December 12 , 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Amyx presented The League of American Bicyclists Friendly Community recognition.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from November 28th, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve claims to 402 vendors in the amount of $3,389,240.04 and payroll from November 26, 2006 to December 9, 2006 in the amount of $1,633,036.62. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to Wa Restaurant, 740 Massachusetts; Fatso’s, 1016 Massachusetts; It’s Brother’s Bar and Grill, 1105 Massachusetts; and Local Burger, 714 Vermont; and the Retail Liquor License to Texas Jack’s Liquor, 3020 South Iowa Suite. B. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Hubbard Collingsworth to the Community Commission on Homelessness, to a term which will expire December 31, 2007; reappoint Shon Qualseth and Amy Lemert to the Grant Review Board, to terms which will expire December 31, 2009; and reappoint Lori Tapahonso, Deb Taylor, and Sarah Terwelp to the Lawrence Alliance to terms which will expire November 30, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize payment to the Clerk of the Douglas County District Court for the following easements for the Pump Station No. 48 project: a) Kmart property (Lot 2 of the Kmart Center Distribution Center No. 2) for $29,600. (Condemnation Tract 32), and b) Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP property for $29,000 (Condemnation Tract 33). Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for comprehensive housing rehabilitation for the 1312 Summit and 1140 Pennsylvania. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Penny Construction $24,751.00 (1312 Summit)
Staff’s Estimate $22,560.00 (1312 Summit)
Penny Construction $31,851.00 (1140 Pennsylvania)
Staff’s Estimate $34,586.00 (1140 Pennsylvania)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to award the sole bids to Penny Construction, in the amount of $24,751 for 1312 Summit and $31,851 for 1140 Pennsylvania. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize City Manager to enter into a contract with Asphalt Improvement Company for $44,008 for the construction of additional parking at the Kaw Water Treatment Plant. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Alvamar Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $903,221.00
McLouth Excavating, Inc. $880,031.00
Heartland Midwest LLC. $912,334.00
Nowak Construction Co. $1,006,800.20
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to award the bid to McLouth Excavating Inc. in the amount of $880,031. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8058, amending the franchise fee for Worldnet, L.L.C. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8059, amending the franchise fee for the World Company. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8041, a joint City Ordinance/County Resolution follow-up to the previously approved update to Chapter 9, Horizon 2020, Park, Recreation, Open Space Areas and Facilities. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 8051, increasing fines and court costs assessed upon conviction of a traffic violation in municipal court, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6693, declaring the boundaries of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve a request for a variance to section 19-214B of the City Code for the final plat of Maple Lane Addition No. 2 to allow placing a private sanitary sewer service line in the public right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt 2007 Legislative Priority Statement with revised language from the December 5th, 2006 City Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve renewal of Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage with Midwest Employers Casualty Company for a two year contract for the policy years of January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2009 with the 2007 annual premium of $40, 961. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign Releases of Mortgage for Kristin Adrian, 815 New York Street, and Gary Smith, 1234 Connecticut Street. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said the Administrative Services Department was working on a detailed report and recommendation to change the City’s 457 Deferred Compensation Plan record keeping, investment management and administration services and which would be presented to the City Commission in January 2007.
He said other highlighted information include the Audit Schedule for 2006; November Building Permits Report; and the number of visits to the City’s website in November.
Finally, he said concerning the City’s water quality, the Kaw Plant was now back online. There had been some taste and odor concerns, but never any health concerns. He said as the water worked its way through the system, staff thought those complaints would disappear. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approval of the Aberdeen preliminary development plan, Stoneridge and West 6th Street, subject to conditions and use restrictions:
a) PDP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street. This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff looked at this property for a rezoning request back in August of 2005 and recommended approval for a Planned Unit Development. A Planned Unit Development was submitted to the Planning Commission early this spring, having gone through a number of different revisions at the staff level and then through the Planning Commission a number of different times through revisions. She said it started out with a recommendation for denial in March after following discussions about transition and trying to provide some mixed type of housing uses on the property, but given some of the density and height restrictions of that zoning, it became very much of a challenge. The Planning Commission, following that action, directed the applicant to go back and have additional meetings with the neighborhood to try to address more concerns and ended up with a project that included duplex units on the eastern portion of the property that fronted the residential street with a balance of the apartment units being to the interior.
She said another revision to the project included moving the activity area; the pool and clubhouse more to the central portion of the property. She said it had gone through a number of different discussions both at the staff level, with the applicant and with the neighborhood. She said the City Commission had a project that was recommended for approval subject to five conditions. She said she thought that was a demonstration of the work that had gone on in the background before it came to the City Commission.
She said the subject property was part of the West Lawrence Neighborhood. She said there was a drainage easement that came through the property and divided it into an east and west half. The primary access to the project would be coming from Stoneridge Drive, which was the collector street. She said there was no direct access to West 6th Street, which was consistent with their access management policies and there was a secondary access for emergency purposes only that would be located in a gated structure, but could be accessed in emergency purposes. She said there was a bridge that crossed over the drainage and provided minimal connectivity on the pedestrian level either through sidewalks back through to the rest of the neighborhood.
Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, said even though this project had a long history, he had only been involved for a few months and in that short time they had seen the project make great progress from a project that had approximately 20 conditions associated with the project to one that was presented to them tonight with only five conditions, all of which had been agreed to. He said all other conditions had been resolved.
He said this project had a number of visits to the Planning Commission and had been studied very thoroughly by the Planning Commission. He said as Planning Commissioner Haase said at the meeting last month, the applicant had done everything that had been asked of the applicant and it was time to move this project forward, which the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 9 -1 vote.
He said Sandra Day discussed some of the changes that had been made to the plan. He said those included moving the pool and the club house into the center of the project so that it was not bordering on the neighbors. He said it included changing and raising a berm in a detention basin to assist with the screening of the project from the adjoining single family homes on the southeast. He said it involved the replacement of an apartment building with duplexes to reduce the scale. He said they also prepared elevations and discussed with staff, the materials that would be used for the construction and enhanced the visible areas of the buildings, in particular, by adding more brick and stone veneers.
He said what they had was a project that had a long history; the plan had been studied extensively and repeatedly by the Planning Commission. He said last time the Planning Commission looked at it they were pleased enough to vote 9 – 1 to recommend the City Commission approve this plan for which zoning was already approved by a unanimous vote.
Paul Werner, architect for the project, said they had been through several plans. The complex consisted of one and two bedroom units and a small clubhouse. He said they were consistent in four sided architecture, meaning they were finished on all four sides with similar materials, unlike an older project which would dress up the front while the other three sides were a little different. The smallest buildings, 8-plexes with one bedroom units, were all along the south portion that abutted the adjoining property. This plan also showed the two duplexes in the southeast corner facing Stonecreek Drive so there was not an abrupt change to a different building type. The overall grading had been studied extensively and a great deal of work had been done with the retaining walls along the north to lower the buildings as low as they could go so they were not imposing to the neighbors. He said there was a great deal of grade to the site and a fairly significant amount of work. He said the idea was to lessen the impact to the adjacent neighbors.
He said storm water was a significant issue on this side. He said right now it was not controlled at all. He said they had two detention ponds on both sides of the drainage channel on the south portion of the site. He said this had been studied by LandPlan and approved by Matt Bond, the City Storm Water Engineer, and he thought the best thing for the site was to have it site planned and have a storm water control since right now it was not controlled at all.
He said they had not studied the west side too extensively, where those four buildings were located, only because their client also owned the property to the south. He said they were much freer to grade, add berms, and work on the other property to the south. He said they studied the east side of the drainage channel which LandPlan had reworked the detention area instead of just having it graded, they took on the added expensive of retaining walls so the detention area could be more vertical which would give them more space for the berms and added landscaping between the adjacent property owner and the first small building.
