August 8, 2006

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 Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 18, 2006 and July 25, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Historic Resources Commission Action Summary of June 15, 2006; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 26-28, 2006; the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of June 27, 2006; Sisters Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 6, 2006; the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 27, 2006; the Board of Electrical Examiners meeting minutes of June 12, 2006 and July 19, 2006; and the Recycling & Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 14, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive Downtown Lawrence Inc., second quarter report. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Biosciences Authority, six month progress report. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 464 vendors in the amount of $3,973,568.59 and payroll from July 23, 2006 to August 5, 2006 in the amount of $1,660,525.08. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to Plum Tree, 2620 Iowa; Cadillac Ranch, 2515 West 6th Street; and Stone Creek, 3081 West 6th Street; the Retail Liquor Licenses to University Liquor, 3300 Bob Billings Parkway B3; and Spirit Liquor, 600 Lawrence Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Rick Marquez to the Community Commission on Homelessness which will expire December 31, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Amyx deferred indefinitely, the consent agenda item regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-15-06) for Mercato Addition 1^st Plat, containing approximately 49.995 acres, located at north of Highway 40 and East of Highway K-10. (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve change order for the downtown waterline contract with Nowak Construction Company to deduct the mill and overlay and striping from the project this year. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the replacement of the gym roof at the Community Building for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Midwest Coating $33,865

Huttinger Construction Co. $35,420

J.B. Turner & Sons Roofing and Sheet Metal $39,796

Burris Roofing $40,940

Premier Contracting, Inc. $56,142

Boone Brother Roofing $62,451

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Burris Roofing, in the amount of $40,940. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for construction improvements to three pump stations in North Lawrence. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Engineer’s Estimate $2,450,000

BRB Contractors $2,215,000

Garney Companies $2,239,000

Wolf Construction $2,597,430

Barge-Turley Construction $2,969,000

Young’s Inc. $3,380,348

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to BRB Contractors, in the amount of $2,215,000. Motion carried unanimously.(4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8025, adopting the National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition, with amendments. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

Ordinance No. 8023, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places the structure located at 820 New Jersey Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

Ordinance No. 8027, adopting the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code with amendments, as recommended (and approved) by the Plumbing Board, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

Ordinance No. 8022, establishing Speed Limits on 6^th Street as follows: from 430 feet east of Lawrence Avenue to Monterey Way the speed limit shall be 40 MPH, and from Monterey Way to the west City limits the speed limit shall be 45 MPH, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6671, approving a special warranty deed and related documents for Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6670, authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for the addition of a six foot sidewalk on the N. Michigan Street Bridge over the Kansas Turnpike for $20,000. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-06-50-06) for a new 32’ x 60’ church office/classroom building as an accessory use to an existing church located at 445 Lyon Street, subject to the following conditions:

1.Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.

2.Provision of the following modification to the site plan:

a. Correct the scale to read 1” = 20’.

b. Show the location of the bicycle rack.

c. Reference the BZA file number on the site plan [B-06-20-06].

d. Provide for landscape screening of the parking lot along the west side of the property per Section 20-14A04.8(d).

3. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest a Future Benefit District for street and sidewalks improvements for Lyon Street and for N. 5^th Street.

Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign Memorandum of Understanding with the American Institute of Architects for participation in the Sustainable Design Team Project. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Barbara Wiseman, 1032 Lawrence Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to execute form for the Kansas Department of Transportation certifying property acquisition procedures and utility arrangements for Kasold Drive, Peterson Road to the KTA Bridge. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Interim City Manager to enter in an Engineering Agreement with Landplan Engineering in an amount of $106,980.50 for the engineering design of Overland Drive from Stoneridge to Queens Road, including water main. Motion carried unanimously. (15)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Interim City Manager to enter into an Engineering Agreement with Landplan Engineering in the amount of $109,291.50 for engineering design of Stoneridge Drive from 6^th Street north to Overland Drive, including water main. Motion carried unanimously. (16) As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive a memo from the Director of Public Works deferring the reconstruction of the alley in the 1000 block between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said a public meeting would be held in the City Commission Chambers, August 14^th, 2006, regarding staff’s and the consultant’s recommendation on the location for the new Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility.

He said other items included staff’s continuing efforts to notify the public concerning project submittals to the Planning Office; and efforts in installing tree grates Downtown in the 600 Block of Massachusetts.

Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Margene Swarts, Neighborhood Resources, updated the Commission on the Section 108 Loan Guarantee and New Markets Tax Credit Programs. She said the program was backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and it was secured primarily by community CDBG funds over the term of the loan and additional security might also be required. She said there was a broad range of applications for the program including real estate, user business, public facilities, mixed use, loan funds, and housing (rehabilitation, not new construction). Commonly, the uses were economic development activities, acquisition of real property and associated construction or installation of site improvements, or the rehabilitation of public land property that was not used for the general conduct of government and associated construction or installation of site improvements, or housing rehabilitation.

Section 108 activities had to meet a national objective for the CDBG Program which was generally either to benefit persons of low and moderate income or the elimination of slum or blight along with other inherence to Federal Regulations that was followed by the CDBG Program. The program required both programmatic and financial underwriting and the training stressed the financial aspect was an important component of a successful project.

The New Markets Tax Credit Program was operated through the Community Development Financial Institution Fund and it was an economic development tax credit program that provided investors with a credit against their federal income tax liability for a qualified investment. The program was designed to spur investment, promote economic development in rural and low-income communities, and was administered through a community development entity that must be qualified by the Community Development Financial Institute. She said allocations were awarded to the entity and not to a particular project.

The most common eligible projects were real estate deals such as loans/investment to operating businesses located in low income areas, development of commercial, industrial, or retail real estate that was in low income areas, or mixed use projects (commercial income must be at least 20% of the gross income of the property).

All the projects must be located in a qualified low income area that was also identified as service area by the Community Development Entity. She said, because the program was quite sophisticated and highly competitive, if the City was interested in participating in this program, they recommended partnering with an entity, such as a Community Development Entity that was familiar with the program and had a good track record.

She said there were no Community Development Entities in Lawrence, although there were seven entities in Kansas and it was possible Lawrence could look at one of those entities to see if they might want to expand their service area. In Lawrence, there were approximately six census tracks that were defined as low income areas for the purpose of this program.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said one of staff’s next steps was to continue to learn more about this program and try and find a way to see if those programs were tools that staff could use. One of the issues that would be discussed in the budget was the Economic Development Coordinator and a person with that background in that level of training, could also be of assistance with staff to see if they could maximize those resources. One of the trends with the Federal Government, in its financial assistance to local governments, was increasingly targeting their resources. He said the Block Grant Revenue sharing type programs were thin and more of those types of programs would be specifically targeted and become more sophisticated. In some cases more difficult to understand at one level, but if staff could find resources in time to drill down, they certainly wanted to take advantage of those resources.

Mayor Amyx suggested as staff learned more about the program, that they schedule study sessions for the City Commission in the fall. (18)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Consider the following items related to the 800 Pennsylvania Redevelopment Project:

CPA-2005-05: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, to address mixed use development in redevelopment areas.

Consider adopting findings of fact; approving rezoning requests, and authorize drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:

Z-12-80-05L Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the 8^th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone, generally described as being located between 8^th & 9^th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.

Z-01-01-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .541 acre from M-2 District to C-5 District, and 4.0 acres from M-3 to C-5 District, generally being described as being located between 8^th and 9^th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.

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

PF-01-03-06: Final Plat for 8^th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment. This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres, generally described as being located between 8^th and 9^th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.

Consider request for City assistance for infrastructure improvements related to this proposed redevelopment.

Mayor Amyx asked David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, to explain to the City Commission and public, the issues at hand related to the 800 Pennsylvania Redevelopment Project.

Corliss said the first recommendation dealt with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that responded to the desire for mixed use development in that area. The next set of recommendations were a zoning request that dealt with both conventional zoning and a zoning overlay district along with a plat and a request for financial assistance from the City in order to respond to some of the infrastructure needs for this project. This was the evening staff designated the City Commission to receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He said there had been extensive discussions between individuals in the neighborhood, neighborhood representatives, and the developer. Staff was trying to keep the City Commission in pace with some of the correspondence they had received.

The City Commission’s actions were to receive the recommendations. He said to keep in mind that when the City Commission received a Planning Commission recommendation for both a Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and also a rezoning, the City Commission, by majority vote, could approve the recommendation, or by majority vote, send the recommendation back to the Planning Commission with specificity as to why they were sending the recommendation back. In order to overrule the recommendation by the Planning Commission, on both of those items, the City Commission would need to overrule by a super majority vote which was four or more votes.

Mayor Amyx called a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, to address mixed use development in redevelopment areas.

Lynne Zollner, Planner, presented the staff report on the Urban Conservation Overlay District project at 8^th and Pennsylvania. She said the City only had one Urban Conservation Overlay District which was Downtown.

