CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
7:30 P.M.
Mayor Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. in the Shawnee City Hall Council
Chambers. He welcomed the public and all stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, followed
by a moment of silence.
Councilmembers Present
Councilmember Goode
Councilmember Kuhn
Councilmember Novosel
Councilmember Pflumm
Councilmember Sandifer
Councilmember Sawyer
Councilmember Scott
Councilmember Tubbesing
Staff Present
City Manager Gonzales
City Attorney Rainey
Assistant City Attorney Rainey
Public Works Director Freyermuth
Planning Director Chaffee
Fire Chief Hudson
Police Chief Clark
City Clerk Charlesworth
City Engineer Wesselschmidt
Traffic Engineer Sherfy
Finance Director Kidney
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Project Engineer Lindstrom
Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
Members of the public who spoke: (Item 16) DAVID WATERS, LATHROP AND GAGE LLC,
10851 Mastin, Overland Park, Kansas, ROBERT DUPERO, Shawnee Mission School District,
7235 Antioch, FELIX KANCEL, 15822 W. 61st Terrace, RICHMOND ENOCHS, Wallace
Saunders, Austin, Brown, & Enochs, 10111 W. 87th Street, ROGER CASSIDY, Phelps
Engineering, 1270 N. Winchester, SEAN IKERD, 15704 W. 61st Terrace, ROBERT MANLY,
13888 W. 57th Street, DOUG MARTIN, 15523 Johnson Drive, MARY JO ALLEN, Partner Villa’s at Parkside, VANCE RZEPKA, Owner, VSR Design, 4500 West 90th Terrace, Prairie
Village, Kansas; (Item 17d) MATT BOND, Deputy Chief Engineer, Johnson County
Wastewater; (Item 17f) MARY FRANCES STUMPFF, 5740 Lackman Road, ANDREA
CLOUGHLEY, 5816 Lackman Road, DENNIS CLOUGHLEY, 5816 Lackman Road, JEFF
LEONARD, 10710 West 72nd Street, Great Plains Development; (Item 18b) BRAD
DAVIDSON, 5203 Reeds; (Business from the Floor) GENE RUSSELL, 13039 W. 74th Street,
CHARLES HAMMER, 4829 Black Swan Circle.
CONSENT AGENDA
1.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER
12, 2005.
PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
2.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER 5, 2005.
3.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER 19, 2005.
4.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 2005.
5.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2006.
6.
CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY
FOR A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY (PES) OF STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF 52ND AND BARTON (TC-21-060)
AND
ADMINISTRATION
This agreement obligates the County to provide 75% of the estimated cost for the study,
which is $17,810. The City’s cost is estimated at $4,452 which will be provided from
general funds. Approval will authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with
Johnson County for TC-21-060.
7.
CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY TO
PROVIDE DESIGN, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR STORM
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF 52ND AND CHARLES
STREET, P.N. 3288.
The total estimated cost of the project is $1,079,000. This agreement obligates the County
to provide 75% of the estimated eligible project cost, which is $714,000. The City’s cost
is estimated at $365,000 which will be funded by the Parks and Pipes fund. Approval will
authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with Johnson County for P.N. 3288.
8.
CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY
FOR A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY (PES) OF STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF THE 7600 BLOCK OF BRADSHAW (MC21-071).
This agreement obligates the County to provide 75% of the estimated cost for the study,
which is $11,515. The City’s cost is estimated at $3,839, which will be provided from
general funds. Approval will authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with
Johnson County for MC-21-071.
9.
CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY
FOR A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY (PES) OF STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF 76TH TERRACE AND RICHARDS DRIVE
(MC-21-072).
PAGE 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
This agreement obligates the County to provide 75% of the estimated cost for the study,
which is $11,515. The City’s cost is estimated at $3,839, which will be provided from
general funds. Approval will authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with
Johnson County for MC-21-072.
10.
CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR 65TH AND PARKHILL
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3290.
The contract was awarded to Miles Excavating, Basehor, Kansas, on November 8, 2004,
in the amount of $288,783. This change order reflects a net decrease of $524.34. The new
contract amount for this project is $288,258.66.
11.
CONSIDER LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE SALE OF CEREAL MALT
BEVERAGES, NOT FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES.
Consider renewal of a License for the sale of Cereal Malt Beverages, not for consumption
on premises, for the following business:
Date of Original License
Business
Address
Issued by City of Shawnee
BBB & Associates/7-Eleven
11023 Johnson Drive
12/92
Staff has reviewed the application and is recommending approval through December
2006.
12.
CONSIDER RENEWAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS.
Consider renewal of Massage Establishment Permits for the following businesses:
Date of Original License
Issued by City of Shawnee
Business
Address
Sound Mind & Body
Shawnee Fitness
Island Sun Spa
Healing Touch
The Color Room
Table For One
Alpha Omega Massage Therapy
Between U & NYC
12402 W 62nd Terr
6518 Vista Drive
22060 W 66th Street
13213 W 63rd Street
7397 Quivira
12510 W 62nd Terr.
11800 S.M.Pkwy, Ste 4
13402 W 62nd Terr.
8/1994
4/2004
2/2004
8/2003
8/2004
7/2004
2/2005
10/2005
Staff has reviewed each application and is recommending approval through December
2006.
13.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION SETTING
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY.
OUT
AND
DEFINING
THE
PAGE 4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Resolution 1474 was assigned.
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to approve the entire
consent agenda.
MAYOR’S ITEMS
There were no Mayor’s items.
PUBLIC ITEMS
14.
CONSIDER
PASSAGE
OF
AN
ORDINANCE
GRANTING
A
TELECOMMUNICATION FRANCHISE TO SOUTHWESTERN BELL (SBC).
Mayor Meyers stated that the contract franchise is for a term ending June 30, 2007, and
will be automatically renewed for five additional one-year terms, unless terminated by
one of the parties. It grants SBC the right to use the public right-of-ways which term is
limited by state statutes to street right-of-way, and SBC will be subject to the City’s
Right-of-Way Management Ordinance.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to pass an
ordinance granting a telecommunication franchise to Southwestern Bell (SBC) with the
term ending June 30, 2007, and will be automatically renewed for five additional oneyear terms, unless terminated by one of the parties and grants SBC the right to use the
public right-of-ways which term is limited by state statutes to street right-of-way, and
SBC will be subject to the City’s Right-of-Way Management Ordinance. The motion
carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2796 was assigned.
15.
CONSIDER PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE LEVYING
AND PAYMENT OF THE EXCISE TAX ON THE ACT OF PLATTING REAL
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 12.26
OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING THERETO.
Mayor Meyers stated that the draft ordinance makes changes to Section 12.26 of the
Shawnee Municipal Code to provide and exemption from the excise tax for
Governmental Entities if they enter into an agreement with the City regarding necessary
improvements.
Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to pass an
ordinance amending Chapter 12.26 of the Shawnee Municipal Code pertaining to the
levying and payment of the Excise Tax on the act of platting real property in the City of
Shawnee.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked if the potential cost had been calculated with this,
especially with the development that the City now knows will eventually be coming.
PAGE 5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Mayor Meyers replied the cost would vary with what type of project and who would
bring the project forward.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked if this somewhat targets the DeSoto Elementary School
looking to be built out west and if the staff has gauged that then, about what exactly that
cost impact would then be.
City Manager Gonzales answered that the estimated excise tax on that specific project
was estimated at about $180,000. She stated the DeSoto School will be sharing the costs
on the improvements adjacent to the facility and this would just waive the excise tax.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he initially had similar reservations, but noted that
Overland Park has a similar ordinance.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he is in favor of the motion, but generally speaking,
there are two kinds of taxing philosophies, in his opinion, in these types of circumstances.
He stated the expense is going to be had, as someone is going to spend public money that
is either going to go through the City or the school district. He stated if they go through
the school district, normally those are serviced by fixed bonds that sunset on a specific
date and that money has been spent and the citizens who actually use the service, pay for
it and it then dies. He stated the problem is when the City then picks up expenses, that
ultimately get translated into mill levy increases, because the City has to pay for it in that
manner and those mill levies rarely, although Shawnee has a good history of lowering
them, for the most part, never sunset and just become general funds someday.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he is in favor of this and it is not as high an amount as
some of the other fees involved with development, but thinks it is important that the
Council look at these each time they come up, about which taxing entity is better off for
the citizens because the tax may end some day, versus another ending where it could
continue into perpetuity.
Councilmember Sawyer stated that reluctantly, he is probably in favor of this. He stated
he believes the City of Shawnee has a unique circumstance from other cities, where
basically they have two school districts. He stated he knows that Lenexa and Olathe have
some of the same issues, but this is a way for the school district not to step up to the plate
and pay the full development costs of putting a school into an area where there are not
roads and spread it out over the entire City of Shawnee. He stated on the other hand, the
City has allowed that portion of the city to grow, so the school districts had to put in
schools.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember
Kuhn, moved to pass an ordinance amending Chapter 12.26 of the Shawnee Municipal
Code pertaining to the levying and payment of the Excise Tax on the act of platting real
property in the City of Shawnee. The motion carried 8-0. Having received a 2/3rd vote of
the entire council elect, the motion was declared passed and Ordinance 2797 was
assigned.
PAGE 6
16.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
RECONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM FROM
COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2005.
a)
JANUARY 9, 2006
THE
PLANNING
Reconsider SUP-13-05-11, a request from the Shawnee Mission USD #512 Girls
Softball Complex for a special use permit to allow a sports facility in the AG
(Agricultural) zoning district at 6101 Maurer.