The clubhouse had been moved to the entrance of the project. He said there was a concern the pool would be an issue adjacent to the neighbors so the pool was moved.
He presented and explained a detailed drawing of the area.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the drawing was to scale.
Werner said absolutely. He said they had gone through a number of changes and a lot of effort had been put forth on this plan. The plan was brought to the City Commission with recommendation from the Planning Commission with a 9 – 1 vote.
Commissioner Schauner asked what happened to the topography as one moved to the south or southeast.
Werner said it sloped significantly to the south from 6th Street. He said everything led to the drainage channel.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Werner had any sense of what the drop was in elevation from their property to the north and west of the house and the lowest point in that development to the south.
Werner said the first floor would be level with the grade at the back of that house. He said they felt fairly accurate the first floor grade was essentially the same grade plus or minus a couple feet of the daylight basement grade of that person’s home.
Commissioner Highberger asked what the approximate square footage and height was for each building.
Werner said those buildings were 2 stories, 9 foot plate heights and to the plate was 19 feet. He said they had gone to low slope roofs that were 5-12 pitches, to keep that height down, which was the lowest they could go. The actual way to measure that building was through a portion of that roof. He said they lowered everything as much as they could, but they were stuck with the drainage channel that would take a lot of water off of 6th Street.
Mayor Amyx said in August 2005 the City Commission approved rezoning for this property. A lot of work had been done with this project not only by the applicant, but staff and the Planning Commission, which was probably one of the reasons for staff’s recommendation with those five conditions along with the 9-1 vote from the Planning Commission. He asked if this development was the type of development the City Commission envisioned for this property.
Commissioner Schauner said in reviewing the City Commission minutes from August 16, 2005, one question asked by the then Mayor Highberger was, “If the zoning was approved before any construction occurred, the City Commission would need to approve a site plan and under that site plan review, the Commission would have the authority to determine whether the proposed uses were compatible with the adjacent uses.” He said then Assistant City Manager Corliss said, “Correct, when the Commission was reviewing a site plan, they did have that general authority given those performance type languages in the site plan condition. He said one of the criteria for approving the site plan was compatibility and the Commission could respond to something like that on height. He said height was specifically mentioned in the site plan criteria, but that would be later in the process.” He said as he had driven that area and thought about all the houses that were down the slope from that 8-plex, it seemed what people in that area saw as they looked up the hill was not significantly taller buildings, but buildings of significantly different massing than single family residences that neighbor that area. He said his concern was whether that massing or scale of those buildings was consistent with what the average person would think of as a compatible neighbor. He said he did not know if there was a right or wrong answer, but his suspicion was those who lived closest would be the last to believe it was compatible. He said that issue was a question he would like to have some discussion about in whether the size, massing, height, and density was appropriate when all taken together.
Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission was seeing something different than was anticipated at the time of rezoning, he asked if there was a feeling this item might be returned to the Planning Commission. He said this rezoning was dealing with density on that particular piece of property. He said if density was a problem, density was a completely different item than dealing with the development plan and was a different discussion. He said what was before the City Commission was the development plan. He said if the proposed uses were not compatible, the City Commission needed to give direction for whatever reasons, regarding compatibility. He said the City Commission needed to be specific, if this was going to go back to the Planning Commission, on what was expected for this particular piece of property.
Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Mayor Amyx, in terms of the City Commission not discussing density, because there was a zoning density permitted, but at the same time in order to maximize the density, the structures that were created were of such mass that those structures were not compatible neighbors from an appearance point of reference. He said there was some connectivity between the concept of “density” and the concept of “compatibility.” He said he was not talking about density, but the affect the density had on the size of the building.
Commissioner Rundle said this led him to bring up an old issue which was the need that the development plan would come at the same time as the zoning. He said he thought it was hard to envision when approving the zoning, exactly what was going to come back on their preliminary development plan. He said they could see now, what they could not see then, in terms of exceeding a compatible density. He said they certainly could see what that density resulted in and it would have been good to have that density at the time. He said he also had a concern about compatibility.
Mayor Amyx said regarding zoning and the development plan being reviewed at the same time, he asked if the City Commission would be making decisions on every development plan without actually making an “aye” or “nay” vote regarding whether or not the zoning itself, was compatible. He said the plans could always change.
Commissioner Rundle said it might lead to reducing the density as a part of the zoning approval. He said years ago it was written as an ordinance to have the zoning and development plan together and it was a matter of practice over the years, but they had drifted away from that practice.
Mayor Amyx said if everything had a plan that came along with zoning, that would be one thing, but sometimes that was not the case and he would hate to buy into something because it looked good and then find out later that they approved something they might not be able to get out of.
Commissioner Schauner said in theory, he agreed with Commissioner Rundle. He said one of the problems was the amount of investment it took to get a plan brought concurrently with the zoning request. He said in a perfect world, he would prefer that as well, but thought there were some practical difficulties in bringing all those pieces together at the same time and that was why they struggled with that issue on a regular basis. He said the issue then became how the developer, builder, or landowner created a plan that was compatible. He said there had been a number of occasions, in the past few years, where neighbors indicated they would not have bought a particular property if they would have known what was going next to that property. He said he did not know how to fix it and did not know if they had a tool to do it very effectively. He said he thought it was another example where they had raw ground that was now being developed in a way that a number of people were not particularly happy about. He said they struggled with their compatibility and what standard they used to come to that conclusion.
Vice Mayor Hack said in a number of ways this project was an infill project. Infill projects were always difficult because someone was always on the edge of the existing property and then the newer development. She said whether the expectations they had were accurate or not, people still had certain expectations of what things were going to be like in their backyard and beyond. She said the old adage was, “If you do not own the view, you do not really have any control over it”, yet it was a matter of balancing that it was your property and that was your view.
She said she heard concerns about density, but if the bar was set at 12 units per acre and this development fell below that bar, she did not think it was right to turn something down on the density issue when they met the goal they had. She said transitional zoning was always difficult as well as the buffering. She said with the size of this piece of ground, it made it difficult.
She said she was not concerned about stormwater because enough people had told the City Commission that stormwater issues would be better with detention in that area. She said she was also not concerned about the Winthrop Court issue because she believed for safety purposes for the neighborhood, there had to be a secondary access into that area when that property developed. She said she liked the idea of the crash gate and that it was not a connection to Stonecreek Drive.
She said her reservation was the one 8-plex. She said her concern was that section of property was going from single family to an 8-plex, which was a big jump. She said she was not an architect or a developer, and did not know if that could be changed and if there was a way to make that different so it was not such an abrupt change, even with the buffering of the landscaping. She said if there was any way to make that happen, that would be her direction to the Planning Department, developers, and neighbors to try and transition that segment better.
Commissioner Highberger said he visited that site and found it was very illustrative. He said he appreciated Commissioner Rundle’s concern about adopting plans at the same time as zoning, but he thought if they were going to plan, get out ahead of development, and provide some sort of certainty to anyone developing property, zoning had to come ahead of the plan. He said if the City Commission approved a zoning that was too dense, there was no rational way to beat that upper limit of that existing zoning. He said they could change it.
He said he still believed multi-family use was the correct use for that property. He said he did not think they wanted 6th Street lined with the back sides of cul-de-sacs.
He said he was hoping for a little better transition when he approved this, but certainly he hesitated going against the vote of the Planning Commission, even though the person who voted against the preliminary development plan was the person he appointed to the Planning Commission. He said he would still like to see a little more improvement to this development.
He said he thought transitions could be handled better and similar transitions against single-family properties needed to be addressed. He said it would make more sense to scale down buildings that immediately abut single family homes and a little higher density toward the north end by 6th Street. He said he understood all the work that had been done, but he would like to see better transitions on the southern edge of the property.