She said there were specific items set out in the City’s code regarding when an Urban Conservation District should be established. This type of district was intended to help with a zoning overlay for areas that had been developed, and not for use with new development. The process started with the Historic Resources Commission. The Historic Resources Commission, City Commission, or Planning Commission could initiate a UCO or 51% of the property owners within that area could also initiate a UCO. She said this particular UCO was initiated by the Historic Resources Commission because of the historic assets located within the Urban Conservation Overlay District that was proposed.

The HRC conducted a public hearing on this issue and identified this was an historic area that met the criteria established in the code for a UCO District. In addition, while the developer was going through this process, he identified the historic district that had been approved by the Kansas Historic Sites Board of Review and was now pending National Register nomination and was listed on the State Register at this time.

She said the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing to take into consideration the findings of fact from the HRC. The Planning Commission must also find their own findings of fact regarding planning/zoning issues and that report would be forwarded to the City Commission for final determinations.

She said when staff discussed with the developer, the criteria for this particular development, several things came into play that could not be accomplished because they did not have that type of parallel code for urban redevelopment that was sensitive to historic properties, things that needed to happen in order to make this project go forward which was in addition to the UCO, a comprehensive text amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

The next issue identified was zoning issues in addition to the overlay. The overlay simply adjusted the specifics of a zoning area and the base zoning for the uses stayed the same. The overlay identified things such as setbacks, height, and massing density, but the uses were for the base zoning. She said staff recognized the industrial zoning of the property was not appropriate for a project such as this type of project. She said staff tried to identify a zoning that would be the best for this property, but staff did not have a great deal to work with and staff was currently working at trying to look at zonings that would be more sensitive and useful for this type of mixed use redevelopment. In addition, the property had to be replatted. Therefore, a preliminary and final plat had to be submitted.

She presented a map to the City Commission depicting that in 1905, the area was an industrial area. There were vacant lots on the west side of Pennsylvania, but it was mainly single-family residential area as was the south side of the Pennsylvania/Delaware blocks. By 1905 to 1927, the patterns started to change with infill of residential areas on the western side as well as commercial. She said the boundaries of that district were now listed on Kansas Register of Historic Places and was pending National Register Nomination. She said in addition to the Poehler building which was a significant structure, they also had several smaller structures that were contributing. The National Register Nomination identified that a certain space, in that area, for some time, had been vacant and had been used for a holding place for materials and other different uses. She said that area had been identified in that Historic District Nomination as an open space that was contributing to the district.

She said one of the important issues when staff started working with this district, was not just to include the area that was designated as historic, but to include part of the industrial piece that intended to stay industrial because of the importance to that historic district and the reason that was nominated and listed along with the area directly to the north which was still industrial.

The report from the HRC indicated the project met all the criteria established by code. Items considered by the Planning Commission required a Text Amendment to Horizon 2020, the Conservation and Zoning Overlay District, the rezoning of those two pieces, the preliminary plat, and the final plat.

Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She said it encouraged redevelopment of areas where existing structures were under utilized, experienced high turnover rate, or remained vacant for an extended period of time.

The mixed-use centers would not be any larger than six acres to keep it neighborhood oriented and included a mixed use of residential, civic, office, small-scale commercial and open space.

The center should also maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods by providing transitions between uses through alleyways and landscaping; incorporating existing structures wherever possible; and, maintaining general structure spacing, massing, scaling, and street frontage relationships when incorporating new structures.

Finally, the centers should provide multi-modal services to include pedestrians, including pedestrian-scaled street furnishing, planning and gathering spaces; bicycle, including bicycle parking; vehicular; and transit, if available.

Lisa Pool, Planner, presented information on the rezoning requests and final plat. She said there had been a rezoning request from M-2 and M-3 industrial districts to C-5 zoning district and that was to allow for the mix of uses. The associated Urban Conservation Overlay District and Design Guidelines supercede the C-5 zoning regarding lot area, setbacks, density, maximum commercial space, and other C-5 standards. Additional areas within 8^th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Project would need to be replatted and rezoned as necessary as only the southwest corner and another area were being rezoned with the request.

The Planning Commission had recommended approval of that rezoning with an 8-1 vote. She said while this application was being reviewed under the old City zoning regulations, the new code allowed for conditional zoning which meant certain uses could be restricted from the C-5 zoning category. The preliminary plat, which the City Commission did not consider, was approved by the Planning Commission by a 9-0 vote and the Final Plat the City Commission was accepting easements and rights-of-way, conformed with the preliminary plat and it included the extension of Delaware Street to keep with the grid street pattern that was already established in the area.

