Council Meeting (November 20, 2000)apps.opkansas.org/City-Government/Agendas-and-Minutes/City-Council/...OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 20, 2000 Mayor Ed Eilert called

OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING

November 20, 2000 Mayor Ed Eilert called the Overland Park City Council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present, constituting a quorum:

Mr. Greg L. Musil, Council President; Mr. Thomas C. “Tim” Owens; Mr. Carl R. Gerlach; Mr. Byron C. Loudon; Mr. George Kandt; Dr. Jack Halligan; Dr. Kris Kobach; Mr. David G. Belpedio; Mr. Michael J. Lally; and Mr. Neil S. Sader. Also present were: Mr. John M. Nachbar, City Manager; Mrs. Kristy Stallings, Director of Finance, Budget and Administration; Mr. Roger Peterson, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. John Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. James Cox, Director of Parks and Recreation; Mr. Steve Ford Deputy Chief of Police/Major; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Brian Shields, City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Mike Garcia, Manager, Personnel Services; Mr. Bob Watson, City Attorney; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Administrator, Current Planning; Mr. John Rod, Administrator, Long-Range Planning; Ms. Michelle Mendoza, Assistant City Manager; Mrs. Susan Waters, Communications Assistant; Mr. Greg Ruether, Manager, Parks and Forestry; Mr. Bob Jones, Director of Human Resources; Ms. Mary Birch, Overland Park Chamber of Commerce; and Mrs. Barbara Potts, Senior Recording Secretary. Approximately 50 persons were in the audience. ________________________________________________________________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ed Eilert led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MAYOR ED EILERT NEW APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: TERM OF OFFICE Beginning Ending David M. Hill 11/15/00 11/15/03

NEW APPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PARKS AND RECREATION:

David Coleman 2/1/99 2/1/01

REAPPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PARKS AND RECREATION:

Overland Park City Council Meeting November 20, 2000 Page 2

TERM OF OFFICE Beginning Ending Loretta Chudy 10/8/00 10/8/02

REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS:

Bob D. Campbell 12/1/00 12/1/03

Donald R. Pearce 12/1/00 12/1/03 Robert P. Frankovic (alternate) 12/1/00 12/1/03

A motion was made by Mr. Greg Musil and seconded by Mr. Michael Lally to approve the preceding new appointments and reappointments, as listed. The motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2000.

RESOLUTION NO. 3192 – Supplementing Resolution No. 3159 and authorizing the marketing of not to exceed $98,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Overland Park Development Corporation revenue bonds (Overland Park Convention Center Hotel project), including not to exceed $70,000,000 principal amount of first tier series 2000A bonds, not to exceed $30,000,000 principal amount of second tier series 2000B bonds, and not to exceed $10,000,000 principal amount of subordinate third tier series 2000C bonds to be issued for the purpose of financing the construction of a convention center hotel for the benefit of the City; Authorizing the annual recommendation of the budgeting and appropriation of Transient Guest Tax revenues to support the payment of the principal of and interest on the first tier and second tier bonds and the execution of the debt service support agreement contingent upon the approval by the corporation of the successful marketing and sale of said revenue bonds; and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith.

Mr. Musil said that earlier this evening, the Committee of the Whole met to discuss a restructuring of the package for financing of the Convention Center Hotel, and by unanimous vote, recommended approval of Resolution No. 3192 to the Council. A motion was made by Mr. Musil to approve Resolution No. 3192, concerning revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the construction of the Overland Park Convention Center Hotel, as reported at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. After a second by Mr. Thomas C. “Tim” Owens, the motion passed unanimously. CITY MANAGER JOHN M. NACHBAR No report. CONSENT AGENDA: PUBLIC SAFETY


STAFF CONSENT ITEM:

APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE – Associated Physical Therapists, d/b/a The Right Touch, 9391 W. 75th Street, Scott Allen Smith, applicant.

PUBLIC WORKS STAFF CONSENT ITEMS:

ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PAY AMOUNTS SPECIFIED - Concerning property at 127th Street, Pflumm to Quivira.

Temporary Construction Easements

Fairway Woods Area Homes Association $2,700 Nottingham By the Green Area Homes Association, Inc.

(tract 29) 1,850 Nottingham By the Green Area Homes Association, Inc.

(tract 30) 1,100 Heartland Christian Fellowship, Inc. (tract 32) 0 Heartland Christian Fellowship, Inc. (tract 33) 0

Permanent Drainage Easement & Temporary Construction Easement

Christi & Larry Wagner, JTWROS $17,900

ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS – Concerning property in the 2000 CDBG Residential Street Program (Hardy, 51st Street to 52nd Street; and 51st Street, Hardy to Lowell).

Mary McBride – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Joann Fisher – Deed of Dedication, Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Terry & Linda Morgan – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction

Easement William Finnerty – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Edward Green – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Steve & Debra Howard – Temporary Construction Easement

ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS – Concerning property in the 2001 Residential Street Program (Conser south of 47th Street; Craig Lane, Merriam Drive to Goodman; Foster, 47th Street to Merriam Drive; Goodman, Merriam Drive to 47th Street; Goodman, 54th Terrace to city limits; Hadley, Merriam Drive to 47th Street; Mackey north of 54th Terrace; Newton north of 52nd Street; Riley, 47th Street to Merriam Drive; 47th Street, Hadley to east of Goodman; 47th Street, west of Conser to Merriam Drive; and 52nd Street, Newton to Conser).

Jean Moffat – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Martha & Patrick Lavin – Temporary Construction Easement


Johnny & Betty Choate – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement Phillip & Myrtle Niemann – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement

Martha Lee, Trustee – Temporary Construction Easement Clay & Martha Bowden – Temporary Construction Easement Charles & Shirley Bowman – Temporary Construction Easement

Donald & Rose Ann Johnson – Temporary Construction Easement John Wilson – Two (2) Deeds of Dedication & Two (2) Temporary

Construction Easements Church of God Holiness, Trustees – Deed of Dedication, Utility

Easement & Two (2) Temporary Construction Easements South Park Church God of Holiness, Trustees – Temporary

Construction Easement George & Joan McCusker – Temporary Construction Easement Michael & Juanita Cox –Temporary Construction Easement Gregory & Marsha Davey – Temporary Construction Easement First Spanish American Baptist Church, Inc. – Two (2) Deeds of Dedication & Two (2) Temporary Construction Easements

Edwin Booth, Jr. & Mary Booth – Deed of Dedication & Temporary Construction Easement

Garry & Sherrie Rackley – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement

Barbara Kreidemacher – Deed of Dedication & Temporary Construction Easement

DSS/Prodiesel, Inc. – Utility Easement & Temporary Construction Easement

Steve & Vicki Myer – Temporary Construction Easement Rosemary Preston – Temporary Construction Easement Kenneth & Judy Renner – Deed of Dedication & Temporary Construction Easement

FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CONSENT ITEMS:

2001 COMPENSATION PROGRAM – Including overall salary increase budget of 6.23 percent for a net cost estimated at $1,423,328 or 4.83 percent.

2001 SPECIAL ALCOHOL CONTROL FUNDS – Representing an increase of $25,000 over the 2000 base allocation for a total amount of $300,000 DAC agency funding.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND ISSUE AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS – SPRINT EDRB SERIES 2000 – Public hearing to be held on December 4, 2000, regarding issuance of $260,000,000 in economic development revenue bonds, granting tax exemption incentives to Sprint, and an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Series 2000 Bonds.


CONVENTION CENTER OPERATING AGREEMENTS – Global Spectrum, LP, for services relating to the operation of the Overland Park Convention Center. WORKERS COMPENSATION – THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES – Thomas McGee, L.C. – Proposed 2001 Fees - $122 for medical only claims; $635 for claims involving indemnity payments; $19 for report only incidents; and $7,625 administrative fee. 2001 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM – For consideration by the Committee of the Whole on December 11, 2000, with changes as follows: Removing the Repeal of Sales Tax on Commercial Remodeling Construction Labor to parallel the League of Kansas Municipalities position (3-2 vote); and Addressing the School Finance issue with language to be reviewed by the Committee members prior to the Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting on December 11 (5-0 vote). QUANTITATIVE PURCHASE OF OFFICE SUPPLIES – For one-year extension of the current office supply contract with Corporate Express for a 58 percent discount percentage off the catalog list price. 2001 ANNUAL CALENDAR – Scheduled meetings. ORDINANCE NO. MEP-583,V – Amendment Number Three to Restated Overland Park, Kansas, Municipal Employees Pension Plan and Trust Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 3182 – Amendment Number Two to the Overland Park, Kansas, Police Department Retirement Plan.

RESOLUTION NO. 3174 – Revision to Council and Committee Rules, Procedures and Protocol. WELLNESS PROGRAM – PART-TIME B EMPLOYEES – To be eligible to participate.

STAFF CONSENT ITEMS: COUNCIL MINUTES – October 2, 2000.

EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 11A – Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for October 26 through November 8, 2000. CAPITAL PRDOJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 11C – Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Funds for November 9 through November 15, 2000. APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE – Mulvaney’s Beef & Brew, d/b/a Mulvaney’s Beef & Brew, 7955 E. Frontage Road, Jane L. Marlo, manager


APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSES: Allgrace, Inc., d/b/a Jen Jen’s Chinese Restaurant, 9066 Metcalf Avenue, James A.C. Allen, manager. Eight Stars Restaurant Corporation, d/b/a Hunan Magic Wok, 11729 College Boulevard, Sophia Tien, manager. Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., d/b/a Texaco Star Mart #1518, 10075 W. 103rd Street, Janet Grismore, new manager.

Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., d/b/a Texaco Star Mart #2437, 7427 Metcalf Ave., Lisa McCombs, manager.

Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., d/b/a Texaco Star Mart #1516, 10695 Roe, Dennis Kalmar, new manager.

Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., d/b/a Texaco Star Mart #2433, 7701 West 123rd Street, Steve Davern, manager.