Mayor Amyx said this discussion was important in order to have an idea of where the City Commission was headed. He said there was no reason to go through two public hearings if this item was returning to the Planning Commission. He said if this item was returning to the Planning Commission, he asked what type of City Commission comments they would like to see for the Planning Commission to consider. He said he heard Commissioner Highberger’s possible increase in density along 6th Street and graduate the density along the southern portion of the property, but to understand that greater density was to the north and less to the south. Vice Mayor Hack and Commissioner Schauner raised concerns about the 8-plex, and the consideration of the height of those buildings.
Commissioner Schauner said the larger landscaping to begin with would be a quick way to provide a better sense of differentiation between multifamily and single family residences and that might be true along the south and north edge as well. He said he knew larger trees had a higher death rate on transplant and he knew it took those trees a lot longer to get established, but on balance, those trees provided better screening sooner than smaller trees. He said he would also second Commissioner Highberger’s comments because those comments were consistent with his own views.
Mayor Amyx said he voted in favor of the zoning and believed the zoning, staff’s recommendation, and Planning Commission’s recommendation were all correct. He said if there were ideas to make this a more compatible project between single family neighbors to the south and the new development to the north, he did not have a problem with taking a look at the development.
Price Banks, attorney representing the neighbors, said a number of residents in the neighborhood were ready to discuss this issue and it was his impression those residents might have additional ideas for the Planning Commission to consider. He said the issue was analyzed on the basis of the golden factors because they were dealing with land use relationships. He said recently, a judge indicated that would be appropriate in a case that involved the City of Lawrence. He said the neighbors thrust was to see the cul-de-sac, on the east side of the drainage way, with single family residences and the neighbors were willing to go along with 8-plexes on the west side of the drainage way. He said the neighborhood would accept the City Commission’s guidance on this issue, but thought the neighborhood could provide some meaningful input at this point.
Cory Lange, resident in the Stonecreek area, said the drawings presented, based on his observation, did not seem to scale. He said the surrounding property was zoned as RS-2 that included a church, Branchwood area which was zoned PRD-1, and single-family which included another church. He said he found it hard to see how it was approved. He said City maps indicated the area was a cul-de-sac. He said the project had been going on for 18 months and asked how long it took to make it correct.
Mark O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said in talking about how this conformed to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5, Residential Land Use, mentioned there should be appropriate transition zoning. He said there should be transition from the housing and the neighborhood did not feel it provided the transition necessary to go from single-family to multi-family. He said his neighbor, Lange, would be right next door to an apartment building, which did not seem like an appropriate transition.
He said also, the design should be consistent with adopted neighborhood plans in developing the neighborhood concept of the area. He said if looking at the planning unit concept, it matched well. He said he was not sure how it was not appropriate to have single- family in that location when it appeared there was low density residential on all of those arterials. He said if this plan was allowed to happen, it seemed the whole area would be encircled with multi-family and not what Horizon 2020 planned.
He said it seemed there was minimal buffering.
He said a number of the neighborhood’s concerns had not been addressed and were not listed as conditions. He said one of the Planning Commissioners mentioned, in their July meeting, that there was a clear indication the project was in contradiction to Horizon 2020 which compelled the Planning Commission with the duty of mitigation. He said two trees were added which would not follow Horizon 2020’s guidelines, but the clubhouse was moved which the neighborhood appreciated. He said it did not seem those two issues would clear up the entire contradiction to Horizon 2020.
He said when the neighborhood met with staff hoping to come up with a resolution, it was not resolved. He said staff indicated that under the new code, if there was any problem, like a tree dying, the City would replant that tree. He said he thought this plan was planned under the old code and therefore the new code would not apply and he would like to make sure the new code applied to this plan.
Mike Wallis, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said this development would economically impact their property and not on a positive respect. He said if there were two pieces of property, similar in value, when they were ready to sell their property, the other property would go first. He said furthermore, they would be faced with the economic impact of having to put in fencing to buffer their property from the development. He said they were already in discussions with the fence company. He said they would have to put in trees and shrubbery to buffer their property from the development. He said as far as he was concerned, this plan was something that could not be ignored.
Mayor Amyx said Wallis moved in his house in November of 2005 and asked if Wallis questioned that vacant property.
Wallis said yes.
Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis received an answer. He said the decision on the zoning was made in August of 2005 and asked if Wallis had concerns about that zoning at that time.
Wallis said he did not have concern about the zoning, but had concern about the property.
Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the person who was involved in the purchase of that property.
Wallis said yes.
Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis was assured that nothing bad would happen.
Wallis said yes.
Vice Mayor Hack asked Wallis what he was told.
Wallis said the impression they received was the area was single-family housing.
Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the zoning on that property at that time.
Wallis said no.
Mayor Amyx said Wallis had a large vacant field behind or across the street from their house adjacent to a major highway. He said he was trying to figure out if Wallis questioned what that area might be, but it sounded like Wallis did.
Wallis said yes, but knowing what he knew now, they would not have bought the property.
Kevin Loos, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he did not think any of the neighbors were expecting this area not to have some component of multi-family. He said one concern was the transition of going from high end single-family straight into 8-plexes and from a planning standpoint, that did not make sense. He said he knew the issues with duplexes and the issues of ownerships with duplexes could cause other problems and he was not saying duplexes were the right answer either, but there had to be some type of better density transition that went from $400,000 single-family homes to 8-plexes that could be rented by anybody. He said it was a very odd transition for him to support. He said the other piece which seemed odd was single-family residences on both sides of the street, one lot of duplexes, and a church. He asked if that was consistent with the character of a neighborhood. He said he would challenge there was a better alternative for that piece of land specifically on making that something compatible with the neighborhood. He said there had to be something other than a building that was going to make developers money, and forget anyone else who lived in the neighborhood.
He said with the transition, trees and berms were not appropriate and thought there had to be a better density transition. He said he thought most of them would agree that at some time multi-family was probably the appropriate thing, but it was odd to pull that zoning onto Stonecreek Drive. He said they needed to be more creative as architects and planners than to just plop duplexes, in that area, as the answer.
Veronica Howard, Stonecreek Drive resident, said she bought her property in July 2004 from Stephens Real Estate. Stephens Real Estate owned that vacant property and she was told that property was zoned single-family. She said she learned a huge lesson and should have researched that information further.
Shannon O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said when they bought their house, they also asked about the vacant property, but did not trust her real estate agent fully and inquired as to who owned that vacant property. She said she had a long conversation with the City’s Planning Department and was told although at that point it was still agricultural, most likely it would be single-family homes comparable to their own and the person assured them with 99% accuracy that was what would go behind their house. She said it was a long battle to get that actualized to single-family behind their homes. She said one of the questions they raised was why that was not one of the lower portion of the cul-de-sac. She said they were a little nervous that as soon as this went through, they were going to try to rezone that area. She said they had gotten very close to their neighbors throughout this whole issue, but they were not making money off of this. She said those were their homes and took time away from their weekends and kids. She said they wanted to know what was going to go back behind their houses to keep their minds at ease so they could go on with their lives and work.
She said there was a very busy speed trap on 6th Street and brought that issue up because she appreciated Commissioner Schauner’s comments about the density and size of those buildings. She said they watched those speed traps with great frequency and having a large apartment, in that area, would dominate what they would be watching from their house.
Another concern, although they were very grateful that the Planning Commission required a crash gate if Winthrop was to be developed as a secondary access point, was that crash gate might be a stepping stone to an open street, especially with KDOT’s CORSIM Study estimating 6th Street would fail as a corridor because of the over congestion on that end of town. She said when those tenants moved into those apartments they might want to eliminate the crash gate which would open up traffic to Stonecreek Drive.