Zollner said the Planning Commission also made a determination on the Urban Conservation Overlay District which was a 9-0 vote. The Planning Commission had some conditions they had placed on that approval and accepted the findings of fact in the staff report as their explanation of the planning and zoning implications related to the designation of the proposed conservation overlay district. She said it was important to note the Planning Commission had some concerns about the parking that staff had recommended and the developer had a different idea about what was appropriate parking for this area. Staff’s direction from the Planning Commission was that before this issue came before the City Commission, that Planning Staff’s recommendation be investigated versus the Smart Code recommendations for parking for this type of development versus the developers proposed parking in that area. There was also an adjustment to the lighting and the Planning Commission asked staff to make sure that issue of lighting was clarified as a condition.

She said the developer’s standards for this development required 177 parking spaces, City’s staff’s original standards were 347 spaces, and the Smart Code would require 211 spaces.

Mayor Amyx said it seemed that most of those people in Zone 1 were in support of that part of the project. In discussing Zone 3, which was the west part of Pennsylvania Street, the City Commission wanted to give the developer and neighborhood the opportunity to visit about starting the process over. He asked if the City Commission could condition the zoning to give them the time to work on starting the process over.

Zollner said the items before the City Commission such as the zoning request, other than conditioning that zoning if there was a change in that zoning, needed to go back through the process. The main item was the Urban Conservation Overlay District and any substantial changes made to that document which included not only the outlined map area, but that design guidelines document, needed to back through the process. Substantial changes from an historic resources point of view would be things that changed the density, height, massing, layout, and other types of issues and needed to go back through the HRC as well as the Planning Commission before they came back to the City Commission for final determination.

Commissioner Hack asked what Zollner thought about the State regulations regarding massing.

Zollner said one concern was the area referred to as Zone 1 which was already listed as a State district and therefore, came under the protection of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act. She said anything that took place in Zone 1 or within 500 feet of Zone 1, needed to be reviewed for its impact on those buildings. She said they looked at, in environs review, height, setback, and massing. The design was an issue and they looked at ways to keep that historic fabric around that designated property, along with the use of the lots that were traditional so they did not negatively impact that historic district. She said by Zone 1 being listed as a historic district, those were issues that had to be considered from this point forward for that west side of Pennsylvania Street and issues like height were very significant.

Commissioner Schauner asked Zollner what the term “considered” meant and asked if those were hard and fast rules or was there a level of subjectivity with respect to setbacks, height, massing, and so forth.

Zollner said those were standards and guidelines and did not indicate that no building would be constructed that was more than 2 feet taller or 2 feet shorter than the principal building. She said what those standards and guidelines did say, was to look at a way to protect those historic structures so that new development or redevelopment would not be an impact in a negative or adverse way. If things moved forward, those appeals would end up before the City Commission because the City of Lawrence had an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office that staff would conduct those State law reviews on a local level. The HRC would conduct that review and if an applicant was not satisfied with their answer, the applicant could appeal to the City Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said in this case a plan was set out for the west side of the street and had been altered, at least in discussions, with the various stakeholders. He said if that rearrangement and change in massing and height were to somehow be incorporated by the City Commission as the way they wanted this site to appear when it was completed, he asked if that would require going back through the HRC network for approval and review and ultimately back to the City Commission.

Zollner said that thinking was correct and that was mainly because the design guidelines set out a height maximum. One of the key issues on that height maximum was its relationship to the Poehler Building. She said if the City Commission chose to alter that height maximum or density it needed to go back through the public hearing process with the HRC as well as the Planning Commission so they had opportunity to comment on those types of significant changes to the document.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission heard much discussion and negotiation on what the density and block should look like on the west side of Pennsylvania Street. He said if the City Commission approved, but also permitted time for the neighborhood and developer to negotiate a good plan that would start the process over again, he asked how long that process would take.

Zollner said the time was judged on what type of changes were made. If the City Commission approved the Urban Conservation Overlay District with the Associated Design Guidelines there would be height maximums and density issues that were established in that document. In order to amend that document, in the future, the same process would need to be followed that started at the HRC level, moved forward to the Planning Commission, and then to the City Commission for final determination.

Commissioner Hack said with the draft agreement, the City Commission would be asked to amend Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, come up with the overlay district, and then immediately amend it.