Four B Corporation, d/b/a Hen House, 11200 Antioch, Pam Mitchell, manager.

Four B Corporation, d/b/a Hen House, 11930 College Boulevard, Kort G. Gemperli, manager.

Four B Corporation, d/b/a Hen House, 6900 W. 135th Street, Charles Evbanks, manager.

Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Godfather’s Pizza #17008, 10514 W. 103rd Street, Tim Wagner, manager. Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Godfather’s Pizza #17026, 12561 Antioch, Brian Scraggs, new manager.

Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Godfather’s Pizza #17007, 8724 Santa Fe, Randi Collins, new manager. Golf Operations Management, L.L.C., d/b/a Westlinks Pavilion, 12700 W. 127th Street, Timothy B. Eleeson, manager.

Greek Cuisine, 11811 College Boulevard, Paramjit K. Gill, manager.

RT KCMO Kansas, Inc., d/b/a Ruby Tuesday, 9707 Quivira Road, Michael F. Newman, manager.

S.M.T., Inc., d/b/a The Roxy, 7230 W. 75th Street, Carol Moore, manager.


Star Fuel Centers, Inc., d/b/a Texaco Star Mart, 11350 W. 135th Street, David A. Selph, manager.

Wyandot Barbeque 2, Inc., d/b/a Wyandot Barbeque 2, 7215 W. 75th Street, Michael J. Roths, manager. RESOLUTION NO. 3191 – Consenting to the first amendment to lease agreement relating to $28,285,000 federally taxable private activity revenue bonds, Series 1998 (Universal Underwriters project), of the City of Overland Park, Kansas.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF CONSENT ITEMS:

AGREEMENT – Sports Officials Association for officiating services for basketball at the rate of $19 per game for the term of November 1, 2000, to September 1, 2001.

Mr. Lally moved to approve the preceding Consent Agenda items, as listed. A second was made by Mr. Carl Gerlach. Mayor Eilert asked if the Council wanted to consider any items separately. Mr. Musil requested the removal of the third item (Economic Development Revenue Bond Issue and Cost Benefit Analysis – Sprint EDRB Series 2000) under the heading of Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee Consent Items for the purpose of abstaining. Also for the purpose of abstaining, Dr. Jack Halligan asked to remove the fifth item (Workers Compensation – Third Party Administration Services) under the heading of Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee Consent items. With the exception of the two items, as mentioned, the motion to approve the preceding Consent Agenda items passed by a unanimous roll-call vote. Mr. Carl Gerlach moved to approve the Economic Development Revenue Bond Issue and Cost Benefit Analysis with Sprint EDRB Series 2000. Mr. George Kandt seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Mr. Musil abstained. A motion was made by Mr. Musil to approve the Workers Compensation Third Party Administration Services with Thomas McGee, L.C. Mr. Byron Loudon seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Dr. Halligan abstained. REGULAR AGENDA: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT: Thomas C. “Tim” Owens, Chairman No report.


STAFF REPORT: No report. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT: Byron C. Loudon, Chairman No report. STAFF REPORT:

BID TABULATION - House Removals, 7829/7831 Kessler, 9401/9403 West 76th Terrace, and 9313 West 76th Terrace.

Director of Public Works Bob Lowry presented for consideration the bid tabulation for the removal of five houses located at 7829/7831 Kessler, 9401/9403 West 76th Terrace, and 9313 West 76th Terrace, which were associated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout. Staff recommends approval of the low bid in the amount of $47,680 from Industrial Salvage & Wrecking. Mr. Musil moved to approve the low bid of $47,680 from Industrial Salvage & Wrecking for the properties, as listed above. Mr. Thomas C. “Tim” Owens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 99-00 – Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas for the roundabout at 110th Street and Lowell.

Mr. Lowry said that staff recommends the cancellation of Agreement No. 99-00 between the City and the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) to fund the roundabout at 110th Street and Lowell Avenue. Mr. Lally moved to approve the cancellation of Agreement No. 99-00 between KDOT and the City of Overland Park. Mr. Loudon seconded, and the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. ADDENDUM NO. 1 - Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for design of Switzer Road from 127th Street to 135th Street. Reference was made by Mr. Lowry to Addendum No. 1 for engineering services between the City and Bartlett & West Engineers for the design of Switzer Road, from 127th Street to 135th Street. He indicated that staff recommends approval of this project addendum. Mr. Lally moved to approve Addendum No. 1 for engineering services between the City and Bartlett & West Engineers for the design of Switzer Road, from 127th Street to 135th Street, in the amount of $24,960 for the changes as described in the Addendum to the Agreement and a total contract amount not to exceed $316,472. Mr. Loudon seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.


AGREEMENT – Mission Forest Homes Association for landscaping replacement on Mission Road from 103rd Street to Indian Creek Bridge. Mr. Lowry presented the Landscaping Replacement Agreement between the City and the Mission Forest Homes Association for landscaping replacement. He explained that the City will provide $13,647.71 to be used by the Homes Association to replace the landscaping on Mission Road from 103rd Street to Indian Creek Bridge. Mr. Loudon moved to approve the Landscaping Replacement Agreement with the Mission Forest Homes Association for landscaping replacement on Mission Road from 103rd Street to Indian Creek Bridge, in the amount of $13,647.71 to be paid by the City. After a second by Mr. Lally, the motion passed by a vote of 10 to 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 3175 AND KDOT AGREEMENT NO. 141-00 – Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas for the intersection improvement at 110th Street and Lamar.

RESOLUTION NO. 3190 AND KDOT AGREEMENT NO. 169-00 – Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas for the installation of fiber optic cable in the City.

Mr. Lowry said the above referenced resolutions are in order and ready for approval. A motion was made by Mr. Loudon to approve Resolution No. 3175 and KDOT Agreement No. 141-00 between the City and KDOT for the intersection improvement at 110th Street and Lamar, and Resolution No. 3190 and KDOT Agreement No. 169-00 between the City and KDOT for the installation of fiber optic cable in the City. After a second by Mr. Lally, the motion carried by a vote of 10 to 0.

EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECEMBER 15, 2000, AND REDUCTION IN RETAINAGE TO TWO PERCENT (2%) – O’Donnell & Sons Construction Company for Quivira Road, 135th Street to 143rd Street.

Mr. Lowry referred to the extension of time requested by O’Donnell & Sons Construction Company to reduce the retainage on the Quivira Road widening project between 135th Street and 143rd Street to two percent. He explained that O’Donnell & Sons has completed the project with the exception of fence installation on November 15, 2000, and the installation of sod and buffalo grass on or about December 15, 2000, weather permitting. Mr. Loudon moved to approve the extension of time to December 15, 2000, and reduction in retainage to two percent with O’Donnell & Sons Construction Company for Quivira Road, 135th Street to 143rd Street. After a second by Mr. Gerlach, the motion passed by a unanimous vote. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Mr. Neil S. Sader, Chairman


WARD BOUNDARY ORDINANCE NO. WB-2265. (Continued from the November 13, 2000, Council meeting.) Mr. Gerlach moved to approve Ordinance No. WB-2265, which establishes ward boundaries within the City of Overland Park and repeals Ordinance No. BW-2003. Mr. Musil seconded. Based upon his seven years’ experience on the Council and recognition of the principles used in the City to establish ward boundaries, Mr. Musil said he devised Option No. 4. When former Councilmember Georgia Erickson represented Ward 5, he explained the overriding issue faced by Council was that the City Councilmembers would not be taken out of their existing districts. During the past four years, however, the majority of the Council has acknowledged that ward boundaries need to be changed to eliminate the odd configuration or “stovepipe” look caused by the contiguous precincts in Ward 5. Referring to the map showing the current wards, he pointed out that Ward 2 wraps around Ward 5 and Ward 3 wraps around the central part of the City. Therefore, his proposal is to move the northern boundary of Ward 5 to I-435, which would allow the boundaries of Wards 1 and 2 to extend straight across 87th Street. He believed that Option No. 4, as proposed, would provide an alternative in the future to make some logical step by step changes as the City’s population continues to grow to the south, as opposed to the continuing jigsaw puzzle pattern of the past. He believed that Option No. 4 would be fair, allow the ward representatives to easily explain the boundaries of their areas, and create a compactness and symmetry of the wards. Dr. Kris Kobach stated that he appreciated Councilmember Musil’s efforts to move for a sweeping change. However, as the Council has been debating the issue of ward boundaries, he believed it is important that the Council have consensus in the different areas of the City, as well as partisan consensus. As representatives of the people, he believed the changes should not cause an undue amount of disruption. Because these changes occur so rapidly, he believed it is sometimes difficult for citizens to build a relationship with their representative. When he was campaigning, he found that many citizens did not know who represented their area or their political standing. Since Option No. 4 is opposed by both representatives of Wards 1 and 2 and one representa-tive of Ward 5 (half of the Councilmembers), he believed this option would not be suitable. Therefore, he has attempted to find a way to tweak Councilmember Musil’s proposal so the Councilmembers feel it satisfies the needs of the City. He moved to approve Option No. 4c as an amendment to Option No. 4. As he explained, Option No. 4c would make fewer changes, causing less disruption and reducing the number of wards that would be impacted. Secondly, Option No. 4c follows some community and neighborhood lines. Dr. Kobach believed one of the objectives is for communities with common interests to be represented by a common representative where this would be possible. He said the courts recognize that ward boundaries should not only be contiguous but also follow community lines. He pointed out that Option No. 4c would eliminate the “stovepipe” configuration in Ward 5 that was addressed by Councilmember Musil. Dr. Kobach moved to approve Option No. 4c, which would amend Option No. 4. Dr. Halligan seconded the motion.