Mayor Meyers stated that on November 21, 2005, the Planning Commission
recommended 4-3 that the Council deny SUP-13-05-11. On December 12, 2005,
the City Council sent this item back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration. At their meeting of January 4, 2006, the Planning Commission
recommended 5-3 that the Council again deny SUP-13-05-11.
Mayor Meyers stated for passage of this item this evening, it would just need a
simple majority with five votes.
Councilmember Pflumm asked, just in general with the Planning Commission, do
they set their own rules as far as public participation at their meetings. He stated
this has come up in the past and he would like to know the actual procedures with
regard to public participation. He stated he is not talking about unlimited
participation, but the ability of the public to be allowed to speak at Planning
Commission meetings, specifically on a topic such as this, where an item has
come before the City Council and then was sent back to the Planning Commission
for further review.
City Attorney Rainey responded that planning and zoning is a statutory procedure,
so they are bound by State statutes as to where those statutes address the subject.
He stated the Kansas statutes require that there be notice and a public hearing
when a matter first comes before the Planning Commission, meaning a matter that
will require rezoning or a special use permit. He stated the State statutes then
require the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Governing
Body to make the final decision and the Governing Body can then remand it back
to the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Rainey stated the Governing Body has to either one, accept the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, or override their recommendation
or it would automatically go back to the Planning Commission. He stated when it
then goes back to the Planning Commission, there is not statutory requirements
that there be a public hearing or any input by the public. He stated in that
instance, it is up to the Planning Commission itself to determine whether or not
they wish to hear from the public. He stated they may if they wish, but are not so
required.
PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
City Attorney Rainey stated he would add that this Governing Body is not
required at this time to hear from the public. He stated it has been the custom in
the past to do so, but there is no requirement.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the Planning Commission considered the four
items contained in the remand request at their January 4, 2006 meeting. He stated
the items included in the remand, asked by the Governing Body to be considered,
are listed in the staff report.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the Shawnee Mission School District submitted
a revised site plan that lowered the elevation of the parking lot an additional two
feet along the south side of the property. He stated at last week’s meeting, the
Planning Commission acknowledged the receipt of the revised elevations. He
stated the District also revised their proposal between the Planning Commission
and the Governing Body’s meeting, to turn the lights off on the fields no later than
9:00 p.m. and turn off the parking lot lights no later than 9:30 p.m. March through
May. Between June and November the field lights will be turned off no later than
10:00 p.m. and the parking lot light no later than 30 minutes thereafter.
Planning Director Chaffee did note to the Planning Commission and it was also in
the staff report, that the City received a letter from the District dated December
29, 2005, that indicated the October date was in error and should have read
October 31st, rather than October 21st. He stated the Planning Commission
acknowledged these changes. It was noted that while the lights were being turned
off an hour earlier during their season, the parking lot lights would be turned off
only an hour earlier in the summer.
Planning Director Chaffee stated there was a comment that there was some
disappointment on the part of the Planning Commission, that no agreement was
stated to use a timer on the lighting system to assure the lights would go off at the
prescribed time if the fields were still in use.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the Governing Body requested the Planning
Commission review the fencing provided on the site. He stated the School
District agreed at the Governing Body meeting, to use a board on board fence
along the south property line. It was also suggested that the Planning
Commission consider requiring solid fencing along the east and north property
lines to assist in noise reduction. The Planning Commission acknowledged the
proposed use of board on board fencing on the south property line, but there was a
general feeling that a solid fence on the east and north would not significantly
reduce noise.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the Governing Body also requested the Planning
Commission discuss any restrictions that may be imposed on the rental of the
facility between June and October. He stated the Planning Commission stated
that although the stated implied use of the fields were for softball and baseball
PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
events, the School District may be tempted to use the fields for other outdoor
venues such as a concert. Discussion was heard, that if the use of the fields
should be approved, they should be limited to softball and baseball games.
Planning Director Chaffee stated that the Planning Commission, upon
consideration and review of the items requested, voted to reaffirm their
recommendation to deny SUP-13-05-11, a special use permit for the operation of
a Shawnee Mission USD #512 Girls Softball Complex, located at 6101 Maurer,
due to its unsuitable location for such a facility. He stated the Governing Body,
as a result of the item being remanded to the Planning Commission, may either
uphold the recommendation to deny the special use permit by a majority vote, or
five votes, or may approve the special use permit with five votes.
Planning Director Chaffee stated if the Governing Body votes to approve the
special use permit, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval as a guide,
which may be modified as desired and as presented in the staff report.
Mayor Meyers offered the podium to anyone in the audience and asked that the
comments be limited to three minutes. He stated he is very much in favor of
allowing the public to speak at all the City Council meetings, but in this situation,
they have already heard many comments. He stated the City Council would like
to hear information this evening different from what has already been heard and
he would like people to respect that if a comment has been made at an earlier
meeting and it is something the Council already understands.
DAVID WATERS, Lathrop and Gage LLC, 10851 Mastin, Overland Park,
Kansas, stated he is present this evening on the behalf of the School District and
will handle the School District’s comments this evening. He requested a few
additional minutes to cover all the information.
DAVID WATERS began by stating that he is present this evening on behalf of
the School District and to ask the City Council’s support for the special use permit
application. He stated he strongly feels that this project will present a valuable
asset to the community. He stated after hearing his and the staff’s comments this
evening, he hopes the Council will feel the same way.
DAVID WATERS stated he believes everyone is quite familiar with this project.
He stated the School District has worked quite hard with City staff in order to
address all the concerns over lighting, parking, and all the other matters. He
stated the School District has taken comments from the Planning Commission, the
City staff, and from the public hearings and has come back before the Council
tonight having made their good plan better. He stated the School District has
agreed to limit the dates of the field’s operation, limit the hours of operation,
lower the elevation of the parking lot by approximately two feet, invest in modern
lighting systems that will virtually eliminate all of the light spill which has been
discussed, construct the fencing that has been discussed with the neighbors to the
PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
south and other areas, and has agreed to all of staff’s other 19 stipulations listed in
tonight’s packet.
DAVID WATERS stated the School District has done everything asked of it. He
stated the School District has worked to resolve any perceived technical concerns
with this plan. He stated he would like to take a bigger picture look tonight at this
issue and move past lighting and parking and look at this project as a whole and
whether or not it is a valuable asset to the community. He stated he thinks that is
the question really before the City Council tonight; is this a good project and
worthy of the City of Shawnee. He stated his response would be, absolutely it is.
He stated he does not believe that the community is served by leaving this
property vacant and this is a good project that should go forward.
DAVID WATERS stated he will now talk about why this facility is needed, why
the School District is coming to Shawnee, and why they even need these softball
fields. He stated in speaking with the District, they have informed him that each
year they field about 15 different softball teams with over 250 young women who
participate. He stated they have more women who want to participate than they
have room. He stated, as the Council knows, participation in and fan interest in
women’s sports, including softball, is growing by leaps and bounds and the
District simply needs the growth.
DAVID WATERS stated the School District currently uses fields provided by
Johnson County Parks and Recreation. He stated the District has a very good
working relationship with Johnson County Parks and Recreation, but frankly their
space is limited. He stated there is such a high demand for their fields that the
District needs to make other accommodations for its students. He stated the
District can not control its schedules, has limited access to the fields, and often
times are forced to cancel games, especially for the C Teams, as well as some of
the Junior Varsity.
DAVID WATERS stated he would submit to the Council tonight, that the young
women in the Shawnee Mission School District deserve better than these
cancelled games in fields that have all these conflicts. He asked that the Council
consider what these teams have done and what they have brought to the City of
Shawnee over the last few years. Over and last five years, a Shawnee Mission
school has won three State championships and finished second twice. He stated
they have also won five State regional championships and finished first or second
in the Sunflower League standings.
DAVID WATERS stated he thinks it is important to take note of the
achievements of these young women. He stated these are not just achievements
of the School District, but of the youth of the City of Shawnee and he would
submit to the Council that they need to give these people the space in order to
continue to grow and achieve even more.
PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
DAVID WATERS stated he would also like to emphasize that this is not again
just an investment by the School District itself, but an investment from the City of
Shawnee. He stated this is a $4 million project and not just throwing a bunch of
dirt and bleachers out on some grass. He stated this is going to be a state-of-theart facility. He stated he understands this facility is actually part of the recent
bond issue that was approved by the voters of the School District.
DAVID WATERS stated he would like to address some comments heard in past
meetings like, ‘Why not just build this thing somewhere else’. He stated the
District has no other sites available and there is no other place to go. He stated
that one simply can not say, ‘Just buy other land and do it there’. He stated the
School District is a steward of the public money and can not just gobble up
properties in the hope that one of these properties might work and have them all
in hand. He stated the School District, as a measure of good faith, did go out and
investigate some of the other properties brought to their attention in previous
meetings. He stated it was determined that none of those properties met the
requirements for this project.
DAVID WATERS stated frankly, that this site is appropriate for this project. He
stated staff’s recommendation of approval has been going on throughout this
process. He stated there is the City Land Use Guide which indicates that this site
is appropriate for public and quasi public uses. He stated the appropriate
infrastructure on the streets is already in place to service the traffic needs of this
project. He stated this is compatible with the existing land uses, surrounded on
three sides by agriculturally zoned land and he understands the parcel to the
northwest was even purchased by the City for city parkland.