She said they still had concerns about storm water ever since they built Stoneridge across the ditch. She said that ditch flooded now during heavy rains, which was just coming off of straight land that could absorb a lot of water. She said once they put 245 parking spaces in that area it would enhance the storm water issue. She said she appreciated the detention ponds, but she was still a little uneasy about it. She said she was also concerned about the quality of water because the run-off water from the parking lots would have mechanical waste which would come into her yard where her kids play.
She said concerning Commissioner Highberger’s comment about fences backing onto 6th because it was not attractive, but those were single- family homes, she asked if those homes could graded so those homes were not staring over 6th. She said they have an architectural solution to that steep grade and it seemed it could be applied to single family homes as well.
She said the neighborhood was not against development and agreed that some multi-family was appropriate, but they wanted to maintain the quality of the neighborhood because they liked their homes and the people in that area. She thanked the City Commission for zoning that area PRD-2 because that allowed their input and appreciated that opportunity.
Kent Fisher, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he had attended each of the meetings throughout this process and like his neighbors, shared numerous concerns. He said regardless of the outcome of this project, he asked the City Commission to require Winthrop Court be used only for emergency purposes only with a crash gate and with no possibility of that gate being opened in the future. Regarding landscaping, he said the applicant had a very poor history and track record of landscaping. He said for example, 27th Street Aberdeen Apartments, their tree spacing was very sparse and many trees had died without proper use of irrigation. He said the best example of landscaping in Lawrence was Tuckaway Apartments on 6th Street. He said there was a wide variety of trees and the density was very thick and lush. He said he would be proud to have that on his own property. He asked the City Commission to require dense planting and irrigation as part of the buffer zone between the neighborhood and this project.
Price Banks, Lawrence, said folks were beginning to wear out because this plan had been going on for so long. He said their proposal was not new. He said he remembered working with LandPlan to plan the area around Quail Run School. He said the natural area now occupied by McGrew Nature Path was used as a transition between the more intense land uses to the southwest and the single-family home sites to the northeast which was done in many areas around town. He said great care was taken in Alvamar West to attempt to avoid the shock factor that occurred. He said what they were seeing was a shock factor where land adjacent to low density single-family homes was being developed with intense uses.
He said when Eldorado was proposed at 15th and Crossgate, the developer was required to provide the transition zone on the same subdivision. The townhouses were adjacent to Crossgate and it transitioned to single-family before going over to Alvamar Estates. The single-family homes along Colonial Court down near Clinton Parkway, not far from Wakarusa and Clinton Parkway, were buffered from the more intense uses along Wakarusa and even from the townhouses along Wakarusa by a natural area that included a drainage area. The entire underlying purpose of the planning process was to improve and maintain the quality of life in the community. He said when they had that kind of shock factor that was being proposed, it really flew in the face of that policy.
He said Horizon 2020 stated that non-residential developments or intense developments should be developed in a planned manner with respect to adjacent uses that needed to be integrated in the surrounding neighborhood, which was not happening. If the developer in this case were to provide his own transition and buffer instead of relying upon the neighbors to protect themselves somehow, they would have a much better situation. He said the City Commission could provide that transition by requiring lower densities east of the drainage way. He said they respectfully requested the City Commission send a message to the Planning Commission that east of the drainage way should be much lower density planned uses.
Todd Thompson said he wanted to point out in the maps seen earlier, the area immediately to the south, which was now zoned single-family, was not to be single-family. He said what he thought they had done was good planning. He said they have moved the single-family and removed the peninsula on 6th Street and made it part of the complex.
He also addressed the adjacent issue. He said Tuckaway Apartments was mentioned. He said immediately to the west of Tuckaway Apartments and across the street from Brandon Woods were very expensive single-family homes. He said he knew people tended to assume worst case scenario, but as someone who lived near a church and a dormitory, that did not necessarily determine the value of your property or the desirability of the neighborhood.
The landscaping would be on the berm which could be explained in detail if the Commission desired. He said the landscaping would shield the house. He said they had the one house that had any substantial border with this project.
In discussing with Paul Patterson, Planner, on how they might both adopt some of what had been asked for and yet keep this plan on track, he said they would suggest a 6th condition on the plan which would require the 8-plex to be replaced with two duplexes which would be a way in which this could move forward and have nothing but duplexes immediately adjacent to this one home.
He said that house, when they talked about scale, was a very large home. He said compared to the short side of the 8-plex or to the duplex, those buildings were very comparable in size. He said he did not think the compatibility issue was one of some giant structure towering over a neighboring, small residential home.
He said based on the comments heard, he thought it was clear there would never be a plan that all of the neighbors liked. He said he thought that was probably true in most projects, so they needed to move forward with this project because it had been on the burner a long time. The Planning Commission had heard this plan many times and now the Planning Commission was happy with this plan. He said if the City Commission were to add the condition that the one building immediately adjacent to the single-family home be replaced with duplexes, then this proposal would go forward, which was what they were asking the City Commission to do.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the ground immediately south of the four 8-plexes on the west parcel was going to be single-family residences. He said if not, what was the proposed use.
Thompson said it was zoned single-family and it was the switch he was talking about. He said that was owned by the same person and the owner believed they could deal with the screening because it was their own property. More importantly, the multi-family complex would be there so that anyone buying the single-family lots would know in advance. He said part of the deal was that a lot of folks were not as afraid of a multi-family complex being next door as others were. He said he lived across the street from a dormitory so he had a lot of traffic and a lot of kids, but he also lived in a great neighborhood and it did not devalue his home. He said they were quite confident that the single-family homes, when the market was ready, could be developed with presence of a multi-family complex.
Commissioner Schauner asked if someone could tell him what they had anticipated for the buffering screening for the residential property to the south of the west parcel.
Thompson said their client owned that same property and saw grading on that property, a bigger berm, and more trees. He said they really had not gone to that much effort because they own that property.
Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission was relatively comfortable with the plan to the west of the drainage area.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not. He said he was at a house significantly south of the subject property and he heard from those neighbors a lot of concern about the amount of water coming south from 6th. He said he was not a storm water engineer, but what he heard the neighbors and others saying was that there was a huge amount of water that came down that water shed. He asked Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer about his comfort level about the drainage facilities making an improvement on the water run-off as compared with its current condition even with 245 parking spaces.
Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer, said the way it was designed was if it was single- family there would be no detention. He said with multi-purpose the way it was planned now, it should not have any more run-off as if it was single-family right now. He said the two detention ponds they provided meant that it would be the same run-off as if it were single family.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was going to be better than it was now with this development. He said it seemed they only got one or two shots of making it better for people further downstream and he did not know if it was necessarily this property owner’s responsibility to fix downstream conditions. He asked if the proposed property, with its detention ponds, makes it better downstream and not worse.
Bond said he did not think it would make it worse, but could not say it was going to make it any better because under the current guidelines, he was not putting anymore water than he was allowed downstream. He said he could actually put more out than he was, according to the drainage study.
Commissioner Highberger said he assumed Bond would review the bridge design before final approval.
Bond said yes.
Vice Mayor Hack asked if someone could elaborate on the berm if the sixth condition would be two duplexes.
Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, said the drawing showed the density of the proposed landscaping. He said it was probably three times the density of landscaping they usually did. He said what came out in discussion was the cross section that made it look closer to Lange’s house. He said the cross section was deceptive at the angle that was cut, to show the buildings.
Vice Mayor Hack asked if that landscaping would be maintained by the property owner.
Struble said the property landscaping would be maintained by the development because it was totally on the development’s property. He said none of the landscaping was on Lange’s property at all.
Vice Mayor Hack said one of the questions that came up was the maintenance of the crash gate that would also be maintained by the development.
Struble said the crash gate would be maintained by the development. He said he could not say the word “never”, but once the crash gate went up, there was no reason to go back and change it because all the people who were living in the apartments established their pattern of leaving.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those were all rental units on the east and west side of the development or where there some owned units.