Mr. Musil said that he and Councilmember George Kandt discussed the fact that 95 percent of the new growth in population would be south of 135th Street and in Wards 4 and 5. He asked how the new growth would be distributed between Wards 4 and 5 with the current boundaries. Unless there would be a density change in Morse Township, which is currently low-density residential, Mr. Rod replied that Ward 5 would experience more of the growth south of 135th Street. Mayor Eilert stated that he would support the recommendation (Option No. 4) made by the majority of the Finance, Administration & Economic Development (FAED) Committee. He believed the Council needed to recognize an opportunity to make the wards more consistent and remove the “stovepipe” configurations. Therefore, if his vote is required, it would be in favor of Option No. 4. Mr. Gerlach concurred. Although some major changes are made in Option No. 4, he believed it sets up fewer changes and a more organized pattern in the future. He commented that the “stovepipe” configurations were formed because the former Councilmember of Ward 5 did not want to separate the neighborhoods. However, in his opinion, if the neighborhoods are separated, the citizens would receive better representation by more Councilmembers. He personally believed that many of the residents are not aware of the ward number in which they live, except for once a year when they go to vote. Mr. Gerlach expressed concern that the FAED Committee has spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the various options. He recalled that the chairman of the FAED Committee requested that options be submitted early enough for the Council to be able to review each option. He commented that he did not have an opportunity to review Option No. 4c until this evening. Thus, only taking a quick glance at Option No. 4c, he observed that this option will only create more major changes in the future. As mentioned earlier, Ward 5 is the least populated with 29,000 people and the other wards have approximately 30,000 people in each ward. In addition, Ward 2 will not be an area of new growth, so more major changes will be needed in the future to evenly distribute the population in the wards. He believed that Option No. 4c is not a viable solution. Mr. Owens said the proposed option which he suggested never went beyond the discussion at the Committee level. He explained that his proposal squared off the boundaries, retained all of the Councilmembers in their respective wards, and did not allow for “stovepipe” configuration of any of the wards. As a representative of Ward 3, he did not like being in what is known as the “donut” ward. He believed it is time to radically change the ward boundaries, so they would not have to be changed again in a few years. His suggestion was to square off the boundaries making Ward 3 east of Antioch and Ward 2 west of Antioch. He recalled members of the Council discussing a small change rather than a major change, and having the wards be horizontal rather than vertical. He liked the changes in Ward 1, but he believed an opportunity exists to have Wards 2 and 3 represent the center of the City and for them to be vertical. Then as growth occurs in the south, the boundaries can move southward. Although his proposal created more changes in more precincts, he


did it with the idea that in the future, very little change would be needed and Wards 2 and 3 would be clearly identifiable by the residents in each of those wards. In his opinion, Option Nos. 4, 4a, 4b, and 4c do not create significant changes. As he explained, these options show Ward 2 across the entire City in a horizontal fashion, Ward 3 as a donut shape, and Ward 5 will be where the growth will occur. He was not comfortable with any of the options that have been presented and could not support options that consist of stovepipe configurations and have been gerrymandered. Mr. Lally believed Ward 1 had the least amount of impact. Although Ward 1 picks up three or four precincts, the character of these areas is very similar to Ward 1. He did not have a strong feeling about any of the options, except for the fact that he is trying to minimize disruption. In talking with Council-members Kobach and Sader, he agreed that a less disruptive and more gradual change would be best. He believed the proposal made by Dr. Kobach (Option No. 4c) would be a good compromise. Mr. Musil said his proposal has been referred to as a sweeping change, however, he believed his proposed option was not dramatically different than any of the other options. He pointed out that his proposal (Option No. 4) has 18 precinct moves and Dr. Kobach’s proposed revision (Option No. 4c) has 16 precinct moves. Option Nos. 2 and 4b have 18 precinct moves, and Option No. 3 has 17 precinct moves. He believed the only difference would be in the number of moves or changes in the future. Rather than having six to eight moves every two years with the other options, Option No 4 would only have three or four moves. Therefore, Option No. 4 clearly provides the least amount of disruption in the future. He reiterated that his proposal was not some radical revolutionary change, but clearly within the same gambit as the other proposals. Mr. Sader supported the amended option, Option No. 4c. He believed the one issue which has not been discussed very much is the opinion that the northern portion/ older part of the City needs to continue to be represented by more than one ward. He mentioned that Option No. 4c allows Ward 5 to retain precincts north of I-435, which Councilmember Kandt expressed a strong desire to do. He believed that Ward 2 is the most impacted ward in regard to additional precincts. He explained that this option allows the representatives of Ward 2 to retain more of the northern Overland Park area and the many programs established in the past years by the Neighborhood Conservation Group and other groups. In his opinion, it would be better to gradually change the process every two years. Also, Option No. 4c would eliminate the stovepipe configuration of Ward 5, as well as allow the older areas of the City to be represented by multiple wards, which would be beneficial to those areas. According to Mr. Kandt, 9 of the 18 changes in Option No. 4 affect Ward 5. In his opinion, it is not reasonable or fair to the citizens of Ward 5 to make a significant number of changes at one time. He agreed that the action needs to be more incremental in nature and less disruptive. Secondly, the percentage deviation for Ward 5 under Option No. 4 is a negative 4.2 percent, whereas each of the other wards is positive, ranging from .3 percent to 2 percent. He believed that Ward 5 is taking the


brunt of change, and in the best interests of the community, the ward boundaries should be more of a gradual change. He also believed the individual wards should represent an established area, as well as a newer area, because it would help enable a Councilmember to be more global and less parochial. Therefore, he could not support Option No. 4, but he would support proposed Option No. 4c as a compromise. Speaking to the amendment, Mayor Eilert believed there is good reason why the recommendation by the majority of the Committee contains fewer people in Ward 5. As indicated earlier, Ward 5 is where the growth will occur, and the growth would be without additional boundary changes. Absent that recognition, it seemed to him that in a couple of short years, the Council will be back to making additional changes in the fifth ward. In his experience, people understand changes and the fact that the wards have to be balanced in population. However, people do not understand making changes every two years. He believed it is best to make the least number of changes. Option No. 4c, which amends Option No. 4, has four precinct changes between the first and second ward. The recommendation from the Committee (Option No. 4) also has four precinct changes between the first and second ward. Referring to neighbor-hood cohesion, he pointed out that four precincts have been separated from the fifth Ward for at least 20 years, and the area north of 87th Street has been in a different ward than the area south of 87th Street, east of Lamar Street. Therefore, he was puzzled as to the reason that 87th Street should not be used as a boundary line. Mr. David Belpedio believed it is incumbent upon each Councilmember to have a global perspective. From his personal point of view, he would prefer to have less ground to cover as a representative of Ward 5. Because Ward 5 is long and narrow, he sometimes feels stretched between the areas north of I-435 and 159th Street. He preferred Option No. 4 because it squares off the areas. While listening to Council-member Kobach’s proposal (Option No. 4b), he said it might be a compromise to the extent that his proposal makes fewer changes. Therefore, he could support both Option No. 4 and Option No. 4b. However, he would not support Option No. 4c. Mayor Eilert announced the current motion is to amend the original motion with the adoption of Option No. 4c. The motion failed by a vote of 5 to 5. Those opposed were Mr. Belpedio, Mr. Owens, Mr. Musil, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. Loudon. Mayor Eilert referred to the original motion (revised Option No. 4) presented to the Council for approval, which is the recommendation of the FAED Committee. The motion to approve Option No. 4 failed by a vote of 3 to 7. Dr. Halligan, Mr. Lally, Dr. Kobach, Mr. Sader, Mr. Owens, Mr. Belpedio, and Mr. Kandt opposed the motion. A motion was made by Mr. Belpedio and seconded by Mr. Loudon to approve Option No. 4b. Mayor Eilert clarified that the only difference between Option No. 4 and Option No. 4b is the location of two precincts. He explained that in Option No. 4b, Precinct 2-5 is moved to Ward 1 and Precinct 2-4 remains in Ward 2.


The motion to approve Option 4b failed by a vote of 4 to 6. Opposing the motion were Mr. Owens, Mr. Kandt, Mr. Sader, Dr. Halligan, Dr. Kobach, and Mr. Lally. Mr. Sader moved to amend Option No. 4b with the following two changes—retaining Precincts 1-16 and 2-5 in their original wards. Dr. Halligan seconded, and the motion to approve revised Option No. 4b failed by a vote of 3 to 7. Mr. Owens, Mr. Kandt, Dr. Kobach, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Musil, Mr. Lally, and Mr. Belpedio opposed. A suggestion was made by Mr. Musil to continue this item to a subsequent part of the meeting to enable each Councilmember to review the various options. He believed it was difficult for staff and all of the Councilmembers to understand these last-minute options. He indicated that this subject has already been discussed at three different FAED Committee meetings, and now additional changes are being proposed. Mr. Loudon moved to continue Ward Boundary Ordinance No. WB-2265 for further discussion as the last item on the agenda. Dr. Halligan seconded. Mr. Lally asked if there was a time frame for making a decision on this item. He suggested that it might make more sense to return this item to the FAED Committee forum to continue discussion. In response to Mayor Eilert’s inquiry regarding the time frame of the Election Office, City Attorney Bob Watson said correspondence has been received from the Election Commissioner that citizens from other cities have begun filing for election. According to the Election Commissioner, if Overland Park citizens would file for election at this time, the applications would have to be accepted. However, it the ward boundaries changed and placed these citizens in a different ward, a letter would need to be sent to inform them that they need to file again. Therefore, he believed the time frame for the Election Commissioner to receive the final changes would be as soon as possible. Mayor Eilert announced the current motion is to continue Ward Boundary Ordinance No. WB-2265 until the end of the meeting to allow the individual Councilmembers to review the proposed options. The motion carried by a vote of 10 to 0. EXCESS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE – Employers Reinsurance Corporation. Mr. Sader informed the Council that the FAED Committee voted by 3 to 0 to 1 to recommend approval of Employers Reinsurance Corporation to provide Excess Workers Compensation Insurance for an amount not to exceed $65,000. He moved for approval, as recommended by the Committee, and a second was made by Mr. Lally. The motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Request for proposals for credit card payment services.