DAVID WATERS stated on the subject of surrounding properties, he feels it is
necessary to address the freezing or chilling affect on development that might be
proposed to the Council. He stated he believes the Council will hear tonight
about things that might occur on other properties and what future potential uses
might be. He stated he thinks staff can confirm this, but understands the property
is not even zoned for it yet. He stated he thinks there is agricultural zoning all
around this property. He stated there is no zoning or formal site plans and he
would submit to the Governing Body that any future plans, homes, or
developments that might be there currently are just imaginary. He stated they
might come or they might not, they do not know at this time.
DAVID WATERS stated the School District is here now and has worked with
City staff for a long time. He stated they are here tonight asking for the Council’s
support.
DAVID WATERS stated in summary, the School District appreciates the
Council’s support of this project and the zoning allows for it, the City Land Use
Guide contemplates public use for this area, and noted that this is a special use
permit and the Council retains some power. He stated if something happens in
PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
the future and other issues need to be addressed, the Council can come back and
impose some additional requirements in order to correct any concerns. He stated
some people are concerned that this facility might be used for concerts, but that
will never happen. He stated any submittal for an event like a concert would have
to come to the City for any permit review and is not something the School District
could just up and do without permission.
DAVID WATERS stated he would submit to the Council that the School District
and the young women in Shawnee need this project in order to continue to
advance youth sports in this area. He thanked the Council for their time and
consideration this evening.
Councilmember Pflumm asked Mr. Waters if they have changed the hours of the
lighting outside from what they have already seen; 9:00 p.m. in the spring and fall
and 10:00 p.m. in the summertime.
DAVID WATERS replied when he referred to the change earlier, he was
referring to the very beginning and the plan was submitted and comments were
received thinking the hours were too late, so that is when they came back and
reduced the hours of operation. He stated the hours of operation in tonight’s
packet are where they are now and wanted to point out the plans were revised, in
order to address those concerns.
Councilmember Pflumm stated that a lot of the concern from the surrounding
residents is about the lights in the summertime. He stated most people want to be
supportive of the School District, but they will not use it in the summertime and
will lease it to someone else. He stated the constituents believe they have already
paid for it once, so they want the School District to be responsible for the property
and not squeak every little dime out of it to get in one extra game.
DAVID WATERS stated they are certainly willing to take some steps, if they
need to, to ensure the lighting is taken care of. He stated, as far as the summer
months are concerned, he believes it is also important to note that this is not just
about the school district. He stated there was some talk about this facility being
leased to other groups, but if that is done they are other groups within the City of
Shawnee and other youth sports. He stated this is not for adult male baseball, but
for parks and recreation or church leagues. He stated these other groups would
still be citizens and constituents of Shawnee who would get benefit out of this
facility.
Councilmember Sandifer asked how much diligence has the School District
actually gone through to find out if there was another piece of property to be used,
how much this particular piece of property would bring in if it was sold, and if it
would be feasible to purchase another piece of property. He stated he understands
the School District can not just take school money and go out and purchase
PAGE 12
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
property here and there, but the question is, is the value within the means where it
could be transferred into another piece of property.
ROBERT DIPIERRO, Shawnee Mission School District, Deputy Superintendent
of Operation, 7235 Antioch Road, stated that Rusty Newman of the School
District has not once, but actually several times, went out driving the district
looking for available parcels of land and was unable to locate one that would be
suitable. He stated he believes the planning staff here at the City of Shawnee,
recommended a site that is over by Maranatha. He stated they had their architect
look at that piece of land and it was unsuitable, as it was a flood plain with a ditch
running through the middle.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated they thought they might have some opportunity in
Lenexa, but the property has developed in a different fashion and Lenexa is
developing that site into some other city purpose. He stated they did not just say,
‘Well, we have the land, so that is where we have to go’, but actually did their due
diligence and tried to find other land within the School District which they simply
could not locate.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated Mr. Waters’ argument in support, mentioned
the bond issuance. He stated Mr. Waters set that out as an expectation, that
because the bond issue was supported by the voters the Council should consider
that in this process, and asked what responsibility does the School District have to
actually come to the Council before putting that on bond issuance ballot and to
seek the Council’s approval for the plan and the use, before actually going to the
voters saying that is what they are doing to do. He stated they really did not have
permission to do so.
DAVID WATERS responded that he does not believe the bond issue was tied to
this direct parcel of land. He stated he believes what he meant when he stated that
earlier, is that this is a project that the School District wanted the funds to pursue.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated the $4 million facility was put in the bond issue. He
stated in the bond descriptions, they did say they were going to use the Maurer
property, so that was specifically stated in their uses. He stated it is not legally
binding to the District on those uses, but when they go out for a bond issue they
try to identify all of the projects, so if people have particular problems with the
projects, they know what they are voting for when they vote for the bond.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated the Maurer property was listed to be developed into a
$4 million softball complex. He stated he was working on that bond and the land
swap they originally did with the Onyx Group in 1996 or 1994 and since all of the
land was zoned agricultural and they were doing the bonds two or three years ago
and the land swap was done before anything else out there was developed, he did
not see that there was going to be a particular problem using the facility as a one
of this type when the bond was proposed.
PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Dipierro if he would agree that 10 years
ago, the expectation, and probably the expectation for close to the last eight years
thereafter when the property was acquired, was to be some level of school facility.
ROBERT DIPIERRO answered that originally they thought it was going to be a
school facility, but since the growth out in this area has not developed, that is why
the District reinvested the money outlined for that school facility and the new
Marsh building they are building in the City of Shawnee. He stated the District
committed $9 million to Marsh Elementary since that facility was not being built
on that property. He stated they recommitted the $9 million and told the City of
Shawnee they were going to put that money back into their City development and
rebuild Marsh Elementary, when they decided they were not going to use this land
for a specific elementary site and transferred that use to this sports complex.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated that is one of his concerns. He stated they try
to run the City based on the expectations they set out, so that land developers and
owners actually have a good idea of what they are going to live next to. He stated
when a lot of current residents acquired their land and came up with their
development concepts, he is not sure it was publicly owned, until the bond
issuance was developed.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated that was two or three years ago. He stated that
basically the use they are proposing, does not conflict with any City planning. He
stated the City plan specifically has this listed as a public use property, so they
were not aware they would have any issues, using it as a public use facility.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the way he sees this, there are three main
issues. He stated there is the additional hour of lighting after 9:00 p.m. in the
summer months. He stated he has not heard a really good plan, when he knows
there are systems available for a more focused spectator PA system, as opposed to
a blaring one with more broadcast. He understands the main purpose and focus of
this facility and asked why the District is going to allow this facility to be
restricted only to school or youth leagues doing baseball and softball.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated that is why they want the facility.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked if the School District will agree to that
stipulation.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated he does not have a problem with that, but basically
wants to restrict this facility to school activity use for sports activities. He stated
at the Planning Commission, they mentioned they might have flea markets and
concerts at this facility and that is not their purpose. He stated what they are
looking at is to have a sports complex where youth leagues, women’s leagues, the
District’s own teams, can use it as a practice and game facility and that is the
PAGE 14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
whole purpose of building it, but he is not able to foresee into the future any other
uses and can not think of any other uses for this facility.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the exclusive constituents of the School District
are youth below 20 years of age.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated if there was a women’s league who might want to
use the facility on a Saturday afternoon, he would not want that restricted. He
stated if there was a city park league that wanted to use it, he is not sure they
would want to restrict them either.
DAVID WATERS stated he is not sure the City would want that either, as they
might do a disservice to their own constituents.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated that perhaps the Council can decide that
themselves.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated their main intent is to use this for their students and
the youth of the community. He stated they do not want to use this facility as a
flea market or as a gathering place for anything, but only for reasons that the
facility was built.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Diperro if he would agree to the restriction
of school and youth leagues only for baseball and softball.
ROBERT DIPIERRO replied he would have to see the specific restrictions. He
stated if a church league wanted to use it for a father/son team of some sort, he
would not want to have so many restrictions on the facility that it had to only be a
school activity.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked about the hours and if the District would be
willing to restrict the field lights to 9:00 p.m. only.
ROBERT DIPIERRO responded he does not believe so. He stated that basically
at the present time, the School District does not have any lessee that they are
specifically looking at, but in order to have any kind of activity, he believes that
extra hour provides the District the flexibility to at least recoup some of the
maintenance costs. He stated the District is putting between $4 and $4.5 million
into this project and they anticipate it is still going to cost them between $50,000
and $100,000 each year to operate the complex. He stated they would like to
recoup some of that cost, but are obviously not going to rent it to a semi-pro team,
but if there is a 3 and 2 league or a Johnson County Parks league, or even some
other league that would like to rent the facility when they are not active in it, he
thinks it is probably good for the facility, so there are at least people using it.
PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Kuhn stated she does not see limiting the usage to just school,
based on just the need to do it, so if they are going to do it, it needs to be a
community thing. She stated she does however, want to see limitations to
sporting events, and asked if the District has any problems with making the
verbiage read for sporting usage only.
ROBERT DIPIERRO answered that he does not believe so, because they are
building a sports complex.
Councilmember Kuhn stated just for the peace of mind of the Council, the
citizens, and the District so there is never any question at a later date.