Struble said it was his understanding those units were all rentals.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a management agency.
Struble said a management agency would run the entire place.
Mayor Amyx asked if Struble anticipated the two bedroom units having small families.
Struble said typically those units rented to young professionals or small families looking to move to another location. He said that was why they liked the one bedroom units because on a Friday night it would be relatively quiet compared to the three and four bedroom units.
Mayor Amyx said when talking about small families, he looked at open green space or playground areas, and if they were incorporated those types of things.
Struble said no, that was not the clientele those types of developments marketed to. He said typically, there might be a student or small family in that type of environment.
Mayor Amyx asked what the City Commission was going to ask the Planning Commission to consider.
Commissioner Highberger said he would recommend to the Planning Commission to look at improving the transitions to the southern edge of the property. He said beyond that, this plan could be left open for the applicant and the neighbors to work something out.
Vice Mayor Hack asked if the proposed sixth condition satisfied Commissioner Highberger’s concerns on the eastern side.
Commissioner Highberger said it might, but he did not think they could do a redesign by making one simple change. He said he would like to see neighbor input and Planning Commission approval rather than snapping fingers, making one change, and it be okay. He said he understood the applicant’s opinion about selling their lots to the south on the west side, but if it was rational to make a better transition on the east side, it seemed rational to him to look at the transition on the other side, too. He said the same concern would arise in the future although it would be easier if the apartments were built first.
He said for the record, his ideal neighborhood had a mix of units and arranging of housing, size, styles and incomes, but he was not sure that mix could be achieved with this plan. He said duplexes near expensive homes did not bother him. He said he loved to see mixed neighborhoods, but thought they could do a little bit better transitioning on the massing of some of those structures.
Commissioner Schauner said he concurred with Commissioner Highberger and thought Banks’ comments were well taken in terms of the transitioning issue on the south edge. He said he was hearing that was the common thread running through the neighbors’ concerns. He said the transition in his mind was different than buffering and the use transition rather than greenery or some other buffering issue.
He said the City Commission had a couple of those conversations in the past year and it seemed the beauty of this whole area was young families who cared enough about where they lived and it being the most important investment of their life, that they followed a process for 18 months and still come to a meeting on Tuesday night. He said that was the strength of this process and strength of this City. He said they were going to continue to have those types of disagreements, over time, unless everything was preplanned in advance and knew who your neighbors were going to be, which was not likely to happen. He said he would like for the Planning Commission to read this transcript and take into account not just the summary attached to the report but the comments made.
Commissioner Rundle said one of the speakers spoke about the difficulty of compiling all of the concerns together. He said he hoped that some effort could be made on the part of the neighbors to compile that information so the Planning Commission did have that information to accommodate as many concerns as possible.
He said, at this point, it seemed the City Commission was pinned into a corner and was glad they were exercising some influence to try to mitigate the impact. He said he hoped the Planning Commission was aware of what leeway they had in terms of improving the plan.
Mayor Amyx said the Planning Commission always had the ability to reaffirm the plan sent to the City Commission. He said it was obvious in reviewing the minutes, the Planning Commission sent a piece of property to the City Commission with a positive recommendation for zoning and now sent a preliminary development plan with a 9 – 1 recommendation for approval. He said it was apparent the City Commission was asking the Planning Commission to consider the southern end of this property and to look at increasing the density to the north to accommodate the compatible use that was to the south.
Commissioner Hack said issues of not having single families on that piece of property, stormwater issues, density, and the crash gate, were a given and had been considered and solved. She said she would never support single family residences along 6th Street because it was not a good transition. She said she appreciated the sixth condition in changing the 8-plex to a duplex.
She said she was willing to send the plan back to the Planning Commission, but had reservations as to whether or not the Planning Commission was any more able to design this plan and make it dense to the north and less dense to the south than the City Commission. She said give that comment, she did not know what the City Commission would see when the plan came back, but was asking for a speedy turn around time in all fairness. She said if they wanted to place a number of restrictions on this plan, those restrictions needed to happen two years ago as opposed to now. She said transitions were easier when there was a larger piece of property, which this area clearly was not. She said given that, she knew there were three votes to send the plan back and would join in on that vote, but was not sure they would see anything different when the plan came back.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to repeat what he said about the idea of having the preliminary development plan and zoning occur at the same time. He said he picked up on the comment one of the neighbors made about being worn down coming back again and again to a process. He said there were some communities that had this requirement and he had to admit (sarcastically) those communities were struggling to develop housing; had a declining population; had difficulty promoting economic environment; and were generally regarded as backwaters in this area regionally. He said they were Olathe, Lenexa and Shawnee. He said those were thriving communities that worked under those guidelines where the development plan came with the zoning application and he did not know why it could not work in Lawrence.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to send PDP-01-02-06, a Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street, back to the Planning Commission, along with the City Commission minutes from this meeting. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx. Motion carried.
Consider the following items related to the 800 Block Pennsylvania Improvement Project:
· Adopt on first reading, the following rezoning ordinances:
a) Ordinance No. 8053, rezoning of (Z-12-80-05) establishing the 8th and Pennsylvania Overlay District.
b) Ordinance No. 8054, rezoning of (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres from M-2 (General Industrial) District and M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to CS (Commercial Strip) District.
· Adopt Resolution No. 6692, establishing January 9, 2007, 6:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.
· Receive draft Developer Agreement.
· Receive staff memo on additional NRA opportunities
Lynne Braddock Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, presented the staff report. She said the City Commission did take action on this project on August 8th and approved both of those items on a 4 – 1 vote. However, there were a few things that needed to be worked out and rather than tabling those items and bringing those items back again, the City Commission requested staff work out a couple of the conditions for the zoning to be discussed at the first reading, which was why those items were on the City Commission’s full agenda and not the consent agenda.
She presented a map of the area to the City Commission. The conservation overlay district, the main item that needed to be addressed, was the parking which was to be discussed at the first reading of the ordinance. She said since that time, staff had met with the applicant and discussed parking options and the applicant agreed three different parking options along with staff’s parking option which was incorporated into the design guidelines.
The conditions of approval for rezonings for the historic district from M-2 and M-3 to C-5 were conditioned on filing of the final plat, which the filing was done and also restriction of certain uses that were typically included in the C-5 zoning. The uses were included in the C-5 zoning that the neighborhood felt were not appropriate for this zoning area. She said staff did not have the tools for a redevelopment in this historic area, so they were reusing the C-5 zoning and overlay district to come up with the best tool to allow what needed to happen for this redevelopment project.
An additional zoning condition that was brought up this afternoon by legal services was to allow for low income or moderate housing so the neighborhood could have some assurance that would take place in the future as part of this process. She said that idea had been added to the M-2 to C-5 area which was the small lot, not the entire historic district. She said legal services provided some language in addition to the zoning ordinance.
Mayor Amyx said in the event that condition came into question, he asked what kind of action needed to be taken by the City Commission.
David Corliss, City Manager, said one thing he wanted to make clear was they were not rezoning all of the property on the west side of Pennsylvania, it was only the property currently owned by the applicant. The bulk of the property on the west side was not currently owned by the applicant and that property was not being rezoned. He said he envisioned working out an agreement the City Commission would see with the applicant’s acquiescence and City staff’s recommendation on how it would be structured to make sure the affordable housing component was met. He said they needed to talk in detail on how that would work to make sure that was a continuing requirement on that property.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the zoning condition would go with the land.
Corliss said that was correct.
Zollner said those were the final issues that needed to be worked out for the first reading of both ordinances. She said other items they had for consideration tonight were the developer agreement and NRA.
Commissioner Highberger said there were some concerns about the requirements and restrictions in the overlay agreement and asked if those concerns had been addressed.