Zollner said the City Commission would amend the Overlay District piece. She said the amendment to Horizon 2020 would not be affected. She said this was not a development plan, but set out the guidelines for development in that district and was not designed specific so that if it was approved with the standards that were identified in the document, it would still leave a lot of time, depending on the developer on how much time he could or wanted to spend on the actual design of the structures. The design of the individual structures must go through the process; it must go through the Historic Resources Commission, they have to do site plans, and eventually the rest of the area would have to be replatted. She said those issues were still outstanding.

Commissioner Rundle asked, in reviewing the Historic District Redevelopment Proposal, from the Historic Resources Guideline’s perspective, would they look at the project as a whole or would they look at each particular component on its own.

Zollner said they would look at a combination of those two ideas. Because it was nominated as a district, they looked at the entire Zone 1 and how to protect that area. If they were just talking about the development on the west side of Pennsylvania and that one multi-use building, then they looked how that building would directly affect the historic district. They would not be considering whatever else would go on that block, but look specifically how that building would impact the historic district.

Commissioner Rundle said he understood the tallest component that was in question was not in Zone 1, but in a neighboring area.

Zollner said that was correct.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at those design guidelines for the proposed Urban Conservation Overlay, it was recommended that retaining the quonset huts in an adaptive reuse would be economically feasible. He said every plan he saw scrapped Quonset huts because they were not used again. As an example of a way the ultimate plan would be able to answer that question, would that require going back through the Historic Resources group or who made the decision whether it was economically feasible.

Zollner said there was concern by the Historic Resources Commission that those buildings were a significant type of building although they could not list those buildings individually because of their condition on the State or National Register. One thing to keep in mind was the document was not looking at specific development although some of those pages might include what would look like, but they would not know exactly how that land developed until the developer brought back a site plan or elevations or how he was going to develop that land. That item was included so when it came time to develop those pieces of property, those questions had to be asked at the Historic Resources Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said each stage as it would be developed would have to go through some independent and segregated discussions about the removal of quonset huts.

Zollner said that was correct.

Mayor Amyx asked if the request for rezoning was the only mechanism to make this redevelopment project come together, rather than an entire development plan for the area.

Zollner said there were multiple options, but she did not attend those initial meetings where it was decided the area should be rezoned to C-5 and the conservation overlay district were the options. She said there was probably some discussion about rezoning to a Planned Commercial Development or some other type of zoning.

Stogsdill said staff discussed with the developer and representatives about a number of different options, such as a Planned Commercial Development which needed waivers from every standard in the Planned Unit Development regulations because of the size of the property and the block configuration. They also discussed potentially rezoning to a Community Commercial Centers District at the time, which was the C-3 zoning in the downtown district, but staff had significant reservations about C-3 zoning because that was the designation for downtown and that would have involved amending the same chapter to redefine what was downtown. Staff did not feel that this many blocks to the east was where the community was in terms of the definition of downtown. C-5 was the only district that allowed residential, commercial, and some light industrial uses which currently existed on the east side of Pennsylvania and some tenants in that zoning category wanted to be able to stay. C-5 zoning was the only zoning district that allowed all of those uses.

Bo Harris, Harris Construction, said Sally Schwenk, Historic Consultant, would comment further regarding some of their hurdles with amending the east side (Zone 3) and the massing and heights of those buildings.

Sally Schwenk, Historic Consultant for Harris Construction, said she was charged with helping to develop a set of design guidelines that would anticipate the use of the Kansas Environs Law because they would be nominating the square block of that property onto the National Register of Historic Places.

In addition to the considerations that Zollner had discussed, part of that pre-planning process when they scoped out what would be necessary for this development to work from a preservation standpoint because they were creating a National Register District and part of the economic viability of this project was utilizing federal and state rehabilitation tax credits that could be applied to that block was also the anticipation of use of tax credits and the same guidelines that would anticipate a review for Kansas Environs Law would also anticipate tax credit guidelines and federal money reused in this development, Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, which would also require an environs review. Theoretically, all of this would be done by following the Secretary of Interior Standards, which included standards for rehabilitation of historic buildings, but also for new construction, infill construction, and project areas. They developed a set of guidelines that anticipated the Kansas Environs review which was Section 106 of the National Preservation Act and compliance with state and federal rehabilitation tax credits.