DAVID WATERS stated with the special use permit, the Council can always
revisit the issue.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated as far as the use of the property is concerned, there is
a City park adjacent to the property that is used for soccer fields and they thought
this use would fit with that. He stated he believes the property across the street is
going to be developed into commercial, so if it is going to be a strip center or
office mall, they did not see that as a particular detriment. He stated when it is
mentioned that the School District thought it was originally going to be a school
and was changed to a sports facility, it did not occur to them, since they were
operating within the confines of the current master plan for the City, that there
would be any particular issues.
Councilmember Kuhn asked about the timer.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated they can certainly put a timer on the facility for the
lights.
Councilmember Kuhn stated for peace of mind, she believes it is probably worth
not having to worry that someone will not turn off the lights.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated a timer is not an issue for the District and they can
certainly put on the timer and if that provides some kind of peace of mind, as it is
doable.
Mayor Meyers stated he is not sure if this is true or not, but when they do discuss
timers, if they find out they are having any problems with the people using the
facility as far as lighting is concerned, the Council can come back and revisit this
issue and restrict the lighting even further. He stated he thinks if they put a timer
on the system, that may cause, at times, the person running the facility to just not
turn off the lights when games are over early, because they know they are on a
timer and will eventually automatically shut off.
PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated the School District may lease this facility, but they
are still the responsible party and owner of the property and he expects to make
sure that any provisions they agree to, are adhered to by anyone using the facility.
He stated they will put in a timer, but would like people to turn the lights off at
7:30 p.m. if they are done and not leave on the lights, as they do not need to
bother the neighbors or incur any more electric utility charges. He stated they can
put on a timer to turn them off at a specific time if that would give someone peace
of mind. He stated if they are going to work that into any kind of stipulation, he is
not sure about the parking lots lights and for safety reasons, he would like to make
sure there is enough security lighting and the facility just does not go black at
9:00 p.m. and people are milling around in the dark. He stated the Planning staff
may be able to help them out with that issue.
Councilmember Kuhn asked about the fencing. She stated that obviously they
came back and talked about board on board fencing on the south wall. She asked
Mr. Dipierro his thoughts about the east and north sides.
ROBERT DIPIERRO replied they agreed on whatever fencing is board on board
for the south. He stated they saw adding the fencing on the east and north sides as
more of a detriment, because they will have to clear out the trees in order to put in
the fence. He stated it might be more detrimental than beneficial. He stated the
trees provide a natural barrier, plus the fencing at that point would probably not
provide a significant barrier to prevent that noise from creeping over.
Councilmember Sandifer asked if they end up developing this piece of property
into ball fields, as originally it was intended for a school, and if the rooftops and
the census changes down the road, would there be the option to return this
property back to a school at some time in the future.
ROBERT DIPIERRO responded that he does not have a crystal ball for the next
20 years, but the current Marsh facility holds around 400 students and the facility
they are currently putting in can go up to 550 students. He stated they have taken
students out of Broken Arrow and this is a boundary change that the Board has
already approved. He stated they will be moving students from Broken Arrow
into the Marsh attendance area to fill part of that, but that building will not be at
full occupancy. He stated that Bluejacket/Flint is also within the City of Shawnee
and was built for a capacity of around 700 to 750 and is currently running at
around 500, so there is room in that building. He stated since they made the
boundary change, Broken Arrow will go down from around 600 students to
approximately 450, so there will be room in that facility. He stated they also have
room at Mill Creek and Rising Star, so the District feels there is enough available
capacity within those buildings to handle any growth they would see in the fill-in
areas they currently have in Shawnee.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated the only school they currently have a particular
problem with, is Benninghoven, which is also in the City of Shawnee and the
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Board is reviewing that school now to figure out what needs to be done in order to
alleviate the student population situation.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the trees brought up a sore subject at the Marsh
facility. He stated they removed an entire forest over there and they could have
been more considerate. He stated if this facility goes through, he would ask that
they take the utmost consideration with the trees.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated he does not believe the area they are proposing has a
lot of shrubbery. He stated the way they are proposing it is that the area to be
developed does not have any trees and is basically farmland, so they really did not
want to develop the fence line because they would have to take out the trees in
order to get it in, so they did not see that as a benefit to the project.
Councilmember Goode stated one of his concerns, is supposedly around 10 years
ago the School District had a land swap deal.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated he does not believe that the City was directly
involved with the land swap, but the District was very encouraged to cooperate
with the Onyx Group in the development of the Target and Wal-Mart facility and
assist in the development of that by giving up their property. He stated the
property was about 12 acres and right on the freeway, so he does not believe they
would have hand any problems getting it zoned.
Councilmember Goode stated that since that period of time, he has seen a lot of
changes in that area. He stated that most recently, someone has decided without
knowledge of what was going on as far as the School District is concerned and
evidentially purchased a piece of property and decided to build duplexes and
triplexes currently under construction; there may even be four-plexes out there.
He stated there is a man to the west who never thought about developing, but now
wants to come in and build high dollar homes, but never got any recommendation
from the City, so he just has a piece of vacant land sitting there. He stated he
thinks all of these people who are now involved in these investments should have
known better 10 years ago.
Councilmember Novosel stated he believes Mr. Dipierro mentioned there was
some option or some thought that it was going to go to a school or a ballfield, but
wants to make sure that option did happen and they are not deciding all of a
sudden that this is going to specifically be a ballfield.
ROBERT DIPIERRO stated he thinks if it was a school building, some of the
District’s buildings have lights on 24 hours a day in the parking lots, so it is not
like there would not be lights on if it was a school facility. He stated the school
facility would actually be lit, even though they might not be as high intensity, but
obviously would be lit for a longer period of time.
PAGE 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Novosel stated he would agree with that comment, but there
would not be that many lights.
Councilmember Goode stated they had a hearing on this subject a few weeks ago
and a lot of people spoke, so maybe there are some present this evening that have
not spoken in the past and those are the people they want to hear from tonight.
Mayor Meyers stated he would like anyone to be able to speak on this item, but
would not like repetition in tonight’s comments. He stated he does not mind the
same people speaking at tonight’s meeting, but hopes they will have new
comments or different types of concern.
FELIX KANCEL, 15822 W. 61st Terrace, stated he lives one block from this
proposed project. He stated they have already discussed the noise and sound, so
his new item for discussion is that the Planning Commission, who is a creature of
the Council, have twice reviewed this evidence and application. He stated the
Planning Commission are the experts and know what is best for the City of
Shawnee. He stated the City Planning Commission have twice said not to do this
project and he is present this evening asking the Council to stand with them.
RICHMOND ENOCHS, Wallace Saunders, Austin, Brown, & Enochs, 10111 W.
87th Street, stated he is the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Manly in this matter. He
stated he sent the members of the City Council a letter and does not really plan on
going through a lot of those items. He stated there are however, a couple items he
would like to share with them this evening that he did not have last time he was
here. He stated Mr. Roger Cassidy from Phelps Engineering is also present this
evening and available to speak on this matter.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated they drew site lines from basically each of the
poles to show where the line of sight would be and the problem is, that they have
put this up on a high hill with 75 to 85 foot poles. He stated that has basically
flooded the area and even though they say they will shield this down, they really
do not work with this type an elevation. He stated, as mentioned in his letter, only
one site on his client’s property is protected from this and that is only protected if
they build something less than six foot in height.
RICHMOND ENOCHS presented another drawing showing the line elevation at
the distances shown on the School District’s plan and basically drew it down to
the area he showed previously on Mr. Manly’s property, which is the most
protected area. He stated this drawing basically shows how this goes throughout
the Manly property and would basically go 360 degrees all the way around.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated the other big drawing, included in the packet,
shows how the complex, in his opinion, dwarfs everything else around. He stated
he thought the representative from the School District made an interesting
comment earlier, “Well, we do not want to bother the neighbors by leaving it on
PAGE 19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
too long”, so they acknowledge that this will bother the neighbors and it will be a
nuisance with the lights and noise.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated there is precedence with this, as he was involved
in a previous lawsuit that involved the Blue Valley School District and Blue
Valley Recreation, in which Ben Craig brought a suit which he is sure City
Attorney Rainey is very familiar with, in which there was a ruling that allowed no
use by Blue Valley Recreation and severely limited the use by Blue Valley School
District. He stated there is ample precedent across the country that these types of
things do constitute a nuisance and he certainly thinks in this particular situation,
with the elevation, they are going to have somewhere between 200,000 and
240,000 watts going out into this whole area.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated that certainly the area is agricultural, but the
master plan says that basically the area all the way around is to be developed into
medium to low density residential. He stated that by putting in this special use,
they have really created spot zoning and that really is, in his opinion, a violation
of the City’s own plan here. He stated the City’s plan, as set forth in the letter,
basically says that they are to consider in residential areas, light glare and noise
and this just does not do it.
Mayor Meyers stated he believes this land in the City’s comprehensive plan is
quasi public.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated that is correct, but everything around it is designed
to be low or medium density residential.
Mayor Meyers stated across the street it is commercial.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated he believes that this facility would even have a
detrimental affect on any commercial development and will deter development
throughout the City of Shawnee.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated they also provided in the packet material from
their appraiser, which basically says this will have a very strongly diminution of
value of his client’s property and he would maintain that it will diminish the value
of the property all the way around if this project goes in. He stated that lastly,
from a legal issue, it would be his position that the public hearing has been
reopened by the City Council on two occasions and they argued this issue briefly
at the Planning Commission when they were not allowed to speak, and he
maintains that the Council again reopened the public hearing and certainly under
the case law in this state that if the Governing Body opens the public hearing and
takes evidence, they have reopened the public hearing. He stated it would be his
position that they should be granted a 14 day period or more to file their protest
petitions as a result of the reopening and that no votes would be taken tonight.