Zollner said all of the issues that were conditions of staff’s approval earlier had been taken care of which were all the changes of the design guidelines, clearing up some type of typographical errors, changes in language, all those issues had been changed and were in the guidelines in the current ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner said he sat in a couple of meetings where the parking requirement was considered. He asked if they ended up with a parking agreement that was between the two bookends that was something greater the applicant wanted and something less than the initial request from planning.
Zollner said the applicant submitted their parking, then they had what the old code required for C-5, staff recommendation, and used the smart code. She said the applicant’s request was for the least amount of parking spaces, next was the smart code, staff recommendation, and finally, what was under the old zoning code.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the smart code staff agreed upon or some other number.
Zollner said no, it was the staff recommendation which was somewhere between the smart code and what the developer had proposed.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many fewer spaces were in staff’s recommendation than C-5 in the old code.
Zollner said she did not remember, but staff could look that number up.
Phil Collison, resident on Pennsylvania Street, said he was the new East Lawrence Neighborhood Associate President. He said he had been involved in the 800 Penn discussion since last March. The process had been very nice and felt their comments were taken seriously.
He said concerning the parking, he thought it could become a site plan issue and there was one more aspect to the parking that came out of the charrette, and he understood what was agreed to at the charrette process in August, was all of the parking along the west side of Pennsylvania Street, behind the five buildings, would be allocated to residents of those five buildings. He said some of the earlier plans showed there was commercial parking on either end, behind, on the west side. He said this was abutting the alley, not necessarily exiting to the alley. He said during the charrette process, they came up with all of the parking behind those buildings would be allocated to those residents and he did not think that agreement came to the City staff. He said their thinking was that it was important for all of the residents for those five buildings to have reasonable access to dedicated parking. He said he was supportive of the recommendation from staff regarding two parking spaces per two bedroom units, but he would like to see it go one step further and suggested one parking space per bedroom. He said the one parking space that could be either on street or off street was a little scary. He said all of the residents of those five buildings needed to have reasonable and proximate access to dedicated parking.
He said a second issue, which he thought was addressed with the late zoning addition, was they also intended the lower income requirements would be tied to the UCD so if the UCD passed and the rest of the development fell through, the next developer would also have low income housing integrated into their plans.
Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked if part of the development of the Poehler Building was going to be low income rental.
Commissioner Schauner said no, the low income rental was on the west side of the street.
Mayor Amyx said regarding the question about parking raised by Collison, he asked if the recommendation from staff took care of that concern.
Zollner said yes because the issue of parking came up with each individual site plan. The applicant submitted a site for the Poehler Building which needed to meet the parking requirements that were laid out in the design guidelines. When the applicant came back with future site plans for additional building, each one of those site plans needed to meet the parking requirements as identified in the design guidelines.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be an aggregate number of parking spaces that would be required of that entire project if developed as anticipated. He said if the answer was yes, he asked if spaces would be counted against that aggregate number on square footage, number of apartments, or bedroom basis as that development continued so in the end all the parking requirements were met so there was no project at the end, that would be short two or three spaces.
Zollner said the developer had a proposed number of parking spaces that were laid out similar to a master plan, but again, individual parking requirements came with each site plan. She said if the applicant could not meet their parking requirement then the applicant needed to seek variances.
Commissioner Schauner said that was his concern that variances being requested of another body that might ultimately be a different total number of parking spaces anticipated in their current discussion.
Zollner said when the applicant counted in their master plan, total number of parking spaces that number would exceed any of the requirements of those four groups spoken of earlier. Even if the strictest standard were used, which was under the old code, the number of parking places that were planned in their master plan exceeded that number.
Zollner said directly behind the Poehler Building was currently designated as a very large parking lot and would hold the majority of spaces for the development. There was also a development in the area that had quite a bit of parking and as the west side of the Pennsylvania was designed, it would be designed so the parking would be dedicated for those residential units, but staff would not know for sure until the site plan was received.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that designated number would be consistent with the number that was between staff’s recommendation and in the old code.
Zollner said correct. She said the number had to be based on the design guidelines, if adopted by the City Commission.
Mayor Amyx commented to Harris and his team and said the neighborhood and Neighborhood Association had followed this plan for years and was an exciting time for East Lawrence and the community to see the process work in the reuse of buildings and new buildings that would be added.
Commissioner Highberger said he was satisfied there was more than adequate parking in the design. He said this was a development where not everyone in the Lawrence area needed or wanted a car. He said he thought the provisions were adequate and thanked every East Lawrence Neighborhood member who had participated in this process. He said he knew it had been long and hard and knew that they had been very dedicated to their neighborhood and it showed. He said he was really excited about it and even though there were some concerns, he thought it would be a great thing for the neighborhood because they were adding buildings, putting some retail closer, and some new houses that would be moderately priced. He said he was excited they were going to use a new financing mechanism that he thought had some promise, not for just the development, but for the whole neighborhood.
Commissioner Rundle thanked Harris and thought Harris was an exemplary developer in the Lawrence community in comparisons to all of the other developers. He said he appreciated Harris’ perseverance in changing, meeting all the demands, and bringing forward a good project.
Vice Mayor Hack said participating in this charrette process was exciting because people worked together for what was best for this community. She said Harris grew up in this neighborhood and did not want to harm the neighborhood. The reinvigoration of that part of the community, with the connection of downtown, would be wonderful.
She said the Neighborhood Revitalization Act would hold a tremendous promise for this community, not only for older neighborhoods, but for retail areas that were a little less than polished which would give them an opportunity to smooth out those areas without killing people with property taxes.
Commissioner Schauner said not many developers would stick it out through this process, but the products Harris produced, for example, the Hobbs Taylor Lofts, was a great example of the type of work Harris produced.
He also thanked staff for doing a good job with the Neighborhood Revitalization Act piece and thought it had great potential. He said he wanted to make sure they did not have a Neighborhood Revitalization approach that somehow skipped benefiting owner/occupied property. He said he would much prefer to see that was used in a way that was going to benefit properties that were owned and occupied by the same person. Otherwise, they would invite development and gentrification that might not be in the long-term best interest of some of those neighborhoods. He said with those comments, he thought the City Commission should move forward.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8053, rezoning (Z-12-80-05) the establishment of the 8th and Pennsylvania Overlay District. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8054, rezoning of (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) and M-3 (Intensive Industrial District) to CS (Commercial Strip District). Motion carried unanimously. (17)
David Corliss, City Manager, said regarding the adoption of Resolution 6692, staff had been working on the use of the Neighborhood Revitalization Act, both as it pertained to this plan and elsewhere in the community. The general theme of law was to adopt a plan for a particular area that was geographically described. He said the property taxes would then be rebated that would essentially increase because the property was improved. He said he liked to remind many citizens, the City was not the only entity that levied property taxes in the community the County, School District, and a State mill levy as well. The State was not a participatory body under this law, but the City, County, and School District could all opt in to participate in the rebate of all or a portion of the property taxes that increased because of improvements to a property if the appropriate procedures were followed.
He said as the act pertained to this redevelopment, this project required the developer to install a number of public facilities and improvements. The building of Delaware where it did not currently exist between 8th and 9th Street, storm sewer and stormwater improvements in that general area. Also, there were improvements to 8th and 9th Street regarding sidewalks and some off street parking and re-bricking or rehabilitation in brick from the 800 block of Pennsylvania. The re-bricking of Pennsylvania was a project that would proceed as the residential work on the west side of Pennsylvania proceeded. The other public improvements were geared toward the rest of the redevelopment.
