with Collister. Finally, they would construct the road and assess the properties, but defer the assessments on the Collister tract per the agreement.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a successful way to have a protest petition since there were only two property owners involved and tract 1 had less than 51%.

Corliss said in order to have a successful protest, there needed to be a resident property owner that signed a protest petition that included 51% of the area and 51% of the property owners.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be doable in this case.

Corliss said he needed to check the statute, but there were also other protest opportunities and he would need to research that and see how it played out on this property as well.

Mayor Amyx asked if Collister understood that process and the item she would receive needed to meet both her and the City Commission’s satisfaction. He said the City Commission would approve the agreement once both sides agreed.

Collister said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said he would vote against front footage as the assessment method. He said it was not because he was sure it was the wrong thing to do, but because he thought there was information they did not have. For example, how much of tract 2 was being assessed in the benefit district for Stoneridge Drive and was it shared with other property owners. It seemed they were doing this benefit district in a piecemeal way that they never really get an answer of whether or not they get a truly equitable distribution of those improvement costs. He did not know if there was a better way to do it, but he could count three votes in favor of front footage. He said they needed to clean up the process and needed a little different algorithm to figure out how this might have been done better.

Commissioner Highberger said if their goal was to be as fair as they could each time, given the different circumstances in each situation they had to deal with, he was not sure there was going to be a formula that was going to work. He said if they could find something better that would be great.

It was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6656, ordering the improvements of Stoneridge Drive, south of West 6^th Street. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (10)

Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way on the following plats:

PF-04-10-06: Final Plat request for Elsie Hemphill Addition, a replat of Tract D, Evergreen Addition, located at 1900 Learnard.  This proposed three-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 1.591 acres. 

Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the request was to divide this property into three single family residential lots. There was an existing house on lot 2 with a detached garage, Burroughs Creek ran through the property with a drainage easement, and there was a vacant lot 1 and lot 3.

He said this item was heard before the Planning Commission on June 28^th where they approved the final plat with a 7-1 vote. The action for the City Commission was the acceptance of the dedication of the road right-of-way and the utility easements. This plat would dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to East 19^th Street, which was a minor arterial, and had 30 feet of existing half center lane from the center of East 19^th Street. An additional 10 feet would give a 40 foot which was half of the required 80 feet for a minor arterial. Learnard Avenue was a local street and already had the existing 60 feet of right-of-way, which was 30 feet from the center line.

The Final Plat had been approved by the Planning Commissioner and the utility easements were as shown on the final plat. It would be pertinent to accept the dedications of the right-of-way and utility easements at this time.

Commissioner Highberger asked where access to Lot 3 was located.

Patterson said access would be at the extreme lower portion of Learnard Avenue, which would lead onto the property. The access would go across a portion of the drainage easement. The actual bridge across Burroughs Creek would give room enough for that access.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a low water bridge.

Patterson said no.

Commissioner Highberger asked if Planning Commissioner Eichhorn’s vote in the negative was that the lot layout was out of character with the neighborhood.

Patterson said that was what the Planning Commission minutes reflected. It was a non-standard type of lot arrangement due to the existing drainage of Burroughs Creek.

Mayor Amyx said with the drainage easement in that area, he did not know any other configuration that would work.

Patterson said this configuration was the best the applicant and applicant’s engineer were able to utilize for this property.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-10-06) for Elsie Hemphill Addition, a replat of Tact D, Evergreen Addition, a proposed three-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 1.591 acres, located at 1900 Learnard; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

2. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;

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

4. Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.

5. Execution of An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for street and sidewalk improvements to Learnard Avenue.

6. Execution of An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for sidewalk improvements to E. 19^th Street.

7. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works prior to the recording of the final plat, for the extension of sanitary sewer main to serve Lots 1 and 3.

8. Provision of the following notes on the face of the plat;

9. “Building permits shall not be issued until LOMA has been approved by FEMA.”

10. “Lot 2’s direct access on E. 19^th Street shall be removed when the house on lot 2 is redeveloped.”

11. “The owner shall install a driveway turn-about on Lot 2 and on Lot 3 when they are developed.”

12. Provide Register of Deeds Book and Page number reference for the existing easements that have been filed by separate instrument.