PAGE 20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
City Attorney Rainey stated he never heard of this and asked Mr. Enochs where
this is coming from.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated if they would look at the case of the City of
Manhattan versus Ridgeview and 215 Kansas, they basically provide for the fact
that the Governing Body may reopen and take new evidence and that would be
the reopening of the public hearing. He stated if they reopen the public hearing,
then the adjoining landowners have their right to file their protest petitions.
Mayor Meyers stated the people in the audience need to understand that when
people say things like, “They did not get to say their peace or speak in public or
give their views”, this is a perfect situation of the reason why sometimes
governing bodies have a problem with not knowing whether they should take on
further comments or what should be said or not said. He stated that in his position
as Mayor, he always wants to hear public comment as much as possible to give
people’s voices the opportunity to make their statements. He stated as they all
can see, when these types of arguments start, it causes problems with the
Governing Body being able to make decisions and knowing whether they are
going to be safe in handling the situation properly and allow the public to voice
their opinions.
Mayor Meyers stated he believes in tonight’s case, they are very much in their
right of allowing the voice of the public to be heard, without causing any other
type of situation to go further than tonight’s meeting in making a decision on this
project, if that is what the Council wishes to do.
ROGER CASSIDY, Phelps Engineering, 1270 N. Winchester, Olathe, Kansas,
stated he would briefly go over the exhibits prepared showing the lighting. He
stated they drew a line of sight drawing with the line pole at the south part of the
fields directing light back to the northeast towards Mr. Manly’s property. He
stated with the light poles at 80 feet in the air and the elevation of Mr. Manly’s
property, the bottom of the lights would be visible. He stated they would be
screened on the opposite sides, but the lights being directed to the north and east
would do a line of sight and would be visible. He wanted to make sure that the
Council understood these line of sight drawings.
Mayor Meyers stated if there were street lights on this property, they would be
seen from a residential development as well. He stated he thinks there is some
screening and hopefully enough screening for when the fields are going to be in
use with trees with leaves and will help diminish some of that. He stated he
thinks the thing that needs to be heard by the public and Council, is that this is a
special use permit and if there were dramatic problems or changes that needed to
be made with restrictions of lighting, they could be brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Sandifer stated it shows on the appraiser’s letter that he can not
give an estimate or any type of a material amount, which is probably very
PAGE 21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
accurate. He stated if there were other areas in town he could have gone off of, he
could have given some sort of idea. He stated that obviously he could not come
up with anything relatively close.
Councilmember Sandifer stated he has seen in a lot of instances, since he has been
on this Council, as there are properties all over the City and whenever they have
been empty and vacant for many years and Mr. Manly may or may not have had
the opportunity to purchase this property prior to the School District even doing a
trade on it, but a lot of people never want the properties around them to develop.
He stated the Council can not stop someone from developing their property. He
stated all they can do is help guide them in their endeavors and that is his opinion
on most of this issue. He stated no one wants change, whether it is good or bad.
They are involved in a very difficult situation that needs a decision tonight.
Councilmember Sandifer stated with this particular issue, everything may end up
being fine one year down the road. He stated all this discussion may be mute and
it may be a problem as we are hearing, but they can then review the permit if this
happens to go through. He stated one thing he does know is that the ground
around Shawnee will eventually get developed; something will be built on this
land and some people will like it and some will not. He stated down the road
some of these residents might have kids or grandkids play on these fields if this
ends up passing. He stated they never know what else could be built there if this
does not pass tonight.
RICHMOND ENOCHS stated he agrees with Councilmember Sandifer, as
something could get built there and the street lights are of course, lower and not
80 feet or as intense.
Mayor Meyers stated being a nuisance is another situation. He stated they have
had many people come into these council chambers stating they think leaf
blowers, lawnmowers, and weed eaters are a nuisance, are very loud, and are
disturbing. He stated it is not that the Council does not think that is true at times,
but that is something that would be considered a nuisance in a lot of situations,
but yet it is impractical to not allow people to own and operate those types of
equipment.
SEAN IKERD, 15704 W. 61st Terrace, stated he would not find most people
using leaf blowers or lawnmowers at 10:00 p.m., however hearing 3,000 people
cheer when little Jenny hits her first homerun will probably be a great deal more
noise.
Mayor Meyers stated no one will ever hear 3,000 people cheering from that
complex.
SEAN IKERD stated maybe he should have said 1,000 people.
PAGE 22
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Kuhn stated the complex holds 700 people maximum.
SEAN IKERD stated 700 people is plenty loud for him. He stated his concern is
the special use permit, because they are saying the Council can come back and
revisit this at a later time. He asked what says they can not come back and revisit
this and decide to allow flea markets and concerts.
Mayor Meyers stated they could certainly do that.
SEAN IKERD stated the Planning Commission has already said twice that this is
a detriment to the area. He stated the neighbors and constituents in the area agree
with them, so if they can not trust the Council to do the right thing now, how can
they trust them to do the right thing later on. He stated he can not trust them, so
he needs to see credibility now that this is not a win for this area. He stated with
something as controversial as this, it will never be a win/win situation.
SEAN IKERD stated he knows the mayor made comment a number of times this
evening that he does not want to hear repetition tonight, but would inform all of
them that they are going to hear repetition for 20 years as everyone gives
continual complaints when there are continual incidents that take place at this
complex. He stated when the police, media, and editorials are called, there will be
problems with this complex for the next 20 years and repetition will be a real
problem. He stated he wants the Governing Body to be aware of this now; the
surrounding residents are not going to be happy with this and the Council is here
to represent them and neighborhoods, so they need to listen to their constituents.
He stated they do not want this complex.
Councilmember Goode asked Mr. Eickard how long he has lived in Shawnee.
SEAN IKERD responded for 15 years.
ROBERT MANLY, 13888 W. 57th Street, presented an exhibit on the overhead
and stated that the Mayor talked about people who have not yet had a chance to
speak on this subject, and he has certainly spoken here before the Council and
before the Planning Commission, so they all have a number of letters and he will
not be repetitious this evening. He stated there is one constituency that has not
appeared before the Council or Planning Commission and it is not because
perhaps they do not care.
ROBERT MANLY pointed out to the Council the Wyndam Place and stated he
has spoken to the administrator there on several occasions in the past two weeks.
He stated this person does not work in the City of Shawnee or at this facility, as
she lives and works in Kansas City, Kansas and could not be present this evening.
He stated this person thought the project had died when it was denied at the
Planning Commission back in November 2005. He stated she was frankly
surprised when he phoned her after Christmas, informing her that it had been
PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
pushed back to the Planning Commission. He stated the administrator at that
point in time, tried on several occasions over the holidays to contact the owners in
Omaha to express her concern and get their consent to sign the petition.
ROBERT MANLY stated the administrator of this facility is very concerned for
the residents of the senior center, who are 70, 80 and even 90 years old. He stated
these people have dinner at 5:30 p.m. and go to bed after the 6:00 p.m. news. He
stated these seniors will probably have their shades drawn, so lights will most
likely not be a problem, but noise will be a problem. He asked the Governing
Body to consider the fact that they have over 50 residents in their 80’s and 90’s
who live less than 900 feet from right field. He stated he thinks these people will
end up getting disturbed and unfortunately could not be present this evening, but
the administrator asked him to express her concerns this evening.
Councilmember Sandifer asked Mr. Manly if he is familiar with the soccer fields
at the other end and all the cheering going on at that facility.
ROBERT MANLY answered yes.
Councilmember Sandifer stated those fields are relatively close as well, and the
City has not received any complaints from this senior center. He asked City
Manager Gonzales if the City had received any noise complaints from this senior
center.
City Manager Gonzales answered not that she is aware of, and did note that she
spoke with the senior center manager late this afternoon, as she called to inquire
about this issue. She stated she explained to the administrator the hours that had
been changed since the original application, and it was felt that those hours were
acceptable.
ROBERT MANLY stated there is not noise at the soccer fields after dark.
Councilmember Kuhn asked Mr. Manly when he purchased his property.
ROBERT MANLY answered he purchased his property in 2001.
DOUG MARTIN, 15523 Johnson Drive, stated his property abuts the project on
the north side. He stated he would like to respond to several things heard tonight
and at other meetings, which he really does not think stands up to scrutiny.
DOUG MARTIN stated the comment was made that when the transfer was made
10 years ago, there was no development in the area. He stated his property and
house was built in the early 1970’s, along with two other houses next to him, one
built even earlier than the 1970’s, so there was in fact development in place.
PAGE 24
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Goode stated he was talking about major development in the
area, not just a single house.
DOUG MARTIN apologized that he did not hear Councilmember Goode say the
word ‘major’, although he must say that he personally thinks his house is major.
He continued that it was mentioned that people did not ask questions when they
purchased their property and should have. He stated he did ask and was told it
was School District property and there were plans to possibly build a school there
one day. He stated nothing else was ever mentioned about any other possible uses
for this site.
Councilmember Kuhn asked Mr. Martin whom did he speak with in regards to
that information.
DOUG MARTIN answered his real estate agent came here to City Hall and
received that information, although he is not sure who they spoke with. He stated
he purchased his property in 1997.