Mr. Sader reported that the Committee unanimously approved staff’s recommendation to issue a Request for Proposals to select a financial institution to provide electronic credit card services. He explained that the contract will be presented to the Council for approval following the selection process. STAFF REPORT: APPLICATION FOR NEW DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE CONTINGENT ON TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – Carousel Comedy Club, Inc., d/b/a Stan Glazer’s Comedy Club, 9601 B Metcalf, Stanford Glazer, manager. APPLICATION FOR NEW DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE CONTINGENT ON STATE LICENSE AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – Overland Park Hospitality, L.L.C., d/b/a Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites, 10920 Nall, Joseph V. Behrman, manager. APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE CONTINGENT ON STATE LICENSE – SC & N, Inc., d/b/a Freddy T’s Bar & Grill, 7920 W. 151st Street, John D. Wright, new manager. Director of Finance, Budget and Administration Kristy Stallings presented the preceding three applications and indicated that staff recommends approval of all three with contingencies, as noted. A motion was made by Mr. Musil to approve the Applications as follows: 1) New Drinking Establishment License for Carousel Comedy Club d/b/a Stan Glazer’s Comedy Club, 9601 B Metcalf, contingent upon a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; 2) New Drinking Establishment License for Overland Park Hospitality, L.L.C. d/b/a Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites, 10920 Nall, contingent upon State License and Certificate of Occupancy; and 3) Renewal of Drinking Establishment License for SC &N, Inc., d/b/a Freddy T’s Bar & Grill, 7920 West 151st Street, contingent upon State License. After a second by Mr. Gerlach, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Michael J. Lally, Chairman No report. STAFF REPORT: BID TABULATIONS:

Park Shelter and Installation 2000.

Director of Parks and Recreation James Cox presented the low bid of $19,860 from Poligon Shelters for the purchase and installation of a picnic shelter for Amesbury Lake Park, 142nd Street and Rosehill. He explained that the project will be funded by 2000 Special Parks and Recreation Funds.


A motion was made by Mr. Loudon to approve the low bid from Poligon Shelters in the amount of $19,860 for the purchase and installation of a picnic shelter for Amesbury Lake Park, 142nd and Rosehill, as recommended by staff. Mr. Gerlach seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Bluejacket Park Parking Lot Construction 2000. Mr. Cox said the referenced project is for reconstruction of the Bluejacket Park parking lot to bring it into compliance with City codes. The alternate bid is for an additional 11 parking spaces along the north driveway for a total of 114 parking spaces. He indicated that the project will be funded by 2000 Capital Improvement Funds. Staff recommends the bid be awarded to Clymer-King Construction, Inc., in the amount of $83,023.34 for a total base bid and the total alternate bid of $2,262.48. Dr. Halligan moved to approve the staff recommendation of the total base bid of $83,023.34 and total alternate bid of $2,262.48 for a total of $85,285.82 for the reconstruction of the Bluejacket Park parking lot, as noted. A second was made by Mr. Loudon, and the motion passed by a vote of 10 to 0. _________ Director of Planning and Development Services Roger Peterson requested that a nonagenda item, Ordinance No. BID-2266, which establishes the Downtown Business Improvement District assessment for calendar year 2001, be added to the agenda for consideration. Mr. Gerlach moved to add the referenced item to the agenda, and Mr. Owens seconded the motion, passing by a vote of 10 to 0. NONAGENDA ITEM – ORDINANCE NO. BID-2266, PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESS- MENT OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT SERVICE FEES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2001 ON COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Mr. Peterson said the BID Advisory Board met last Thursday to consider Ordinance No. BID-2266, which establishes the fees for the assessments for the BID (Business Improvement District) in Downtown Overland Park for calendar year 2001. He indicated that the Board voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of Ordinance No. BID-2266. Mr. Lally moved to approve Ordnance No. BID-2266, as outlined, and a second was made by Mr. Belpedio. The motion passed unanimously. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA: FINAL PLAT NO. 2000-91 – Switzer Commons Second Plat – Vicinity of the northeast corner of 135th Street and Grant. Application made by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by An 11 to 0 vote.


FINAL PLAT NO. 2000-96 – Links at Lionsgate Second Plat – Vicinity of 139th Street and Lamar Avenue. Application made by Lionsgate Golf Developers. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. FINAL PLAT NO. 2000-97 – Lionsgate by the Green Second Plat – Vicinity of the southwest corner of 143rd Street and Nall Avenue. Application made by Synergy Development Alliance. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. FINAL PLAT NO. 2000-100 – Wilderness Valley Second Plat – Vicinity of 166th Street and Rosewood. Application made by The Wilderness Developers, L.L.C. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-30 – 10201 West 127th Street. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow for a Sprint Communications data services cabinet. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Sprint Communications Company. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 11 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-2833. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-31 – 12140 West 135th Street. Special use permit requested for a one-year period of time to allow an arcade consisting of 15 games. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Bishop Rink Holdings, L.L.C. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 11 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-2834. REZONING NO. 1999-31 – Vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District, Johnson County, to CP-0, Planned Office Building District, CP-2, Planned General Business District, and CP-3, Planned Commercial District, to allow for a retail shopping center. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. The Planning Commission denied this item on September 11, 2000, by a vote of 8 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-2771. (Continued from the November 6, 2000, Council meeting.) REZONING NO. 2000-11 – Vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. Highway 69. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District, Johnson County, to R-1A, Small-lot, Single-Family Residential District, and RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District, to allow for the development of a small-lot single-family and multifamily development. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. The Planning Commission denied this item on September 11, 2000, by a vote of 8 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-2826. (Continued from the November 6, 2000, Council meeting.) ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZRR-2254 – Amendments to Section 18.440.070, Signs Permitted in Residential Districts. Application made by the City of Overland Park. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 11 to 0. ORDINANCE NO. ZRR-2254. Mr. Musil moved to approve the preceding nine Planning Commission Consent Agenda items, as listed. Mr. Lally seconded.


In response to Mayor Eilert’s inquiry regarding items to be considered separately, Mr. Belpedio requested that Rezoning No. 1999-31 and Rezoning No. 2000-11 be considered separately. A request was made by Mr. Musil that Special Use Permit No. 2000-30 be considered separately for the purpose of abstaining. Mayor Eilert asked whether anyone would like to address item Special Use Permit No. 2000-31, 12140 West 135th Street, or Zoning Text Amendment No. ZRR-2254, Amendments to Section 18.440.070, Signs Permitted in Residential Districts. No comments were offered in response to the announcement of the public hearing, and it was declared closed. With the exception of Special Use Permit No. 2000-30, Rezoning No. 1999-31, and Rezoning No. 2000-11, the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items passed by a 10 to 0 roll-call vote. A motion was made by Mr. Lally to approve Ordinance No. Z-2833 (Special Use Permit No. 2000-30), 10201 West 127th Street, for an indefinite period of time to allow for a Sprint communications data services cabinet, and Mr. Belpedio seconded. There being no response to the announcement of a public hearing for Special Use Permit No. 2000-30, Mayor Eilert declared the public hearing closed. The motion carried by a roll-call vote of 8 to 0 to 2. Mr. Musil and Mr. Kandt abstained. Referring to Rezoning No. 1999-31 and Rezoning No. 2000-11, both located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway, Mayor Eilert explained that these are companion items. He said these items were unanimously recommended for denial at the September 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting and then continued from the November 6, 2000, City Council meeting. Administrator of Current Planning Bob Lindeblad explained that the City Council first considered Rezoning No. 1999-31 on December 7, 1999. He said the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended that the zoning requests be denied. The City Council voted to return these zoning requests to the Planning Commission in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans. Since that time, the applicant has withdrawn Rezoning No. 1999-31 and filed a new request, Rezoning No. 2000-11, for a rezoning from A-J to R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family District, and RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District. In addition, the applicant has modified Rezoning No. 1999-31 to reduce the amount of commercial zoning and to include a request for CP-0, Planned Office Building District, for a portion of the property. He indicated that the area and location of both requests has been modified since the last hearing before the City Council. According to Mr. Lindeblad, there are two zoning applications. He explained that one is for commercial development and the second application is for town homes, four-plexes, and an R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family District development. He referred to the tract, which was shown on the overhead projector screen, at the northwest


corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway. He pointed to the area designated for medium-density residential and the area designated for low-density residential. He indicated that the applicant is proposing commercial development along the 159th Street frontage, multi-family town home development behind the commercial area, and R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family, development behind the multi-family development. The major issue is the future development plan and the appropriateness of additional commercial zoning at this location. Mr. Lindeblad recalled the discussion of an extensive joint City/County study area, which was ultimately adopted by both groups and incorporated into the City’s Master Plan, limiting the commercial development along Metcalf Avenue, north of 159th Street. In staff’s opinion, the tracts in question are most appropriate for residential development. Mr. Lindeblad said that staff did a study within the last year regarding the amount of low-density residential available for development within the City. The study showed that the amount of sewered ground for low-density residential will run out in approxi-mately two years and that all low-density residential will be diminished in five years. With the appropriateness of the lay of the land and with the single-family subdivisions to the north, staff believes the single-family development should continue to where the multi-family development is proposed. Staff also believed that the medium-density town homes, as proposed by the applicant, to be more appropriate than commercial development. In September, the Planning Commission discussed these items on Master Plan issues, the appropriateness of additional commercial on 159th Street, the abundance of commercial development north along 151st Street and along Metcalf Avenue, and 900,000 square feet of commercial (of which only 27 percent is currently constructed). Since additional commercial is not needed, it was determined that the ground is more appropriate for residential. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously that both rezoning applications be denied. Mr. Musil commented that the point is that the City is running out of single-family sewered land, and thus, the land should be held more precious. However, because of the surrounding area which consists of a cell tower, water tower, and a future interchange onto a major highway, he asked whether this land would be an appropriate development area for single-family homes. Mr. Lindeblad explained that other residential areas in the City have cell towers, water towers, and interchanges in the surrounding areas. He stated that staff believes this property is appropriate for residential development. In response to Mr. Lally’s question whether staff is in agreement with the proposal for multi-family development, Mr. Lindeblad confirmed that staff is in agreement. The staff does not support the commercial development. Mr. Gerlach asked the zoning use which is directly south of the retail part of this development. Mr. Lindeblad said the land that is south of the retail area is designated as Light Industrial/Business Park. He explained that this land was included in the Master Plan last year.