13. The lot lines between Lots 2 & 3 shall be redrawn to the middle of the drainage easement.

Motion carried unanimously. (11)

Consider the following items associated with Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, 2620 Haskell Avenue:

a) Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-05-04-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains approximately 3.04 acres and proposes 17 single-family detached homes. The property is generally described as being located at 2620 Haskell Avenue.

b) Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda for Z-05-12-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 30.4 acres from RS-2 (Single Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. This property is generally described as being located at 2620 Haskell Avenue.

Mary Miller, Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal was to place 17 single family homes on a one lot development and access would be off of Ryan Court. There were three waivers being requested with this preliminary development plan and two of those waivers were from the peripheral boundaries since it was an infill development in a small area. She said they were requesting to have the northern boundary line reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet and for a section where the lot line jets in to go from 35 feet to 30 feet.

There was considerable concern from the neighbors about storm water drainage. The properties to the south currently were experiencing storm water issues and the City Storm Water Engineer was requiring the applicant to provide drainage swells along the south and the east to direct the storm water into the detention basin and into the inlets along Ryan Court.

The applicant would need to provide adequate, common open space in the interior of the development because right now they did not have that space, but the applicant would work with this plan and provide enough adequate, common open space.

Mayor Amyx asked if the requirement for drainage on this particular property was going to be adequate enough to give ample protection for other properties.

Miller said the City’s Storm Water Engineer believed that it would give ample protection for other properties. At first the engineer was not aware the properties to the south were having problems. Therefore, the engineer scheduled a meeting with the neighboring residents to the south and was requiring more of a ditch than what was originally required.

Mayor Amyx said the drainage ditch in the depressed area that was going to hold the water would go to the other end of the property. He asked if the water would be in a catch basin that would be carried out through a pipe and where was water going to go.

Miller said the water would go down to the inlets by Ryan Court and that would be directed right out to Ryan Court. All of the water would be directed to a detention basin and the basin would hold that water while the rest of the water was flowing through the inlets. The maximum amount of time would be 24 to 48 hours and then the water would be released into the inlets. The only water that would actually stay in the detention basin would be water below the inlet level. It was a secondary release and it would hold the water until the rest of water had flowed away.

Mayor Amyx asked if the other inlet area would hold the water for 24 to 48 hours.

Miller said yes, it was more of a detention basin or a dry bottom pond and was approximately 3 to 4 feet deep.

Alan Belot, representing the applicant said the utility plan was a separate plan and was not their plan, but just a planning document. The utility plan had a catch basin on one side of Ryan Court that was piped to the curb inlet that went under the street and dumped into a detention basin. All of the stormwater run-off for the neighborhood that was having problems would be routed through structures into the detention basin, which then would be taken out through a hard pipe to the existing storm sewer on Allison Avenue. The analysis of that storm sewer was that it had more than enough capacity to handle what they were going to put into it. The problem was there was a vacant lot where the water sheets across when it rains and would build up in backyards. When they develop that area, they would resolve that issue and catch the water and run it to a small basin where it would be held until it was ran out through a structure so the water that was running off those yards would not be there anymore.

Mayor Amyx asked if they were going to control the water on this site.

Belot said they were going to control the water.

Belot said at the end of the Planning Commission meeting it came up that a fence be built around the property, which seemed odd because they were trying to build neighborhoods within neighborhoods which they had done and placed sidewalks on both sides of the streets so they had that connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood. He asked why they would wall this neighborhood off from everyone else. He said after the meeting took place, the neighbors indicated they did not want that fence and he asked if that condition could be removed at this stage.

Mayor Amyx said yes.

Belot asked if he could request if the fence requirement be removed. He said there was a neighbor along the northern boundary that had a daycare next door and that neighbor thought a fence would be nice. He said he would be glad to work with that neighbor, but because of that one request walling off the entire neighborhood did not make for a very good neighbor.

He said regarding the conditions that related to the existing trees, those conditions were unclear and in some cases could be conflicting and confusing. He thought those comments came before he was able to go out to the site and locate the majority of the trees and place them on his drawing. He said he had indicated which trees would and would not be saved. A note on his drawing indicated the existing trees would be protected and he would be glad to add a note, according to City standard. He asked that those two conditions be removed because he already fulfilled the requirement and he did not think they were necessary and could be confusing and conflicting in the process that he still had to go through.