He said the applicant made an initial request the City participate or fully fund those public improvements. He said the City would respond with this Neighborhood Revitalization Act where the City would rebate back property taxes the City would otherwise receive from the redevelopment up to a maximum amount of the cost of those various public improvements. He said the City Commission was seeing a draft developer agreement. He said they had meetings since they posted it on the agenda with the applicant and the phasing of the project and the timing of when property tax increments would be available needed to be worked out in a finer detail than what they had in this agreement. He said they were committed to having that in good form when they would conduct the hearing that Resolution No. 6692 would establish for January 9th. He said state law required the City to conduct a hearing and that was the action.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any sense of the County and School District’s level of willingness to participate in this project.
Corliss said he had briefed the County about this issue and talked about the merits of the project, how the project evolved and changed, had discussions with the neighborhood. He said he pointed out in discussions that the City’s mill levy was less than the County and School District mill levies. In order to receive a larger rebate amount, he thought it had merits for the County because it provided new redevelopment and the school district because it was being over a long range and would see redevelopment in that area where they wanted to continue to see families and others. He said he thought there was value for both of those entities, not just from the developer standpoint. He said developers and others needed to make those advocacy points to those entities and only those entities would decide whether to participate or not.
Commissioner Schauner said his recollection told him it was about $2 million in public improvements that would be rebateable. He asked if that was the rough number.
Corliss said it would be $2 - $2.5 million.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the understanding that if the county and school district opted not to participate, the City would independently rebate the entire $2.5 million or would it be shared amongst the three taxing amenities if all agreed to participate.
Corliss said one of the key issues was they agreed there would be a cap and the rebates would not exceed the total dollar amount. One of the issues that needed to be discussed on January 9th was whether or not there would be a termination date for those rebates regardless of whether they meet that cap or not. He said that would need to be a City Commission decision.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the answer to his question was they did not know yet.
Corliss said that issue would be the City Commission’s decision.
Mayor Amyx said if the school district and county did not agree, he asked if the City would be picking up the entire amount or was that a City Commission decision.
Corliss said he would not recommend going beyond 10 years. He said the statute did not have a cap and envisioned that it would be for 10 years. He said he did not know if they would be able to reach that full dollar amount if it were only the City’s taxes.
Commissioner Schauner said if there was a 10 year limit on the rebate project, he said whatever the amount of that rebate, in terms of the increase property tax, the assessed value increase, that would be the City’s entire obligation if they agreed to a 10 year cap. He said they might reach $2.5 and they might not.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution 6692, establishing January 9, 2007, 6:35 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the date and time for a public hearing regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Corliss said regarding the draft Developer Agreement, that agreement was in draft form and eventually it was going to outline the developer’s requirements for building projects that were outlined and the City’s commitment on the rebates and it would be finalized this week as an NRA. He said it was important to have an agreement with the developer so the developer would follow through on their commitment to do those public improvements and the development as it had been approved.
Corliss said highlighting the NRA opportunities, the Commission indicated an interest in pursuing those opportunities in other parts of the community. The next step, in that regard, was to draft a request for proposals that would go to a very wide audience. He said it would go to Neighborhood Associations where staff would discuss with those associations about the possible application for the use in neighborhoods and following up with Commissioner Schauner’s comments about owner occupancy and stressing owner occupancy as one of the requirements for that use. He said he talked about its potential downtown, but they had to be careful with mixing this tool with others tools, such as TIF, where they were taking the tax increment to finance public improvements. He said with the NRA they were taking the tax increment and rebating it back to the property owner. He said he also saw opportunities in the interior part of the community where they saw distressed or under utilized commercial facilities. He said they have not seen a lot of movement and might want to encourage its redevelopment along the lines of traditional neighborhood design for their commercial design guidelines and provide that incentive to the development. He said since they would be increasing the value of the property, the City would be willing to rebate a portion of that increased value. He said the City Commission needed to be wise in choosing their projects. He said he was trying to put the City Commission in the driver’s seat and have the map, but what they were also recognizing they were not necessarily the people that could choose the projects. He said the development community and others that were making those investment decisions might be able to be creative and come up with ideas as well. He said he was asking for authority to work on a request for proposals and try to forecast what he thought would be a wide dissemination. He said it would be two different RFP’s; one for commercial distressed property and one for neighborhood home occupancy where they could encourage that as well. He said he saw that as two potentials for this vehicle. He said it would be good to have some policy guidelines and not have it be written in an entitlement situation, but rather the City Commission decide on certain criteria where to apply it and where not to.
Mayor Amyx said any of those additional NRA opportunities that come forward, if they came to an agreement and wanted to proceed, the City Commission had to go through the same process of establishing the public hearings.
Corliss said yes, but in some cases it did not need to be a neighborhood, it could be a single piece of distressed property. He said he thought the City Commission might want to see what was out there and see the interest and then concurrently work on a policy to discuss those.
Commissioner Rundle said he would be curious regarding other communities who had actively used those opportunities for the NRA and if they targeted those in any way. He said the way the RFP proposal was written, they might be intending it to be more targeted than it sounded if it was just going to be an open RFP for anyone’s idea of if they were going to try to use it to foster some missing commercial use or some need that was perceived in the area.
Corliss said there had been communities that had declared almost the entire city a revitalization area and others that had been more pinpointed.
Commissioner Rundle said he meant if they were doing an RFP to redevelop for a specific way or just wide open.
Corliss said he would agree and thought if statements could be made, for example, the discussions about North Lawrence wanting a grocery store. He said if someone wanted a grocery store in North Lawrence and met their criteria, he asked would they try to have an incentive or not. He said it might be just as broad by saying if in a certain neighborhood, they wanted to encourage property owners to keep the property owner occupied and they also might want to provide them with a tax rebate if they did improvements to their home. He said the City Commission did not want the RFP to be wide open because that would lead to unintended consequences, but he thought staff could work out some language. He said he wanted to forecast that idea to see if that was a work item the City Commission wanted staff to spend some time on.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed this was a matter of a horse and a cart and the horse was the policy question. He said what did they want to accomplish with neighborhood revitalization activity and then if they had that policy in mind, then it might be the time to put out an RFP for proposals that would be consistent with or move them toward the fulfillment of the policy calls. He said to ask for the RFP’s in advance seemed to be out of sequence because he suspected there were a number of ideas about if they were going to rebate the assessed valuation tax for as long as 10 years. A lot of people may think that would be a great idea, but those ideas might or might not be consistent with whatever policy they adopt. He said it seemed the policy ought to go first.
Commissioner Highberger said that made sense and they should use this in a focused way. He said when they first started discussing this issue he realized it was a possible vehicle for revitalizing specific distressed commercial property.
Commissioner Schauner said he always thought it a more neighborhood context than commercial context. He said they probably had some commercial property that needed some help, but wanted to make sure that everything was consistent with their overall strategy. He said if they had a more specific policy statement, it would be easier to evaluate the proposals as those proposals were received.
Mayor Amyx said that was not a problem to have that as part of their discussion.
Corliss said the policy issues, the focused use, and then understanding the next steps might be to disseminate an RFP. He said he would work on all those items and give the City Commission something that met everyone’s interests. (18)
At 9:15 it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to recess for 10 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 9:25 p.m.
Receive draft Resolution on long range planning efforts. Consider directing staff to forward the draft to the Planning Commission for comment prior to City Commission adoption.
David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report. He said staff could provide background information and to try to understand the value staff was stressing with that document. He said there was a number of long range planning efforts underway and the major planning efforts were indicated in the recitals of the resolution. He said the PlaceMakers, a consulting firm, had been retained by the City to work on a traditional neighborhood design product which was going to be a major planning emphasis in the new year.
The Planning Department was talking about not having Planning Commission meetings in February to concentrate their efforts on that work product and it was going to be a significant undertaking for the community.
He said staff was anxious to receive the SDAT final report.