Dr. Kobach inquired whether buffering is required between light industrial and residential. He asked whether the City has a guideline or a standard which shows when it is appropriate to have residential property abutting property that is zoned for light industrial or business park. In response, Mr. Lindeblad said there are several areas that consist of the same relationship between business park and residential. He referred to the business park zoning across from single-family development at 133rd Street, west of Antioch Road. He said the parallel access road is the buffer between the business park on the south and the single-family development to the north. With the performance standards of the business parks, staff believes these two uses are compatible. Mr. Andrew Schlagel, Planning Consultant, said he represents Terra Fina Properties, the owners and developers of this particular piece of ground and the larger neighbor-hood that surrounds it. He commented that Terra Fina Properties is a fairly new developer in the community. He said Terra Fina Properties currently has a single-home, maintenance-provided project at 127th Street and Grant Street and a larger single-family project at 127th Street and Switzer. As he explained, the zoning proposals on the two applications presented this evening consists of approximately 52 acres of ground. However, that is only a portion of their ownership. Terra Fina also owns another 50 acres of ground to the north which is the single-family home community of Pinewood with houses ranging from $225,000 to $500,000. Mr. Schlagel said that Terra Fina wanted a larger site that could be used for several different component parts of a neighborhood. He commented that Terra Fina wants to build high-dollar, larger, single-family homes that would transition to somewhat smaller homes. He explained the purpose of his presentation this evening is to show the modifications the applicant made to the initial proposal. Mr. Schlagel stated that the initial application was a request at the northeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch Road. It consisted of RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District, for a town home project and an RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, for another town home project with a different configuration and a higher density. He said these two projects are anchored by a 20- to 25-acre neighborhood community center and supermarket. Both of the future ramps of the interchange with U.S. 69 Highway are located on the south side and will exit to 159th at this particular location, which is the “front door” for the commercial tract on either plan. To familiarize the Council with the surroundings, Mr. Schlagel said there is an adjacent highway, an old water tower, and a metal barn that is used as a maintenance facility, which have been at this location for a long period of time. Secondly, to the north is a cell tower site. He believed the application should be reviewed for appro-priate uses, as well as whether residential would even be a good use because of the surroundings. Mr. Schlagel said the previous plan proposal showed the 25 acres, west of Lowell Avenue, as a town home community. In the revised plan, the 25 acres has been left out of the application and is in the process of being sold to a church, which is a permitted conforming use within low residential. He said the applicant also acquired


an additional 15 acres of ground to the east of the highway, and approximately 10 acres is to be used for small-lot single family residential, and 5 acres is to be used for multifamily development. The most significant change has been the change from commercial property (25 acres, 163,000 square feet) to other types of uses. In an effort to soften transition, the first use would be a four-acre office complex. Since no other day-care services are in the vicinity, the applicant believed this would be a good location for a day-care facility. The second use would be a financial institution proposed for the corner. The third use would be a small neighborhood convenience center with an opportunity for two out buildings. Mr. Schlagel explained that this would replace the major neigh-borhood center originally proposed. The small neighborhood convenience center would consist of small shops, such as a coffee shop, dry cleaners, or bagel shop. He said this 46,000 square-foot tract would be zoned as CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, which he would submit in the form of a stipulation. The eastern edge of the property would be shown as a convenience store/gasoline station. Behind the convenience store/gasoline station would be a car wash, which would provide a good transition and would be buffered from the use to the north. He concluded that the convenience store/gasoline station site could be zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District, and the CP-3, Planned Commercial District, designation could be used for the car wash. Mr. Schlagel referred to the four-unit town home pinwheel design, which consists of 116 units. He said the combination of 37 acres for R-1A and RP-4 zoning would have a density of 4.96 units per acre, which is defined in the Master Plan as low-density residential. He assured the Council that these units within the multi-family projects would not be rental units. These units would be condominiums that would be owned in a maintenance-provided community. As he pointed out, this would address the earlier statement made by staff regarding the City’s “precious sewered ground.” He also noted that “empty nester” type of housing is increasingly popular as the City moves into the future. Mr. Schlagel referred to the recreational facility in the center of the project that is provided as an amenity package for the entire community of Pinewood. He said the entire project is interlinked and mixed with pedestrian paths that connect through- out the complex. He explained that the applicant attempted to integrate a convenience oriented and small neighborhood based type of development. He said the difference between the original plan and the current plan is significant. He explained that the 46,000 square feet of retail is needed to support the neighborhood. In terms of the residential zoning, his client would agree to a condition that he would not request or be granted any building permits for any of the office or retail uses shown along 159th Street until such time as development has been initiated on the residential development to the north. He stated that his client is showing good faith that he believes this to be a project that can move forward and be built out and completed without changing the boundaries at some point in the future.


Mr. Schlagel believed that the two stipulations submitted by the applicant suggested potential merit. He explained the stipulations would include adjustment in the zoning downward to CP-1 from the CP-2 area in the center, the convenience store/gasoline station site zoned CP-2, and the additional language that no building permits shall be issued for any building within the office/retail area until such time as development has been initiated within the town home project. In conclusion, Mr. Schlagel pointed out that this project has been discussed for 18 months. During the entire process, the only person who spoke at the public hearing was an immediate neighbor who spoke in favor of the project. In reply to Mayor Eilert’s request for clarification of the zoning specifications, Mr. Schlagel said the car wash site would be CP-3, as required by the City code, and the convenience store/gasoline station is CP-2, as required. To the west is 46,000 square feet of property which could be CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, and the remaining two buildings on the western edge of the property are proposed as CP-0. In reply to Mr. Musil’s question regarding the number of apartment units in the RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, Mr. Lindeblad said there would be approximately 250 units. As indicated in the category of Master Plan Land Uses, he explained that this would be the maximum number of units allowed. Mr. Musil commented that staff mentioned the potential for additional commercial zoning in this area. In response, Mr. Schlagel said the applicant has worked very hard to determine the minimum amount of commercial necessary which would work as an integral component for the overall plan. He explained that the square footage has been reduced. Secondly, he referred to the property off-site on the south side of 159th Street that has already been Master Planned for a group of uses very similar to the applicant’s proposal. As indicated in the Master Plan, office and retail are appropriate within the industrial business park designation along with light industrial uses. Since the western terminus will be Lowell Street, he said there could be no commercial creep beyond that location. In addition, the applicant has proposed a stipulation which ensures the development of town homes. Mr. Musil requested existing examples of commercial areas that would be equivalent to the subject proposal. Mr. Schlagel referred to the small commercial center on the north side of the intersection of 103rd Street and U.S. 69 Highway. Responding to Mayor Eilert’s inquiry regarding the ownership of the land west of Lowell on Antioch, Mr. Schlagel said Grace Baptist Church is the owner of the property on Antioch, from 159th Street to 158th Street. He explained that the church purchased the 22-acre site at that location. Mayor Eilert opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Hall, 6833 West 163rd Terrace, encouraged the Council to deny the proposed rezoning for several reasons. He indicated that there has been much discussion


regarding commercial development along 159th Street and referred to the application for Wal-Mart which was denied by the Planning Commission because of the concerns of “commercial sprawl” in this area. In reference to the comments by Mr. Schlagel that these services are needed in this area, Mr. Hall pointed out that many of the same services are currently available along 151st Street. He mentioned the need for a day-care facility and pointed out that a day-care center is at 162nd Street and Metcalf Avenue and one at 158th Street and Metcalf Avenue, as well as two day-care centers at 151st Street and U.S. 69 Highway. In terms of a convenience store, he referred to three current convenience stores on 151st Street, between Metcalf Avenue and Antioch Road. In his opinion, there is ample retail space available along 151st Street. Mr. Hall recalled that a decision had been made for residential development along this corridor, not commercial. In addition, the subject of a potential interchange at U.S. 69 Highway and 159th Street has been discussed numerous times. However, no plans or applications have been made and nothing documented that indicates the future construction of an interchange at this location. He believed the approval of additional commercial property along the residential corridor was based on supposition of the construction of an interchange. He further believed it will be many years and a substantial amount of money before an interchange is built at this location. He also emphasized that traffic issues have been addressed. He explained that additional development of commercial would create a demand for improvements to the surrounding streets. Mr. Pat O’Neil, 8511 West 156th Terrace, concurred with the previous statements that the services being proposed are already available eight blocks away on 151st Street. He believed it would not be appropriate to duplicate the services within a short distance. In his opinion, it would take away the integrity and aesthetics of these residential neighborhoods that are beginning to develop in this area. Ms. Annette Weiland, 15513 Woodward, supported the previous comments. She believed that a duplication of services within the area was not necessary. Ms. Jill Smail, 11605 West 155th Terrace, asked the Council to deny this application. She stressed that the existing commercial along 151st Street is not being used. She explained that some of the stores are closed, and the newly constructed Perkins Restaurant is closed. She stated that commercial zoning is planned for 167th Street and 179th Street and requested the City comply with the Master Plan. Mr. Jim Wise, president of the Pleasant Valley Homes Association, 9601 West 156th Street, said he has lived at this location for three years and has observed an explosion of growth in the area. He commented that the traffic along 159th Street is already incredible, and the addition of commercial zoning would make an even greater impact on the area. He liked the rural area and would have a problem with the increase in traffic. He also concurred with the previous speakers. Mr. Glen Beland, 15513 Woodward, expressed opposition to the subject proposal and agreed with what has been said by the other residents. He also disagreed with the comment by Mr. Schlagel that since the area south of 159th Street is zoned for light