DOUG MARTIN stated he was going to talk about the vote for the bond issue,
but that has been discussed. He stated that simply put, it was not spelled out in
any public literature that he can find, even where this was and certainly nothing
about lights on 70 foot poles staying on until 10:00 p.m. and certainly not being
used as a rental facility.
DOUG MARTIN stated they have heard that the School District has provided a
lot of value to this community and they should respect them for that and grant
their wishes. He stated he agrees with them to a point, as he is a teacher himself
and understands the value of education and the value of a good school district. He
stated he also knows this is a very fine school district and has added a lot of value
to his community. He stated he has supported them and that is why he voted for
their bond issue without reading it carefully. He stated he disagrees with the idea
that therefore they should go ahead and grant them anything they ask for and what
should be done, is look at the issue, question, and proposal and see if it is good for
Shawnee. He stated he believes this is a bad proposal for Shawnee and certainly
bad for the residents in the area.
DOUG MARTIN stated he thinks this is a bad proposal because basically the
School District did not do their homework. He stated this is clearly not a good
site, as it is up on a ridge. He stated they heard last time that there would have to
be a lot of dirt to be moved to be leveled. He stated they have heard about the
traffic and were told tonight that there are traffic needs, however at the Planning
Commission in November, they were told that no traffic studies were performed.
He stated this site is in a residential area and that is obviously not a good thing
with these tall lights being in use until very late at night.
PAGE 25
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
DOUG MARTIN stated the residents were also told that groups within the City of
Shawnee will be the ones using this facility, but also were told that the School
District has not talked to any potential renters. He stated he is not sure how they
can understand both of those statements. He asked how they know that there is
actually demand for this complex, if they have not spoken to any potential users.
He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, the School District
representative was asked by one of the commissioners how it would affect the
operation if the lights had to be turned off at 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and he
stated, “To lease the fields, they would be of very little value if it shuts off at
10:00 p.m. at night.” He stated they are now proposing to shut it off at 10:00 p.m.
at night and wonders what the value really is and if they have even done their
homework.
DOUG MARTIN stated that brings up the question of what if they do find there is
very little value by shutting off the lights at 10:00 p.m., will that mean they will
have to come back before the Council asking that they be left on until 11:00 p.m.
or even midnight. He stated since they have already sunk $4 million into this
facility, why not have the lights on another hour.
DOUG MARTIN stated in short, this is a bad proposal and in a residential area
where it does not belong. He stated he does not know what their recourse would
be if the lights are on until after 10:00 p.m.; would they call the police or the
mayor at home. He stated he knows the mayor’s number is listed and is on the
web. He stated he thinks this is a very bad proposal for the City of Shawnee and
based on the fact that they do not know who will be renting it or how often, it may
even be a bad proposal for the School District. He urged the Council to give it the
grade it deserves and to vote it down.
Councilmember Goode asked Mr. Martin, as a teacher, does he agree that a lot of
high schools in Johnson County have been built right in the midst of residential
neighborhoods, along with a lot of grade schools. He asked if he is opposed to
moving a school or project into a residential district to serve the people in a more
modest or moderate way.
DOUG MARTIN responded he is not opposed to schools being built in residential
areas, and in fact, he would not be here opposing this project if they were going to
be building a school on this property. He stated comments were made at the last
meeting of the Governing Body that if there was an elementary school on this
property, they have meetings at night and would have the lights on late. He stated
he went around and checked and out of the 37 elementary schools in this District,
he went to 25 of them and none of them have lights on their athletic fields or
playgrounds. He stated they do have lights on their parking lots, but they are on
very short poles. He stated lights on short poles will not be a problem. He stated
if there was residential development on this property, again the lighting would be
on short poles.
PAGE 26
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Goode asked about the high school developments in the
residential districts, as they are all over Johnson County too and have tall poles.
DOUG MARTIN stated they do in fact have tall poles, but it is his understanding
that they do not have lights on their athletic facilities, except for the stadiums. He
stated he is not sure that this location would be large enough for a middle school
or a high school.
Mayor Meyers stated he is sure it could be big enough if the need was there and
that is where the School District spent their money.
DOUG MARTIN stated he does know they all want to get home and have some
quiet time, but if this proposal is approved and this complex is built, those
residents in this neighborhood will not have any quiet or peace for another hour
from now (8:54 p.m.).
Councilmember Pflumm stated at the end of the last City Council meeting, he
asked if they could get the residents involved with the City people and the School
District to try to get everyone happy. He stated he thinks the noise is a minor
issue or will have a major impact on property values. He stated the lighting is
really the major issue. He stated they are talking about really one hour and the
School District was heard saying this evening, that they will not even consider
that. He stated he wishes that the School District would have gotten together with
everyone to work out the minor details of the lights. He stated he knows there are
other issues, but the lights are a major issue.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he wants to support the School District, but can
not do it when they are not using this for School District type activities. He stated
they will be leasing the facility out to people and are ultimately responsible, but
he can not support this.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to deny
SUP-13-05-11, a request from the Shawnee Mission USD #512 Girls Softball
Complex for a special use permit to allow a sports facility in the AG
(Agricultural) zoning district at 6101 Maurer.
Councilmember Kuhn stated listening to the previous speaker talking about the
stadiums and the schools and their differences, made her think about Mill Valley.
She stated Monticello Middle School sits next to Mill Valley and there is a
football field directly behind the high school with lights. She stated as a general
rule, she would think that more people attend football games than girl’s softball
games.
Councilmember Pflumm stated they attend football games on Friday nights.
PAGE 27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Kuhn asked if the City ever gets any complaints on noise coming
from Mill Valley, because that field backs up to the side of Grey Oaks and
Woodland Park. She stated she has never received any complaints from any of
the constituents in her ward.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the City has not received complaints and that is
also on a special use permit for their athletic fields.
Mayor Meyers stated he would also say that these stadiums are not just being used
on Friday nights. He stated the stadium being built at Shawnee Mission North
will be used every night of the week by the community, the schools, and different
sports like soccer, football, and track. He stated this stadium has lights and uses
them.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he tried to go back to reference points they tell
the public about when they go through the development processes, and in the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically on 5.2, states, The approval process of site
development proposals for uses other than single family dwellings shall
emphasize the need for buffering of adjacent uses from dust, litter, light glare,
noise, water run-off, undue traffic problems, and safety or health hazards. In
addition, the visual character shall receive critical review with emphasis on
screening and landscaping.” He continued that in 5.68, it states three public land
use polices, the third of which is, “To utilize the highest standards of architecture
and site planning in the construction of new civic buildings to ensure community
pride.” He stated there are references throughout that to the rest and he knows
that specifically goes to civic buildings, but it reads, “To serve as examples for the
overall nature of development desired in Shawnee.”
Councilmember Tubbesing stated with these types of public facilities, quite
frankly, he thinks it is a good facility in general, but the lateness of the hour of the
lighting system is really what is giving him the biggest problem. He stated the
fact of the matter, and back to Councilmember Pflumm’s point, is that lights
command the noise. He stated they can sit there and say that noise is a problem,
but the fact of the matter is it is a blackout and they are not playing ball.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated backing up 10 years, as he thinks that is what
frankly got them to where they are today, the School District thankfully worked
with the City as they attempted to develop the Shawnee Mission Parkway
corridor, which was appreciated. He stated the fact of the matter is though, in a
land swap situation when the School District moved from being on Shawnee
Mission Parkway to this facility, that is why there is purple (quasi public) on their
maps. He stated there is no reason why they would have put a quasi public
location in this particular spot, except for that is where the School District owned.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated when he reviews and goes through everything
around it, he simply does not see that they would have colored it purple (quasi
PAGE 28
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
public) on the land use map for any other reason, except for the fact that the
School District owned it. He stated when it was possible that an elementary or
middle school potentially could be surrounded by a community, he would call that
normal, common, or proper land use. He stated when they move to a more
intense facility that is not possible to be screened and landscaped, the only way
they can control the use of that property, is to control its hours.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated someone earlier came up and said they could
hear Johnny scoring at Stump Park and he thinks that is great. He stated he thinks
that is what makes them a youthful, alive community – the children. He stated he
does not think the residents need to hear that at 10:00 p.m. when they are trying to
get to bed. He stated for that reason, he will support the denial, but would
encourage the School District to reconsider its hours, because that and the
restriction on the school and other youth leagues are his two hang-ups with this
process.
Mayor Meyers stated he thinks it should be clearly understood that they have
known for some time that this property was not going to be a school facility. He
stated they, as a Council, have met on a yearly basis going over their
comprehensive and land use plans and have never discussed changing this
property from quasi public.
Mayor Meyers reiterated that it was stated and common knowledge of the City
staff and Council that once the bond issue came forward that they were discussing
putting a softball facility on this piece of property. He stated it was not always
the understanding of every person that this piece of property was only going to be
a school. He stated it was quasi public and everything that the School District has
proposed to do on this site is legal and not rezoning of the property. He stated the
facility being built is something that does fall under the quasi public designation.
He stated he does not want people to think that they never knew that the School
District was considering putting a softball complex on this piece of property,
because they did.
Councilmember Novosel stated he would say that he has coached and spent an
extensive amount of time using all of the various sporting facilities in the County
and believes this is a good project. He stated he honestly believes it is the wrong
location and believes they would be doing a great disservice to the citizens in
Shawnee, if they approve this project.
Councilmember Goode called for a motion.
Mayor Meyers explained there is a motion and second on the floor and an aye
vote would be approving denial and a no vote would be to not deny.
A roll call vote was taken.