She said she had seen a sketch of some of the issues discussed previously as an alternative. She said after staff’s reaction, she discussed her viewpoint with Harris which was the “redesign” of this area did not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards and did not meet the guidelines that specifically were outlined and in which they worked with the Historic Resources Commission on size, scale, massing, height, and rhythm of the street. The simplest way to explain, was the new construction, in all aspects, would need to be subservient to the National Register District. Therefore, the Poehler Building would remain and they adjusted the height of what would be the allowable height of new construction both within the district and in the environs review area, which was placed into the guidelines. Also placed into the guidelines was massing, which would be subservient to the size of the buildings across the street in height, massing and scale, so that the west side of the street would be subservient. Also, that there be a rhythm. Whether this had single family residents in 1905 or whether it had new construction, there was always a street wall of a finished street. She said the rhythm of the buildings, and use of large, open spaces for parking, created gaps that interrupt that rhythm seen across the street in the historic district.

She said those were some of the issues she looked at along with her associate Kerri Davis and they went back over their guidelines the prior day, and she would have to concur they would have to go back through the whole process and re-amend. They would still need to come up with guidelines that would met the Secretary of Interior Standards about size, scale, massing, rhythm and all of those issues because they were always going to have to be address in an environs issue. She said she wished she could say there was flexibility in size, scale, massing and pattern, but they could not redesign it and hope it would pass the environs law or would not impact the ability to get tax credits or federal funding in the future. She said they would have to go back to the drawing board. She shared some staff concerns on whether it would go through the environs review.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the environs review was merely considering the impact of the western side of Pennsylvania Street, Zone 1, or the entire neighborhood.

Schwenk said ideally, under Section 106 of the Federal Government, anything that was eligible for listing on the National Register in the neighborhood around it would be good.

Zollner said notification boundary was 500 feet from a protected property. The environs could be as far as the state or the reviewing body deemed as appropriate. What often happened was when looking at protecting the environs of a historic district that had been designated like this area it was actually the character of the neighborhood they were trying to preserve by protecting the environs of the historic district. In a small way it was only 500 feet, but when the Commission looked at those issues, they needed to look at the entire neighborhood.

Commissioner Rundle asked if this was going to affect the tax credits or impact a future nomination.

Schwenk said when tax credits were reviewed, one of the things the tax credit reviewer would look at was the environs or the site. While they could get tax credits for the Poehler Building, the site work was not included. What went on in the site as part and consequence of that development was reviewed. If the state or federal staff wanted to draw a conclusion based upon all of this being submitted throughout this whole process, that Zone 3 went with Zone 1, then it could enter into whether or not the tax credits were issued because of the impact of the surrounding site and site work. From the very beginning, they wanted to make sure that anything they did in this development project would follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction and new development, which included Zone 3.

Commissioner Rundle asked if there were future nominations proposed as part of this project that had not already gone through for historic designation.

Schwenk said for the area covered on the zoning overlay, there were no other areas eligible for National Register. In the adjacent area of the neighborhoods, they had historic residential neighborhoods and had one pending nomination outside the development, but adjacent to it.

Commissioner Rundle said he talked to someone with the State Historical Society about the tax credits and they could not make a definitive statement without much more information, but the person from the State Historical Society was more optimistic than Schwenk’s looking at the entire project.

Schwenk said it depended on how it was legally structured and how the federal and state reviewers wanted to interpret it.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the federal or state reviewers would give deference to the decision of either the local historical resources group or the local governing body on a final decision.

Schwenk said in compliance with Section 106 where they would anticipate the impact of Historic Resources, there was a public participation component and the findings of the City agencies or boards would be taken into consideration and would be heard and part of the record, but it would not have a finite influence on the decision.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be another part of the record and not one given additional weight by the federal and state reviewers.

Schwenk said it would be considered, for example, in the development of the National Register District, federal funding was sought, and the impact would then be to look at what the rest of the development’s impact was on this resource because there was a federal undertaking. She said what would probably occur was a judgment that there was an adverse impact if it did not follow the Secretary of Interior Standards in Zone 3. Then they would look at what would have been the public testimony and ways to mitigate that impact. She said the development between the City, state, developer and federal agency would be to look at other alternatives and new construction in Zone 3 that met the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those standards related to what Zollner spoke of earlier.

Schwenk said they were the very same standards, which was why they had written the guidelines to meet the Environs Review, Section 106, and tax credit, anticipating that if any of those review process started at the federal, state, or local level, they would be consistent from the very beginning.

Zollner said to clarify for the tax credit purposes, the decisions by the Historic Resources Commission, Planning Commission, and City Commission had no bearings on whether or not those credits were issued. The projects must meet the standards of the reviewers of the park service and the State Historic Preservation Office who made the determination if the standards were met or not.