industrial, it would be appropriate to move some smaller type of industrial or retail use into what is currently designated as residential zoning. Mayor Eilert closed the public hearing. Mr. Belpedio asked staff to provide examples of other areas that have residential development located adjacent to light industrial. Mr. Lindeblad referred to an indoor mini-warehouse facility that is currently under construction between 135th Street and 133rd Street. He said a single-family development is north of 133rd Street. Another location is at 127th Street and Antioch Road which has MP-1 zoning, Light Industrial, on the east side, and on the west side is a single-family development. In response to Mr. Belpedio’s question whether there were examples of areas where residential development is adjacent to a water tower, Mr. Lindeblad said a water tower at 143rd Street and U.S. 69 Highway is surrounded by single-family develop-ment. He commented that this is not unusual. Mr. Sader mentioned that a statement had been made earlier that some of the retail stores along 151st Street are closed and the buildings are vacant. He asked whether staff took into consideration those vacancies when contemplating applications for land use determination along 159th Street. Mr. Lindeblad was not certain that any of those shops on 151st Street are vacant. He explained that staff observes the pattern of where commercial development should be in Overland Park. He said an extensive study of the entire intersection was completed by the City and the county and the landowners wanted commercial along 159th Street from Antioch Road to Metcalf Avenue. After a long review of the appropriateness of the land uses, it was determined the only retail should be at the intersection of Metcalf Avenue and 159th Street. Mr. Sader reiterated the question and asked whether the “over supply” of commercial that exists on 151st Street is relevant to the Council’s consideration of retail on this application. In other words, because stores and shops appear vacant in the neighbor-hood centers on 151st Street, would that mean that the proposed shops for 159th Street might also become vacant. Mr. Lindeblad explained that staff is more concerned that only 27 percent of the square footage has been constructed within the total amount zoned for construction. He pointed out that the zoning is for 900,000 square feet, and less than 300,000 square feet has actually been constructed, some of those spaces are vacant. Referring to the retail along 151st Street, Mayor Eilert said it was not long ago when the Planning Commission asked whether there was too much retail at 103rd Street and Metcalf Avenue. He believed time has shown the folly of that question at that particular site.


In regard to the question of a potential interchange at 159th Street, Mayor Eilert concurred that it is not on KDOT’s 10-year plan. However, KDOT is not interested in considering an interchange until there is development at that location. He said this is unfortunate because KDOT continues to fall behind rather than move ahead. Therefore, he stated that whether KDOT has an interchange planned in the immediate future is not a factor for consideration of this question. Mr. Sader moved to affirm the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial of Rezoning No. 1999-31. Mr. Kandt seconded. Mr. Lally supported the motion. He appreciated the applicant’s efforts to move closer to what the City staff recommends regarding commercial. He also applauded the applicant in reference to his town home development, which he believed to be a positive component in the overall development with single-family development. However, given the information provided by the staff regarding the abundance of unbuilt commercial in the area, he believed it is not in the City’s overall best interests to build another small commercial area. He also expressed concern that the proposed commercial, in addition to the commercial at Metcalf and 159th Street would place pressure on that particular segment of property. He could support the construction of town homes along with single-family homes, but given the unbuilt commercial in the area, he believed it would not be appropriate at this time to move forward with the current proposal. The motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission passed by a vote of 9 to 1. Mr. Musil opposed. A motion was made by Dr. Halligan to override the Planning Commission recommendation for denial and approve Rezoning No. 2000-11, vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U. S. Highway 69. Mr. Owens seconded. In response to Mayor Eilert’s inquiry relative to the Planning Commission’s reason for denial of Rezoning No. 2000-11, Mr. Lindeblad said the Planning Commission believed it was too intricate of a plan. The Planning Commission was also opposed to the unplanned retail strip and the unzoned area along 159th Street. It was believed that the City would be setting itself up for unknown land uses on 159th Street. He agreed that it would probably be best for the applicant to present a new plan. Mr. Schlagel commented that the current applicant excludes 13 acres of multi-family recommended land use and is low-density residential. However, he could return with a subsequent application for a higher density multi-family land use in this area. Mr. Gerlach believed that some issues needed to be discussed further. Therefore, he stated that he would vote against the motion to approve the rezoning. The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 6. Those opposed were Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Musil, Mr. Loudon, Mr. Lally, Mr. Kandt, and Mr. Sader. A motion was made by Dr. Halligan to remand Rezoning No. 2000-11, vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. Highway 69, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Loudon seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.


PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – Deer Creek Apartments – Vicinity of the southeast corner of 127th Street and Metcalf Avenue. Application made by Schlagel & Associates. The Planning Commission approved this item on October 30, 2000, by a vote of 10 to 1. According to Mr. Lindeblad, the Planning Commission had some questions regarding this application. One of the issues pertained to the location of the duplex units at the southeast corner of the development and whether or not those units violated the setback area. A stipulation was added that the three adjacent property owners be notified and allow them to determine whether the setback would be acceptable. He explained that the applicant received letters from the three adjacent property owners indicating that they concur with the redesign of the southeast corner. Mr. Lindeblad said the second issue was the construction of a solid masonry screening wall, as requested by the neighborhood group to the east of this project. The applicant’s proposal for the wall was approved by the Planning Commission. He explained the plan shows the delineation to be a solid wall which extends the entire length of the east side. He indicated that this is in compliance with the rezoning requirements. The Planning Commission voted 10 to 1 to recommend approval on October 30, 2000. Mr. Larry Winn, 6201 College Boulevard, representing the applicant, said the affected property owners have given their consent regarding the location of the duplex units on the south side of the property. In reference to the solid masonry wall, he said the neighborhood group’s attorney contacted him and left open the possibility of having an additional meeting if they wanted further changes to the wall. To date, he has not heard from their attorney. Therefore, the proposal for the solid masonry wall is the same as shown on the final development plan. He asked for approval. Mayor Eilert indicated that a public hearing is not normally held at the final develop-ment plan stage. However, since concerns have been expressed and this item is back before the Council, he stated that a public hearing would be held. He asked if anyone would like to address the Council regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Mr. Lally to approve Final Development Plan for Deer Creek Apartments, vicinity of the southeast corner of 127th Street and Metcalf Avenue, with stipulations a through k. Mr. Kandt seconded, and the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. REZONING NO. 2000-9 – Vicinity of 107th Street between Nall Avenue and Roe. Rezoning requested from CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to allow revised zoning for Amli at Cambridge Square. Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. The Planning Commission


denied this item on September 11, 2000, by a vote of 4 to 4. Ordinance No. Z-2827. (A VALID PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.) (Continued from Special Council Meeting, October 30, 2000.) Mr. Lindeblad said the applicant is requesting rezoning from CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-0, Planned Office Building District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to CP-2, CP-0 and RP-5 to allow for additional office development. Referring to a map showing the tract in question, Mr. Lindeblad referred to I-435, the south property line; Nall Avenue, the west property line; and Roe Avenue, the east property line. He commented that in the future, 107th Street (not constructed at this time) will be the north property line. To the west is an office park, which is partially built. To the northwest is Shawnee Mission South High School, and to the north is an undeveloped property which is zoned RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District; RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District; and CP-2, Planned General Business District. To the east is of Roe is commercial zoning. According to Mr. Lindeblad, the concern regarding this rezoning is in reference to the southeast corner of 107th Street and Nall Avenue. As shown on the Future Develop-ment Plan, the corner is currently zoned RP-5, Planned Apartment House District. Mr. Lindeblad referred to the current zoning plan that was approved in 1998. He said the plan consists of a 108,000 square-foot office building at the northeast corner of I-435 and Nall. To the north is a series of town homes that were approved, and adjacent to the east of the town homes is RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, which are currently under construction. Approximately 7,000 square feet of retail was approved along Roe Avenue. The RP-5 and CP-2, Planned General Business District, portions of this rezoning have not changed. Mr. Lindeblad presented the proposed plan. He explained the difference in this plan is the proposed extension of CP-0, Planned Office Building District, to the north to 107th Street and the inclusion of a second office building at the southeast corner of 107th Street and Nall Avenue. Referring to the Master Plan, Mr. Lindeblad said the problem with the proposed rezoning is that it centers around the changed inland use from the RP-5 to the CP-0, which impacts the neighborhood character of Nall Avenue and potentially impacts the adjacent properties to the north. For many years, medium-density residential use was shown on the north side of I-435 on the Master Plan. Several years ago, the rezoning for office was approved at the northwest corner of I-435 and Nall Avenue, and subsequent to that in 1998, the rezoning on this site occurred with the approval of an office building at the corner of I-435 and Nall Avenue. Mr. Lindeblad explained the intent was for the residential on the north side of the office buildings to protect the residential land uses north of 107th Street, where the tract is currently vacant. He commented that Nall Avenue is basically a residential street with numerous low-density single-family subdivisions along Nall Avenue. As