PAGE 29
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Therefore the motion read:
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by
Councilmember Scott, moved to deny SUP-13-05-11, a request from the Shawnee
Mission USD #512 Girls Softball Complex for a special use permit to allow a
sports facility in the AG (Agricultural) zoning district at 6101 Maurer. The
motion tied 4-4, with Councilmembers Scott, Pflumm, Novosel, and Tubbesing
voting aye, and Councilmembers Sawyer, Goode, Kuhn, and Sandifer voting nay.
The motion failed.
Mayor Meyers entertained a new motion.
Councilmember Kuhn stated she would move to approve this item, to include the
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked for clarification on board on board fencing and
what they plan on doing on the east and north, because that was something that
was up in the air.
Councilmember Kuhn stated that she thinks they should just leave the north and
east alone, based on the fact that she would not like to see the trees taken down
for now and thinks that makes a much bigger difference to the neighborhood. She
stated they need to limit the usage of this facility to sporting events only and she
does not care if people come from Lenexa or Omaha, but sporting events only.
She stated she would say no timer, because she believes Mayor Meyers is right
about that item.
Mayor Meyers stated that City Attorney Rainey would like to make comment to
any type of motion to grant the approval of the facility to have this added into the
motion.
City Attorney Rainey stated the Planning Commission, in the times it has
considered it, has not approved the project therefore, has not approved to this
being in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan to the City. He stated that
therefore, since they have not approved it as being in conformance with the plan
and to eliminate any questions, he would recommend that any motion to approve
should include a specific finding or determination by the Governing Body to the
extent that the Planning Commission may have disapproved this, that the
Governing Body approves it as being in conformity with the plan or if there is a
question as to whether it conforms, that the plan is revised and modified to amend
it accordingly or amend it to permit this use. He stated he is not saying the plan
does not at this time do that, but just that the Planning Commission has not
approved this to being in conformity.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he takes exception to that, because the Planning
Commission, when he and Councilmember Tubbesing were on it, did know that
this was going to be quasi public, because they reviewed the comprehensive plan
all the time.
PAGE 30
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
City Attorney Rainey stated he is not saying that at all. He stated he is simply
saying that the Planning Commission has not approved this specific proposed
development before the Council tonight, as being in conformity with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Sawyer apologized, as he misunderstood City Attorney Rainey
earlier.
City Attorney Rainey stated to be clear, he would recommend that the Council
express the fact that they are overruling the Planning Commission to the extent
that it is not approved to being in conformity with the plan, and if someone argues
it is not in conformity with the plan, just to cover that eventuality, that the Council
also state that if necessary, the plan is amended to permit this use. He stated that
would eliminate any question and abundance of caution that the City Council
knows that is what they are doing.
Councilmember Kuhn amended her earlier motion, with Councilmember Sandifer
seconding that amendment.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked for more clarification. He asked if they are still
agreeing to the lowered elevation by two feet in the parking lot.
Councilmember Kuhn answered yes.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated they are agreeing on board on board fencing on
the south. He asked that they clarify the fencing on the east and north, which is
listed in the staff report and is something he does not believe they have come to
any conclusion on, as to whether that would be a good idea or worse idea.
Councilmember Kuhn stated she has great concerns over the trees.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the School District does not have to take the
fence line to the property line.
ROGER CASSIDY stated they would take the fence to the property line.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked what is included in the motion.
Councilmember Kuhn responded that the motion does not include north and east,
board on board fencing. She stated she thinks the trees will make a better border
for sound and view of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked Councilmember Kuhn if she is at all willing to
agree to the lighting restrictions for the fields to be turned off at 9:00 p.m.
PAGE 31
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Kuhn answered, no.
MARY JO ALLEN, Partner, Villas at Parkside, stated she thinks the staff had
noted in their comments, that they had requested a six foot solid vinyl fence to
divide their area in keeping with their maintenance provided concept. She stated
she had provided information to Vance Rzepka, the School District architect,
showing that after four to five maintenance applications, the cost was indeed at a
break even point. She requested that the Council make that recommendation a
requirement of the School District. She stated they have that type of fencing in
the neighborhood currently and would like to see that, so they do not have any
maintenance issues down the road.
Planning Director Chaffee stated they may want to visit with the School District
about that. He stated he knows that initially, they had proposed a solid stockadetype fence and at the request of Councilmember Tubbesing at the last Governing
Body meeting, he suggested the board on board and the School District had gone
along with that. He stated the School District may have some issues with the
fencing. He stated that would probably make that fencing more pronounced
visually, but the School District may have further comment on that subject.
ROBERT DIPIERRO responded that they have not studied that, but obviously
they would maintain the wood fencing. He stated the vinyl fencing adds
additional costs and he is not sure if the architect could tell them exactly how
much additional cost that would be, but they would maintain the wood fence and
is not sure about a vinyl fence.
VANCE RZEPKA, Owner, VSR Design, 4500 West 90th Terrace, Prairie Village,
Kansas, stated he is the lead designer on this project. He stated they have
discussed the vinyl fence and they have approximately 1,300 linear feet down this
property line. He stated that he feels from an aesthetic standpoint, a wood fence
would blend in better with the landscape, rather than a long six foot tall, bright
white vinyl fence. He stated the increase in cost is approximately $20,000 for that
length.
Councilmember Kuhn stated her original motion stands with board on board
fencing.
Mayor Meyers called for the vote.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember
Sandifer, moved to grant SUP-13-05-11, a request for a special use permit for the
operation of Shawnee Mission USD #512 Girls Softball Complex in the AG
(Agricultural) zoning district, located at 6101 Maurer, for a period of one year,
with review at that time, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated
January 9, 2006, adding that fencing on the south property line shall be board on
board, and that the use of the complex shall be limited to sports activities.
PAGE 32
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Further, the Governing Body overrides the Planning Commission report and any
portion of the Comprehensive Plan to the contrary to the approval of the special
use permit and the extent necessary, the Comprehensive Plan is deemed to be
amended. The motion carried 5-4, with Mayor Meyers, Councilmembers Sawyer,
Goode, Kuhn, and Sandifer voting aye, and Councilmembers Scott, Pflumm,
Novosel, and Tubbesing voting nay.
9:14 p.m. - A recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m.
17.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM
COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2005.
a)
THE
PLANNING
Consider review of SUP-11-04-12, a special use permit previously issued to
Jamesetta Henderson to operate Bright Babies Daycare, an in-home daycare for
up to ten (10) children in the PSF (Planned Single Family) zoning district at 6017
Brownridge.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council renew SUP-11-04-12 to Jamesetta Henderson.
Councilmember Sandifer, seconced by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to renew
SUP-11-04-12, a special use permit previously issued to Jamesetta Henderson to
operate Bright Babies Daycare, an in-home daycare for up to ten (10) children in
the PSF (Planned Single Family) zoning district at 6017 Brownridge, as per the
Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the January 9, 2006 staff
report. The motion carried 8-0.
b)
Consider review of SUP-8-03-11, a special use permit previously issued to Westar
Energy to allow a communications tower in the PI (Planned Industrial) zoning
district at 23505 West 86th Street.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council renew SUP-8-03-11 to Westar Energy.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to renew
SUP-8-03-11, a special use permit previously issued to Westar Energy to allow a
communications tower in the PI (Planned Industrial) zoning district at 23505
West 86th Street, as per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the
January 9, 2006 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
c)
Consider request to withdraw SUP-10-04-12, a special use permit previously
issued to Express Motor Sports, Inc. to operate a zero inventory car dealership in
the CH (Commercial Highway) zoning district at 6657 Woodland.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council withdraw SUP-10-04-12 at the request of Express Motor Sports, Inc.
PAGE 33
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve
the withdraw of SUP-10-04-12, a special use permit previously issued to Express
Motor Sports, Inc. to operate a zero inventory car dealership in the CH
(Commercial Highway) zoning district at 6657 Woodland, as per the Planning
Commission’s recommendations listed in the January 9, 2006 staff report. The
motion carried 8-0.
d)
Consider review of SUP-10-92-11, a special use permit previously issued to allow
the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant at 20001 West 47th Street.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council renew SUP-10-92-11 to Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Councilmember Sawyer asked that before a motion is made on this item, if
anything was addressed on the issue of smell and having them run tests.
Planning Director Chaffee answered yes. He stated if the Council would review
on the backside, it shows a modification has been made as to the previous
condition #2, that will require the Wastewater District to conduct the hydrogen
sulfide studies as identified in the Odor Identification Study from last year. He
stated that will happen when they get finished with their new lagoon system and
then when the staff knows of their findings, they will then need to come back and
implement.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he thinks it is only fair that they get to share in the
nasal ranger too.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he still wonders why they did that in the first
place, when what they are going to do is put in sensors that monitor hydrogen
sulfide. He stated they will get a specific reading for those and the nasal ranger is
someone just smelling the air and saying they think it is bad.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he is just trying to make the point that the thinks
the nasal ranger thing is a waste of money. He stated he thinks everyone should
get to share in it, if they have one.
Councilmember Pflumm stated those are our tax dollars. He stated they all agree
here that the nasal ranger thing was not for safety or really for any purpose.
Councilmember Sawyer stated the nasal ranger was to determine where the smell
was coming from and to date, does not think they have any idea where the smell
is coming from.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he would be more likely to support any
quantifiable, as opposed to any possibly objective test.
PAGE 34
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Sawyer stated he only brought this up, because he wants to know
quantifiably what the smells are that come off this facility.