He said the preparation of the community’s Transportation Master Plan, Transportation 2030 was a major undertaking. He said Commissioner Highberger was sitting in on that committee and steering that product. He said it was going to be a major item as well and the update was due in the mid part of next year.
He said the City Commission was familiar with staff’s work on the cost of growth study and staff received the first part of that report. He said staff had been in communication with the consultant to get the second part of that report. He said the report had not been as timely as they wanted, but thought it was going to be a valuable product once finished.
Concerning the affordable housing opportunities issue, Commissioner Highberger was chairing that group and that group would have a work product given to the Commission as well.
He said the City Commission was also familiar with staff’s water and wastewater planning efforts in implementation of those plans and the importance that staff stressed about ensuring as they bring property into the City, staff could tell those property owners how they could receive City water service and wastewater service.
He said they also had ECO2 efforts both for enhancing economic efforts and also providing additional open space for the community. He said given all of those efforts, he thought it was important to provide that status, but also try to focus efforts in areas that they anticipated future growth so they could try and have those area plans in place in anticipation of that growth as opposed to reacting to the applicant’s request. He said staff could also forecast that they were likely to change some of the requirements for those areas. He said they were going to have traditional neighborhood design code out of the PlaceMakers work. He said after they received that document in February that needed to be initiated through the Planning Commission.
He said staff would discuss impact fees and whether or not they wanted to pursue setting those fees and whether or not they wanted to try and change the rules for development costs within the community.
He said what he was trying to do with the resolution was to indicate that those items were underway, wanted to coordinate those efforts with the Planning Commission, and wanted to identify areas primarily west of K-10 and south of the Wakarusa where more intense area plans could be developed. He said essentially they wanted to devote their long range planning efforts in addition to all the other items towards developing meaningful plans in that area. He said the resolution was a draft document and recommended comment from the Planning Commission before the City Commission proceeded with the document.
He said that was the history and background of the document. He said it was not meant to do a whole lot more other than recognizing staff had those things under way, forecast the fact staff wanted to have some coordination of those efforts, indicate proceeding with area plans and, and application for development in those areas needed to reflect this coordinated work.
Mayor Amyx said this was the first time he had seen all the work that was completed and all the work that was about to be completed in one resolution form. He commended Corliss on that effort. He asked if Corliss was suggesting this item return to the Planning Commission for comment.
Corliss said he wanted comments, corrections, and whatever else was needed. He said this was not meant to take the planning process from the Planning Commission, but meant to show there was some coordination with some of those efforts. He said some of the items had been initiated by the City Commission and some items solely within the purview of the Planning Commission. He said his concern was that it was not so much that the left hand did not know what the right hand was going to be doing. There were so many multiple hands that staff wanted some level of coordination. He said the City had able staff to make sure that could happen, but the real value was that if the City Commission could see that big picture and see how it was being coordinated. He said this document was meant to indicate a number of things were underway, but they might want to change some of the rules in the future and they wanted to try to forecast it. He said that was the general intent of the resolution.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was anyone in this building charged with being the person who would receive all of the reports, coordinate the various plan activities, other than Corliss. He said he asked that because they were essentially short a manager.
Corliss said they were short an Assistant City Manager and Planning Director, but staff was working on it.
Commissioner Schauner said the City was short the position Corliss held before as an Assistant City Manager. He asked if that role he described was appropriate for an Assistant City Manager or someone of that level. He said there were a number of good ideas, but with a lot of good ideas, it was easy for one or more to fall off the stove, let alone stay on the front burner. He asked who was in charge of shepherding those things back to the City and Planning Commission for review and consideration.
Corliss said he saw that effort as his job and to the extent he wanted to hire another Assistant City Manager and wanted to have a Planning and Development Services Director and staff was working on that. He said staff was trying to finalize some interviews with others so recommendation could be made. He said he saw those efforts as his role, but it was the City Commission’s goals and desires on how they wanted things to happen. He said staff could handle those things, but could not do them all at once. He said a number of those things were taking a lot longer than they wanted, but staff would be able to handle those things and give the City Commission the superior product they expected.
Commissioner Schauner said all of these things could easily overwhelm a person. He said those were not small projects and he wanted to make sure they had an internal management mechanism for handling those projects in a way that would give them a product in time so people who did want to do a project, did not need to wait 100 years to do a project and/or they did not end up still being in a reactive mode when someone did bring them a project because they had not finished another project.
Corliss said he saw managing those projects as his job.
Commissioner Hack said those projects were not in any priority order, but a compilation of the big issues. He said some of those projects were more in terms of a vision, theory, or hope in terms of economic development, ECO2 issues, SDAT, and working toward a community vision of what they would like to see. She said some of those projects were very specific, such as PlaceMakers and TND codes. She said some of those projects would knit with others and then overlap because when one happened, it would cause other things to fall into place. She said she appreciated Corliss’ efforts and she did not think an expanded subgroup was needed under each one of those projects.
She said she would echo Commissioner Schauner’s concerns and wanted to make sure those projects were always in front. She said as the City Commission looked at their goal setting, and City Manager targets, it would be important to keep that document in front because those projects could easily be goals they had in the upcoming years that would fit into the other goals that were established.
Commissioner Schauner said he agreed, but he did not want the youthful enthusiasm before being able to shepherd all those various programs to overwhelm and to be impractical and unrealistic.
Corliss said that was a very legitimate caution, but he did not want to promise something he could not deliver. He said what he could promise was staff would give their strongest efforts to coordinate those projects and other things together. He said they would be able to do it with the staff positions he mentioned and give the City Commission a report on Matrix for the first of the year and ask for direction on those staff items as well. He said they would need those resources to accomplish that. He said they have all devoted resources to this, whether it was their own time or funding the TND study. He said there were means to accomplish those things.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the cost of growth study final report.
Corliss said staff would be having a conference call with the consultant later this week.
Commissioner Rundle said it was entirely appropriate that Corliss was monitoring all of those projects. He said Corliss would not be doing the work single-handedly and it would take tremendous effort. He asked if having those projects in a resolution form also elevated the various efforts to forecast they were going to rely on those, therefore it being resolved and should help ensure none of this would get thrown on the shelf and be lost. He said resolutions were not ordinances, but they elevated issues.
Corliss said resolutions expressed the resolve of the Commission. He said he did try and word the area plans which reflected the adopted effort of the various planning items. He said staff might receive plans and items back that the City Commission would not adopt or want to endorse. He said this was by no means a short-cut for all of the work of those items.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought it was very good they elevated those items in that way. He said they had discussed area plans where they anticipated growth. He said they had talked about trying to not just anticipate, but direct growth to areas in the USD 497 school district in contrast to others adjacent. He said that discussion needed to take place at some point. If not, they needed to be a little more focused about the area plans.
Corliss said with the PlaceMakers work in February, their master plan was one of the two areas and one area was west of K-10 and the other south of the Wakarusa. He said those would be the initial vehicles where they say this was where they considered directing growth. He said they might come to find out the area initially selected was not the right area or they might want to modify the area. He said the area still needed to go through the planning process after it went through the intensive charrette process. He said that would be the City Commission’s initial look at a vehicle in wanting to direct growth. He said both were in the 497 school district and with that in place along with the other items, he thought the City Commission would be further in their position of wanting to direct growth as opposed to solely responding to developers’ requests.
Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission wished to make any changes or additions to this draft resolution.
Commissioner Hack said she did not see any changes at this time.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment Mayor Amyx said the way the document was presented covered a number of projects. He said the City Commission had stated as a group the priority was to direct development ahead of time in order to make other decisions and this was the first step in making that happen.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the draft Resolution on long range planning efforts and directed staff to forward the draft to the Planning Commission prior to City Commission adoption. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Receive staff memo regarding impact fees.
David Corliss, City Manager, said he recommended a draft 20