he explained, the concern was that if nonresidential land uses would extend up to 107th Street, that would put pressure on the vacant land north of 107th Street for land uses other than residential. Much of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting centered on the tract to the north and the impact the zoning would have and the likelihood of the RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, being constructed. Mr. Lindeblad distributed the zoning plan that was approved in the late 1960s on the tract to the north. On the western portion along Nall Avenue, the RP-6 zoning showed 160 units in 10 buildings and RP-3 zoning which consisted of 100 units. He indicated that the total density of the RP-6 and RP-3 zonings combined was 10 units per acre. Although RP-6 zoning, which is high-density residential, is shown on the Master Plan, the actual zoning approved and on record is not a very dense development. In the opinion of staff, this area remains appropriate for residential development. He indicated that the concern expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners is that the office development would creep along Nall Avenue to the north. The applicant was required to provide a traffic study at the request of the staff to compare the differences in the existing zoning plan and the new plan. The difference in trip generation on the new plan is 217 additional trips. The primary concern of the transportation staff is the potential for this rezoning to cause the property directly to the north to be rezoned to nonresidential use, which could cause adverse impact, especially on the intersection of 107th Street and Nall Avenue. Mr. Lindeblad said the Planning Commission considered this at the September 11, 2000, meeting and three persons spoke during the public hearing. The concerns expressed were downstream flooding, increased traffic, and additional nonresidential creep of land uses along Nall Avenue. The Planning Commission had diverse opinions in regard to whether or not this additional office would impact the property to the north, as well as whether additional office would be warranted when office develop-ment already exists to the east of Nall Avenue. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a 4 to 4 tie vote, and thus, the motion was denied. If the Council is of the opinion that this is an appropriate land use, staff would recommend stipulations a through p, as written in the staff report. In response to Mayor Eilert’s question regarding the amount of CP-2 zoning, Planned General Business District, north of 107th Street is in the floodplain, Mr. Lindeblad said the majority of the land is in the floodplain. He explained that it is unknown to staff how much land could be brought out of the floodplain for development purposes. Mr. John Petersen, Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte, on behalf of Amli Residential, commented that the subject property has changed through the years. He said that two years ago he presented a plan of mixed use development. The plan reflected a small amount of retail on the Roe Avenue side and primarily a multi-family project (RP-5) that is one of the higher density multifamily categories allowed, taking into consideration the highway, and an office component on the western side of the project. He believed the mixed use of retail, multi-family, and office would be a good transition. He said the office portion is actually the only development under consideration this


evening. He explained that two years ago, the plan showed 43 brownstone town homes that would provide a different type of living opportunity that could interrelate and work well with the 108,000 square-foot office building that was approved. As projects move from a concept to reality, Mr. Petersen said the applicant realized that the 7,854 square feet of retail made sense and interrelated well with the retail that currently exists on the east side of Roe Avenue. He also believed the majority of the site working as an RP multi-family kind of development in the middle of the project made sense, and that portion of the project is currently under construction. Although there was an interest for office development, the financial market co-developers believed the combination of office development and brownstone town homes would not be suitable. The applicant also found that there was interest in corporate headquarters “signature type” buildings because of the high visibility, good access, and the new interchange at Roe and Nall Avenues. Therefore, the applicant wanted to develop a signature building that would be slightly larger than 108,000 square feet. He noted that there is a corporate headquarters user who wanted to use this as their main building and develop a 40,000 square-foot building for a mini-type campus to provide some synergy between their two operations. He concluded that this is not a speck plan, but a plan designed for a corporate user who will take possession if this proposal would be approved. In regard to traffic, Mr. Petersen said the proposed project would not impact intersections to a lower level of service. In the year 2020, this proposal would not lower the projections of any intersections, except for one, which is the eastbound ramp off I-435 and Nall Avenue. He pointed out that the applicant removed approximately 86 multi-family units, as well as 43 brownstone town homes. Although this would remain as mixed use, the number of apartment houses was reduced to bring in a signature corporation that he believed would add quality to the project. Mr. Petersen said the objection of staff is that this could set a precedent for more office to be developed. He said that part of the applicant’s rationale was to construct town homes as a buffer to stop future office development to the north. He referred to the staff comments two years ago in regard to the appropriateness of their office proposal, which he believed to be relevant for tonight’s discussion as well. He quoted the staff comments, “The CP portion of the development is also not in compliance with the future development plan.” However, he pointed out that approval was granted and construction has begun on a 300,000 square-foot office park on the west side of Nall, south of 107th Street. The property at the northeast corner of 107th Street and Nall Avenue is owned by the Sutherland family. The northeast corner of 107th Street and Nall Avenue is Master Planned for medium-density residential (providing an adequate transition). Staff is of the opinion that office development is appropriate on this portion of the site. He said that 107th Street, from Nall Avenue to Roe Avenue, is the point of demarcation. He noted that Applebee’s headquarters is on the east side of Roe Avenue, retail extends to 107th Street, and office development is on the south side of 107th Street and west of Nall Avenue. Traffic will not be significantly increased and a very logical transition scheme would be provided. He believed this plan has sound planning principles and logic. The plan is a slight evolution and will change as development occurs.


Mr. Petersen said his final point involves 107th Street. Over the years, there has been discussion about the cost to construct 107th Street and the question of who will pay for it. He said that issue was temporarily resolved within the context of the prior zoning approval when his client committed to a substantial and significant portion of the construction and thus, would assume the ultimate cost of the entire road, even though his client was not required at that time to build the road in its entirety. He has been through the process of acquiring the right-of-way through the cooperation with the City of eminent domain, however, his client paid the award. He said that his client is asking for some increase in square footage, and regardless of how slight or insignificant the traffic impact is, he would offer to contribute more significant dollars to the development of 107th Street. In closing, the Planning Commission vote was a 4 to 4 tie. Mr. Petersen understood that the neighbors to the north are concerned that this project will cause undue impact. In the neighborhood meeting, he met with approximately six neighborhoods. Some are within a half mile radius to the site, and other neighbors live in the area of 103rd Street and Nall Avenue and 103rd Street and Roe Avenue, and they are also concerned about the traffic. For this project, he was not required to study 103rd Street and Roe Avenue because his client has no direct connection to it. In terms of the area at 103rd Street and Nall Avenue, he said that is currently a C Level of Service, and that area will remain at a C Level of Service with the proposed project. He said it is increased under the traffic study by one second, and in the year 2020, both intersections will be operating at a B Level of Service and their project would increase 103rd Street and Nall Avenue traffic by 0.5 of one percent of delay. He agreed with the stipulations and asked for approval of this application. If this proposal would be approved, Dr. Halligan asked whether Mr. Petersen would be willing to display an exhibit of the signature building. Mr. Petersen confirmed that he would agree to that. He would be willing because this is a signature building and it is well within the guidelines of the City. He would commit to the Council that a signature building would be constructed. He clarified that his client is not asking for more density. Mr. Gerlach asked the timing of the development and construction of the apartments, the retail, and the office development. Mr. Petersen replied that the multi-family portion of the project is currently under construction. He anticipated that the office portion and retail portion would begin construction in the spring. Mayor Eilert opened the public hearing. Mr. Thomas Carr, 10200 Briar Street, informed the Council that his house is located between Nall Avenue and Roe Avenue and north of 103rd Street. He said that he could hear the noise of equipment on the property on 107th Street, between Nall Avenue and Roe Avenue. He said land movers and bulldozers are digging up and moving rocks on the subject property. He assumed that the proposed application


would be considered this evening and a determination would be made whether to move forward with the project. He believed that someone had “jumped the gun” on this property. He requested an explanation. Mayor Eilert clarified that in 1997, the land was approved for zoning for the construction of apartments, one office building at I-435 and Nall Avenue, and town homes north of the office building. He explained that the applicant is building the portion of the project that has been approved. This evening, the applicant is asking that those town homes be removed to replace them with a 40,000 square-foot office building. Therefore, although the applicant has referred to the entire tract this evening, the actual request is focused on one small portion of the project. In terms of the merits of this project, Mr. Carr disagreed with the applicant’s theory regarding the traffic. He indicated that the Sprint complex is to the south and there has been a tremendous influx of traffic traveling north on Nall Avenue and Roe Avenue. In fact, during the morning and evening rush hour, traffic is so heavy that drivers sometimes find it difficult to turn onto Nall Avenue or Roe Avenue. He believed the traffic impact in this area is much more than the estimates submitted. Since the area currently has commercial and business properties west of Nall Avenue and east of Roe Avenue, there is no need for an additional business district, an office building and apartments. He strongly recommended denial of this application. Ms. Judy Jacobs, No. 4 Wycklow, expressed concern regarding the commercial creep and the domino effect of progressive rezoning for commercial purposes in her neigh-borhood. She said this issue has been discussed at length by her homes association. Many of her neighbors have attended the meetings of the City Council and the Planning Commission, only to be worn down by repeated continuances. The north-west corner of I-435 and Nall Avenue was rezoned from residential to a combination of commercial and residential a couple of years ago, which contradicted the Master Plan and recommendations of staff. At that time, staff indicated that the line of demarcation between commercial and residential zoning was I-435, from Nall Avenue to Roe Avenue, and moving the demarcation line further to the north would alter the residential character of the neighborhood. She believed that such rezoning would serve as a catalyst for further commercial zoning along the 107th Street corridor, from Nall Avenue to Roe Avenue. She questioned the reason for changing the demarcation line to 107th Street from I-435 where it was originally Master Planned. Ms. Jacobs pointed out that the Planning Commission has voted against this proposal, the City staff has not recommended it, and the neighbors oppose the application. She commented that Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) has developed a list of principles known as creating quality places, and MARC places great emphasis on water and air quality. She believed that the addition of 1,618 parking places (projected for the office building) is going to diminish the surface area for water absorption. In addition, the principles of creating quality places also seeks to preserve the natural features in a neighborhood. She indicated that the neighborhood currently has natural features, such as vegetation, wildlife, and a well-controlled creek. She believed that all of the natural features would be endangered with the