Commissioner Schauner said the condition stated to: “list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees.” He asked if Belot was suggesting a substitution for that language.

Belot said he had shown the existing trees that were going to be preserved and he showed the trees that were going to be removed. He already had a note that the land developer and home owner should make every effort to protect and preserve as many existing trees as possible during construction, including roots and existing grade within the drip line. If the tree was damaged or destroyed during construction, then replacement should be required. It was the same note he had for the Hanscom/Tappan project and it seemed to work well on that project. He said they had lost a couple of trees, but those trees were replaced.

Mayor Amyx asked if Belot had already met that particular condition because it was shown on the development plan.

Belot said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure if that condition was a reference to all the trees or just the trees that were left that were marked for retention on the plan. He was not sure what the difference was between what Belot was saying and that condition. That condition stated “protection of existing trees”, but it did not say just those trees the plan chose to leave. It just said existing trees and asked if there was a different set of trees.

Belot said there were a number of trees at that location and a debate could happen about which trees could or could not be saved. Someone who had to approve this could decide that a tree in a particular grove needed to be preserved. In order to comply with the plan, he would need to redesign the whole project. He said he had done his level best to preserve as many of those existing trees as possible because it was to his benefit. He would rather not get into a conflict, in the future, about which trees could or could not be preserved because he would need to redesign the project, after the public hearings.

Commissioner Hack said Belot’s request seemed fair. She said Belot had marked all the trees he possibly could within the confines of the plan and would do everything he could to preserve every tree he could.

Belot said there were a significant number of trees that were volunteers that had grown up to a good size and were not the kind of trees you would necessarily save. He also had a provision for the homeowner to add an additional shade tree to each lot after the homeowner completed the home, not in addition to the street trees. He said they would have trees all over the place on that subdivision.

Commissioner Schauner said he assumed the trees that were in the back lines of the back property were substantial trees as opposed to a 2 inch or 2.5 inch caliper tree which you would put in someone’s front yard.

Belot said the new trees would be smaller.

Mayor Amyx asked what kind of language they would need if it was already drawn on the development plan.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like to hear from staff in what they understood that language to mean when it discussed “during construction for protection of existing trees.”

Miller said Belot said he would try to protect as many trees as possible and thought it meant fencing a certain perimeter around the base of each tree within a certain distance. She said measures like that were passed on to the developer or whoever was building those homes that they see why they had to preserve those trees.

Commissioner Schauner said what he liked about that ideas was that people would be doing the actual physical work and might not have seen the plan or heard any of their conversation. The more physical protection they could provide for an essentially non-replaceable item was something he wanted to see.

Belot asked if he could resolve that with adding a note “per the City standards.”

Commissioner Rundle said he thought they had established standards since this had come up before. He thought the standard was for them to fence up to the drip line.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see that happen so there was less confusion on the work site about what and what was not to be saved.

Mayor Amyx said they needed to be clear in the language so that everyone understood.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure the language said exactly what Miller would like. He would like to see the language about existing trees fleshed out a little bit more.

Commissioner Hack asked if this language came from other previous plans they had done.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said the issue would have come from the City’s Landscape Supervisor. She was going to suggest that condition C be expanded to say, “For protection of existing trees proposed to be retained,” so that it was clear and she thought they could probably resolve that issue with Belot and the City’s Landscape Supervisor and planning staff. She thought the revised plan came in and had not had a chance to be reviewed. They did not know directly from the Landscape Supervisor whether what had been shown adequately met with what the review comment had been. It was her understanding the revised plans did not go back up for review before packets were ready for Planning Commission. She thought they could resolve the issue, but staff was not suggesting saving every tree on site, but the trees that were proposed to be saved, they wanted some indication on how they were going to be protected those trees so they would be saved.

Belot said he did not want to get into a set of construction drawings for the trees, which was his main concern.

Stogsdill said she did not think that was their indication.

Belot said if that was on record, that was fine, but that was his concern.

Commissioner Hack said she could understand Belot’s concern. She said Belot indicated he wanted to save those trees, but what could the City do to ensure those trees were given the best quality care during the construction phase, which would conform to the layout.

Belot said without getting into a lot of detailed drawings and things about each individual tree and its grade and drip line.