Commissioner Schauner said the reviewers or State Historic Preservation Office essentially did not care about the City Commission’s comments.

Zollner said for the tax credit purposes, that thinking was correct.

Harris said he thought Zollner had an extremely important point to get on the table at this time. He said both the East Lawrence Neighborhood and the applicant felt it was important the public understood some of the discussions that had taken place over the past couple of weeks in an effort to make the project more palatable to all parties.

Janet Good, President East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said she thought they ought to explain where they were in this process not only to the City Commission, but to other people in the neighborhood who were not aware of what was going on because the ground had been shifting pretty rapidly. She said it had been a contentious subject in the neighborhood. There were people who thought it was the best thing to happen to East Lawrence ever, and people who thought it was the worst thing ever. Out of the process, a group called the Old East Lawrence Preservation Alliance was founded based on some old timers in the neighborhood and people who were directly impacted in this process. Most of the concerns of the neighbors on this project were based on density. She said in discussions with the Preservation Alliance and with the neighbors, they came to the conclusion that they could come to a compromise on the density number that was a contentious issue with Harris if they could have some long term mitigation plan in the neighborhood. She said she understood those points were not on the agenda and not being voted on at this time, but it was important to get those points in public record because they had gone back and forth between Mr. Harris and those two groups several times over.

She said to mitigate meant to make less severe or painful. They understood that the items were not on the agenda tonight and not being voted on, but personally the strife between neighbors and friends over this issue would have been worth while if it created a sense of purpose and urgency and caused immediate, concrete, and sustainable efforts between the neighborhood, the City, and the developer to stabilize and preserve East Lawrence. They saw this development having a leap-frog effect through the neighborhood because they had a lot of encroaching development issues.

The issues that were put forward, as part of this compromise proposal, were:

1. For the City to assist the neighborhood with creation of their own urban conservation district based on the East Lawrence Plan that would help protect the neighborhood from encroaching development pressure and help preserve the historic nature of East Lawrence;
2. For the City to assist and Harris not-to-protest the addition of 12 new residential listings and an additional vernacular architecture historic districts to the Kansas Register of Historic Places for the protection of the neighborhood and the long term stabilization of the neighborhood;
3. The creation of a fund based on the City’s property tax revenue of the completed proposed redevelopment proposal would be deferred until the property would change hands;
4. To assist East Lawrence of what she called a traffic summit to address the traffic impact on 11^th and Connecticut Streets and identify options for alleviating some of the traffic concerns. Traffic had been a big issue with the density number that was on this proposal;
5. Creation of a district eligible for incremental tax rebates through the Neighborhood Revitalization Act and for the City to support the acquisition of the sale barn lot on 11^th for the Boys and Girls Club facility. This had been identified by the neighborhood as the best use of the property currently zoned intensive industrial that was immediately adjacent to the neighborhood and the City park. She said that area was the last piece of the neighborhood that was open to infill development and zoned completely inappropriately at this time; and
6. Creation of an historic marker or monument outlining the National Historic significance of Old East Lawrence.

She said in this ongoing process and as part of the compromise, the Preservation Alliance came up with the Compromise Plan and that plan addressed several issues the neighbors had concerns with which was the buffer zone along the residential piece on the back end of the west side of Pennsylvania and also the fact they would like to see the retail and commercial massed on the north end of Zone 3, not on both ends. She said it seemed to be the consensus of the consultants and historians that this was not a workable plan going forward for the tax credits that made this project financially feasible. They would like to hear that from the agency itself, especially from the Preservation Alliance people who put forth that plan.

She said they found out yesterday afternoon, before her board meeting, that if the UCD moved forward for the stakeholders, the City Staff, neighborhood and the developer would take part in a charette and iron out some of the issues and come to a compromise position. There had been a lot of discussion over this issue about what motivation the developer would have if the UCD would be approved, to come out of the charette with something that addressed their concerns. She said the reason she personally could see a charette working was because this project was still a moving target and still involved, even if the UCD went forward, many phases over many years and many site plan approval processes. Mr. Harris was still going to be seeing a whole lot of them and the neighborhood had proven they could make his life difficult and it was in his best interest in the charette process to address those concerns to alleviate some of their issues on how the density and retail was massed. She believed the charette process probably could have a lot of value to the stakeholders.