proposed development. As the Council considers this proposal, she requested they consider the integrity of the Master Plan, heed the recommendations of the City staff and the Planning Commission, and listen to the concerns of the neighbors. She requested denial of this application. Mrs. Elizabeth Kanter, No. 11 Wycklow, said that she is part of the “stovepipe” configuration of Ward 5. She complimented the City planners for their diligence and expertise in critiquing rezoning applications and thanked the Council for their constant efforts to balance the best use of the land for residents and developers. She referred to the Johnson County Museum, which shows the history in a permanent exhibit and defines the City’s current development as leading the good life. The museum describes Overland Park as a model City, one in which people live, work and play simultaneously and comfortably. In 1993-94, a national publication entitled, “50 Fabulous Places to Raise a Family” included the City of Overland Park, and the City’s reputation for quality living was documented. Among the criteria for this recognition was well-planned development. She referred to the information on the Overland Park web site, “In 1996, the County Economic Research Institute ranked Overland Park number one among 13 Triple A communities in the nation.” Also taken from the Overland Park web site was the information that, “Money Magazine in the mid 1990s listed Overland Park among the top livable cities.” She stated that the residents in their area are proud of Overland Park and content with most of the established zoning surrounding their neighborhood north of I-435. She said the residents researched this zoning, as recommended on the City web site before investing in their homes. The decision to deny or approve Rezoning No. 2000-9 is pivotal to the continuation of livability in the neighboring residential areas. Their concerns are in the areas of traffic, the unknown future development and the commercial creep. Referring to the staff comments on September 11, 2000, Mrs. Kanter said that 51,200 square feet of office space, when added to the intensity of the current portion of development, would greatly impact the traffic generation from the site. She believed this traffic increase will affect the safety on the streets and the air quality in the City. The increased traffic will also impact the highway, boulevards and streets in this proximity and the tranquil living and playing components of the City. The unknown future development will create undefined areas on the extensive southern strip of the site, and the possibility of open ended development is unacceptable and unreasonable. In 1997, statements were made that I-435 would be the point of demarcation, however, however, approval of this application could become a precedent for the vast area to the north. She asked the Council to deny Rezoning No. 2000-9 and ensure the best use of this land to retain the current balance of commercial, residential and recreational benefits. Dr. David James, No. 4 Wycklow, president of the Wycklow Homes Association, expressed concern regarding commercial zoning and the residential quality of life. He feared that the residential character may be compromised by incremental commercial rezoning. He said other concerns include drainage, stream erosion, traffic buildup, gridlock, safety concerns relative to traffic, and deterioration of livability. He referred to the staff comments of the September 11, 2000, Planning Commission which read, “The primary concern of the transportation staff of the


Overland Park Planning Commission is the potential for this rezoning to cause the property directly to the north to be rezoned to a nonresidential zoning district. Because of this concern, the transportation staff cannot support the requested rezoning.” When doing a traffic study, he believed that many factors are relevant, such as children crossing the street. He expressed concern regarding children, as well as adults, who use the parks, bike/hike trails, walk to school, etc. In reference to the site design, Dr. James said that a significant amount of impervious surface area is currently approved, and more is requested, including 618 parking spaces in the office portion of the project. In terms of the environmental impact, staff submitted an additional stipulation regarding a storm water variance, which requires a stream bank stabilization study. He believed the study should address the potential erosion of the stream bank and creek overflow and the long-term ability of the masonry wall to resist stream erosion. The plan for the office portion of the site shows the east side of the building parking lot supported by a 10 to 12-foot retaining wall. He believed the proposed plan fails to comply with the Master Plan, and he further believed there is a threat of commercial creep and traffic gridlock. He respectfully asked the City Council to help Overland Park preserve its livability and protect the residential areas. Mr. Pete Heaven, 6700 Antioch, representing Indian Creek Land and Investment and Dwight and Norma Sutherland, the owners of the property immediately to the north of this project, stated that his client takes no position on the land use issues involved. His concerns are the material change in the use of this property by virtue of this rezoning. If this rezoning is approved, there will be an increase in traffic that would justify the revisiting of the stipulation that the Council imposed upon Amli Residential in 1998. He explained that the stipulation is to build a portion (1,100 feet) of 107th Street, from Nall Avenue to the east. He maintained that from Roe Avenue going west, only 300 feet is being constructed, thus, leaving a gap in 107th Street. He indicated that it is not the custom or practice for Overland Park to force those who first developed the land to build the roads. In this case, the construction of the road has been left to a future benefit district or the potential of one, which Amli Residential has stipulated they would agree to in the future, as long as they own the property. If Amli Residential sells the property, there is no stipulation for a benefit district, and hence, 107th Street may never be constructed. He believed it would only be fair to continue the tradition imposed upon other developers, which is to build the road for which they are creating the need. For that reason, his position is that if the rezoning is going to be revisited, the stipulation also needs to be revisited. Mayor Eilert commented that this particular piece of property has been before the Council approximately five or six times. Obviously, the Sutherlands have interest on the north side of 107th Street, which carries the previous Master Plan or zoning. He asked whether there would be an opportunity to finally resolve a combination of issues if a land use study would be done on the Sutherland tract and consideration of commercial development be made on the current Master Plan. He would like to bring closure to a number of issues including the question about 107th Street. Mr. Heaven confirmed that it could bring closure. In 1968, when this property was zoned, the land use north of 107th Street showed two patches of green. Those patches


of green were originally designated to be Indian Creek Parkway. Hence, the Sutherland tract was zoned to face Indian Creek Parkway. As he explained, that zoning is now antiquated, because Indian Creek Parkway is not likely to be built and 107th Street is more likely to be the corridor for traffic. Therefore, his client is having Shafer, Kline and Warren currently develop some plans for raising the property out of the floodplain. However, his client would be amenable to working with Amli Residential and the City staff to arrive at a comprehensive plan for development of the Sutherland tract. Mayor Eilert indicated that this issue did not address any immediate question this evening. In response, Mr. Heaven said that his client would be willing to discuss it further at a later time. Mayor Eilert declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Eilert stated that he received some communication in regard to a continuance that was granted to the applicant, and as a general statement, he said it would be the Council’s prerogative to grant that continuance. In this particular case, there are two lawsuits involving some element of this property or improvements to the property. He said this item was continued to allow some additional time to settle some of the legal issues that have been raised; however, he was not certain that had been accomplished. He reiterated the proposal presented to the Council this evening is the issue of replacing the town homes with an office building. He stated that a protest petition has been filed, so the motion would require nine affirmative votes. Mr. Gerlach referred to an earlier comment by Mr. Heaven that Amli Residential must own the property for the stipulation to take effect. He asked whether it is correct that if a family builds and/or sells this property prior to building or after building 107th Street, the stipulation is no longer in effect for the property owner. Mr. Budetti replied that the stipulation will continue until that zoning is in effect. It is the City’s position that the stipulation does coincide with the zoning, and the land is not limited to the owner at the time of the zoning. Mr. Belpedio said that during the public hearing, one of the residents mentioned that he was having trouble turning onto Nall because of the heavy traffic. He asked the last time this area was studied and whether something could be done about that problem. Senior Tranportation Planner Mark Stuecheli believed the proposed rezoning would not have a significant impact on 103rd Street, east of Roe Avenue. He explained that 103rd Street was not included in this particular study because the changes were occurring on the Nall Avenue frontage, which is over a half mile from 103rd Street. He believed there has been no recent study in the area of 103rd Street and Roe Avenue. Mayor Eilert understood that a lawsuit had been filed in reference to 107th Street. He asked staff whether there has been a discussion about a potential resolution.


Mr. Watson replied that two lawsuits are pending. One is a suit brought by the Sutherland’s development company against the City, challenging a number of issues, including the City’s condemnation of the right-of-way for 107th Street. Since the other condemnation has been completed, the Sutherlands have filed an appeal from the condemnation award, which is the second lawsuit. Mayor Eilert commented that a potential resolution has not been considered by the Governing Body. To consider a resolution, he said it would need to be done in executive session. Before any judgment is made on the application, he believed the issues needed to be discussed in executive session. Therefore he would accept a motion to adjourn into executive session. At 10:30 p.m., Dr. Halligan moved to recess into executive session for a time period not to exceed 15 minutes in order to receive information in regard to a potential resolution of pending litigation. Mr. Loudon seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 10 to 0. Following the 15-minute executive session, the Council reconvened in open session at 10:45 p.m. Mayor Eilert requested a motion to continue this item until the City Council meeting of December 11, 2000, to further discuss potential elements, resolution of a lawsuit, and pending litigation in regard to 107th Street with direction to the staff to proceed with continued negotiations in an effort to secure a resolution of the previously mentioned pending litigation. Mr. Loudon moved to continue Rezoning No. 2000-9 to the City Council meeting of December 11, 2000, for the reasons as stated. Mr. Owens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Mayor Eilert announced that the Council would return to Ordinance No. WB-2265 regarding Ward Redistricting, which was continued earlier in the meeting. Mr. Sader moved to approve Ward Boundary Ordinance No. WB-2265, as amended for revised Option No. 4b with the exception as revised, retaining precinct 2-5 in Ward 2 and retaining precinct 1-16 in Ward 1, with all other changes as presented. Mr. Musil seconded. Mr. Owens said the discussion continues to be about squaring off boundaries, but nothing is done about it. He said that revised Option No. 4b has two notches carved in Wards 1 and 2, as it did previously. He did not understand the rationale of this, as opposed to the Option No. 4 where the boundaries were squared off. Mayor Eilert explained that the rationale is a compromise from competing plans. The motion passed by an 8 to 2 roll-call vote. Mr. Owens and Mr. Kandt opposed.


NEW BUSINESS:

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Barnds Brothers Investments versus City of Overland Park, Case No. 97C 16996 and Kansas Court of Appeals Case No. 00-85443-A and Barnds Brothers Investments versus City of Overland Park, Case No. 99C 13551.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Jane Neff-Brain presented the agreement and the settlement for two lawsuits in the amount of $45,000 combined. Mr. Lally moved to approve the Settlement Agreement with Barnds Brothers Investments versus the City of Overland Park, as presented. A second was made by Mr. Belpedio, and the motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. ADJOURNMENT. At 11 p.m., Mr. Belpedio moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Loudon seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes transcribed by Barbara Potts. __________________________ Ed Eilert, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Marian Cook, City Clerk

Council Meeting (November 20, 2000)apps.opkansas.org/City-Government/Agendas-and-Minutes/City-Council/...OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 20, 2000 Mayor Ed Eilert called

Documents