Mayor Amyx told the neighbors of East Lawrence that Janet Good was a great representative and the neighbors were fortunate to have someone who worked so hard for the neighborhood. He said, regarding Mr. Harris, Harris was trying to make sure his project was of the highest quality and met the expectations of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association.

Harris said he thought it was important to reiterate that each one of those projects individually would be brought through the entire process again with public input at the HRC, the Planning Commission, and the City Commission levels. He said it was important to note they were discussing four zones in the urban conservation district. Zone 1 was the historic district; Zone two was the public right-of-way and street and alley patterns that were being maintained and enhanced with the extension of Delaware Street and the retention of off street parking in that area; Zone 3 had been the contentious area on the west side of Pennsylvania Street and through the UCD document and currently the way it stood, they had 12 units on each corner above 3,000 square feet of retail and 30 townhouse units in between those; and Zone 4 was an area where rezoning was not being asked for and it was currently a commercial use and commercial use north of the project.

He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the area to the City Commission. He said important issues to the neighborhood were traffic issues, C-5 use limitations, parking, density, and funding of an infrastructure and gentrification. He said plan changes that had taken place regarding traffic were the parking lots at either end emptied into the alley and there was more density because of additional residential.

Nathan Bergman, Traffic Engineer, Bartlett & West Engineers, said he was not the person that performed the traffic study, but he had reviewed the study. He said according to ITE, based on discussions with the City and the developer, traffic estimates were projected based on the usage of the property as the developers saw fit. It was estimated at 1,850 vehicle trips per day, which meant those were trips coming to and leaving the proposed site. With that, they looked at the peak hour traffic volumes that would be generated by this site. It was approximately 230 in the morning peak hour and 232 in the evening peak hour, which included the residents and people leaving to the businesses in that site.

He said when performing a traffic study and looking at the intersections involved, there were 7 intersections that were looked at and 5 intersections directly around the proposed site and then the intersections of 9^th and Connecticut and 11^th and Delaware as being major traffic generations points of people going into the site from the major streets and leaving the site which would be affecting those turning movements. He said Bartlett & West took daily and peak hour traffic counts at those intersections and quantity based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He said all the movements of the stop controlled intersections were a service level C or better. He said that was broken down in level of services from A-E and based on how long they would wait at that intersection. The through movements had a service level A because they virtually would go through and never need to stop or slow down for any body unless making a left turn. The main levels were service level service A was 0-10 seconds, B was 10-15 seconds and C would be waiting at that intersection for 15-25 seconds. He said all movements were level C or better and looking at what traffic would be generated at the site, the 230 vehicles per hour, they were looking at approximately 4 vehicles a minute and an increase of wait time for 2-4 seconds per vehicle as they would go to the intersections. Existing levels of service C or better continued to be a service level of C or better after the proposed improvements. He said there were some movements at the intersections of 11^th and Delaware and 9^th and Connecticut that in 2025 might become a problem that would be further looked at by the City. He said it was not based on the development, but based on the growth within the City over the next 20 years.

Harris said with the C-5 use limitations, they had never had much of any concern about the meeting of the minds with the neighborhood and the limitations of uses in the neighborhood. He said those should be mutually beneficial to both the developers and the neighbors. He said they needed to continue to note they had a UCD document that would guide them throughout the process and he thought it was a very well done document. They had a homeowners’ association in its broadest sense including the entire area. They would have some common area maintenance charges, both with the living units and commercial space that would allow them to maintain the area on a broader and more consistent basis than they might have with individual ownerships in the neighborhood. They would have covenants and restrictions in their lease terms and in their sales contracts as part of those contracts with condominium ownership. He said one specifically to address use restrictions in the C-5 deed or site plan restrictions could be used for that.

He said the second neighborhood concern was parking and he reviewed the parking calculations for the Smart Code standards. In the project the parking that was provided, in Zone 1 was off-street parking on 154 spaces; 75 spaces on the street; in Zone 3, 40 spaces in the covered lots; 30 spaces in garages behind a townhouse unit; 42 spaces in front and along 8^th Street in the street; Zone 4, easterly section, had off-street parking at 45 spaces and on-street parking at 49 spaces. He said the developer provided spaces off the street with 269 spaces and on the street with 166 spaces; for a total of 435 spaces.

He said would like to create more green and open space and putting a stop to the over parking. He said this was not something they were asking for, but they thought it was an issue they should take a hard look as they continued to develop in what happened in Zone 3. He brought up the density issue and what type of density was in East Lawrence. He said Polk Oil Company had 14 employees coming and going to work at that location at one time.