Councilmember Pflumm stated they need a good knowledge of what they put in.
He stated they put in methane detection, CO, hydrogen sulfide, and oxygen
depletion. He stated those are four things they quantifiably have a reading for
when they add that instrumentation. He stated the nasal ranger gives them no
numbers of what is really actually present.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he understands that and that is not his point. He
stated his point is to get it on record, that they are doing something about this
facility as well for smell or for odor.
Councilmember Kuhn asked for clarification. She stated she understood that the
second restriction going on there was in fact, implementing something to test the
levels of production of these particular things, which in general were what caused
scents from waste treatment plants and then Part B of that is, once they get some
quantifiable actual numbers, they then have to come back to the Council and
report what they think is the problem and the Council gets to respond to their
report. She stated the special use permit is based on them following through with
that second part.
Planning Director Chaffee stated that is correct. He stated that is why the staff is
recommending it for one more year. He stated they know that the levels are
worse during the summer months, rather than if they are taken in February. He
stated they will do their testing in the summer and they should have the results in
spring or early fall.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the Wastewater District has done some things on
their own as a result of the first study and made some other changes. He stated
they may proceed with some of the recommendations. He stated when they do
the year review, they can then state specifically which things they need to do.
Councilmember Sawyer stated they will come in here and the Council can make
some recommendations, but will not be able to tell the County what to do.
Councilmember Kuhn stated they can refuse to reissue the special use permit after
one year if they did not comply with what the Council thought needed to be done.
Councilmember Sawyer stated that is ridiculous. He stated they are not going to
shut off the sewer. He stated he is just saying that the County is basically telling
the City what they are going to do.
Mayor Meyers stated it sounds to him like they will be gathering more
information than in the past.
PAGE 35
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Sawyer stated they will get information and suggestions from
them on what they will or will not do, but they could tell them to cover it, but if it
is not up to them, they are not going to do it.
MATT BOND, Deputy Chief Engineer, Johnson County Wastewater, stated they
are committed to following through with the study and the recommendations. He
stated they have a good idea for the levels of treatment necessary to bring this
facility up to the standards of the industry and what they have done at all the other
sensitive wastewater treatment facilities and are committed to doing that.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to renew
SUP-10-92-11, a special use permit previously issued to allow the Mill Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant at 20001 West 47th Street, as per the Planning
Commission’s recommendations listed in the January 9, 2006 staff report. The
motion carried 8-0.
e)
Consider Z-12-05-11, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single
Family Residential) for the development of Meadowbrook Estates, a 46-lot
single-family subdivision in the 5400 block of Old K-7 Highway.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council approve Z-12-05-11 to rezone from AG to R-1.
Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to pass an
ordinance approving Z-12-05-11, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to
R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the development of Meadowbrook Estates, a
46-lot single-family subdivision in the 5400 block of Old K-7 Highway, as per the
Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the January 9, 2006 staff
report. The motion carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2798 was assigned.
f)
Consider Z-13-05-12, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single
Family Residential) for the development of Granite Falls, a 73-lot single-family
subdivision in the 14900 block of Johnson Drive.
Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the
Council approve Z-13-05-12 to rezone from AG to R-1. If approved, an ordinance
number will be assigned.
Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to pass and
ordinance approving Z-13-05-12, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to
R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the development of Granite Falls, a 73-lot
single-family subdivision in the 14900 block of Johnson Drive, as per the
Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the January 9, 2006 staff
report.
PAGE 36
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
MARY FRANCES STUMPFF, 5740 Lackman Road, stated she is concerned
about not all together all the aspects of Granite Falls, but the main thing is the
safety feature. She stated she lives across the street from the development area.
She stated they were going to do certain things to her driveway and they have not
yet come to a final agreement, but she received a letter from the development
company offering some suggestions.
MARY FRANCES STUMPFF stated her main concern is the safety features
surrounding that area, because of all the traffic. She stated she does not know if
the Council is familiar with it, but she lives on Lackman Road and Johnson Drive
is one of the boundaries. She stated from what she understands, the development
company wants to have an exit from Lackman Road and another from Johnson
Drive and there are no traffic lights at that location.
MARY FRANCES STUMPFF stated another suggestion, given by someone as an
alternative, was to use the continuation of Alden Road and extend that road north.
She stated the traffic light is right there at Alden and Johnson Drive and extends
north and they would use that probably as an outlet. She stated her real main
concern, along with a lot of her neighbors, is that the people have to go out of
Lackman Road and make a left turn onto Johnson Drive, because Lackman Road
is a dead-end street and there is no traffic light.
MARY FRANCES STUMPFF stated there is a blind hill right there and by the
time she pulls out and has turned around, there is a car right behind her that she
has no way of seeing. She stated there have been two deaths over the past 10
years on that hill and two other deaths further along the bottom of the hill on
Johnson Drive. She stated she thinks it is a real safety hazard there and would
like to see something done. She stated if the Council would take into
consideration the rezoning, which she has no problem with, she hopes they will
keep in mind some of the safety features that could be changed.
Planning Director Chaffee stated he is glad to hear that the developer and Ms.
Stump are still working together on the solution for the driveway and of course,
the City’s traffic engineers will monitor the traffic at Lackman Road and when
warrants come, other traffic control devices will be installed. He stated he would
expect that if Lackman Road is ever improved from Swarner Park up to Johnson
Drive when it turns into the four-way, that will probably kick in the traffic signal.
He stated the street will be designed to City standards.
Planning Director Chaffee stated that Lackman Road is a major collector street
and will be in the future, as it is even further developed to the north. He stated the
purpose of the collector is to gather traffic and keep some of it off an arterial to a
certain location as what is best for flow in that area.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if possible, could they have the City’s traffic
engineers scrutinize those plans again before things are said in the motion.
PAGE 37
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Planning Director Chaffee answered they can certainly do that when they do their
plans. He stated the developer has already given them a preliminary study and
they can visit with them to see if there are any more measures that need to be
undertaken at the present time.
Councilmember Sandifer stated he drove over in front of Ms. Stumpff’s house
this afternoon. He stated City Manager Gonzales explained the situation to him
somewhat, as it will shorten Ms. Stumpff’s driveway considerably when they
develop this and asked if the Council is able to put anything into the motion to
make sure that they get something developed for her. He stated it appears that she
will have about one and a half car lengths in her driveway before it hits the road.
He asked if they could make sure that they could do some other type of drive for
her and make sure of this before it is approved.
Planning Director Chaffee responded they are now discussing the rezoning of the
property and that is certainly something that by the time the final plats come to
the staff, the final street plans will be submitted to the engineering department
substantially complete and at that time, they can review what affect that might
have on the driveway. He stated that hopefully by that time, they will all have
come to an agreement as to what will be best.
Councilmember Sandifer asked if something needs to be put in the motion to
make sure Ms. Stumpff is covered.
Planning Director Chaffee replied he would not do it to rezone the property, as it
does not have anything to do with the plat or street improvements itself.
Councilmember Goode stated they need to make sure Ms. Stumpff gets taken care
of when this is all said and done.
Councilmember Scott asked Planning Director Chaffee to point out where the
entrance/exit is to this subdivision off of Johnson Drive and/or Lackman Road.
Planning Director Chaffee pointed out these areas and stated that both are set far
enough back that they meet the standard distance from a collector street or from
an arterial street.
Councilmember Kuhn stated her comment is generally for the audience and Ms.
Stumpff especially, but asked that they please note that the approval for tonight is
purely in regards to changing zoning. She stated her recommendation of approval
is not a recommendation of a final plan, stop sign, or street. She stated what she
is saying by her recommendation for approval, is that she thinks it is a great idea
for the City to have a quality subdivision like this at that area and zone it so it is
okay for them to take the next steps to work out issues for Ms. Stumpff and her
driveway, for the entrance and exits, stop lights and street lights, and that takes
PAGE 38
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
place at the next step which is platting and finishing areas. She stated this is
purely a discussion about whether or not something that currently is zoned for
agriculture can become something that they are going to allow to be residential.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY, 5816 Lackman Road, stated they have the same
concerns and just want to reiterate what Mary Frances said earlier. She stated
they live directly across from this area and realize the subdivision is going to
happen. She stated that they have accepted that, but they are upset because they
received the construction easement packet and it was so much more than they
expected. She stated it will be taking up their yard and disrupting their lives and
is huge for them.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY stated one thing they wanted to bring to the Council’s
attention, is a bike path on the west side, which does not make sense to them. She
stated they feel like it is going to end at Mary Frances’ house until they extend
Lackman Road and do not even know when that will take place. She stated it
seems to them, from a safety standpoint, that they should put the bike path on the
east side so that children and family members do not have to cross the street to get
to it. She stated that can make a big difference in Mary Frances’ driveway as well
and in the construction easement they need in their yard. She stated their property
has huge trees on it that they want to take out for whatever reason and these are
things that can not be replaced.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY stated they are having a hard time with these plans
because the plans read that there will be little detriment to the neighboring
properties, but that is not how they feel from a personal standpoint.
DENNIS CLOUGHLEY, 5816 Lackman Road, stated another concern for them is
the speed limit increase up to 35 mph. He stated they have two young children
who love to play in their front yard and with that increase to 35 mph, the traffic
going from approximately 14 houses to 90 houses has them very concerned about
the safety of their children.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY stated it is so important that the Council come out and
drive on their street, because the terrain is very hilly. She stated it should never
be at 35 mph, no matter whether they slice off the hill or what they do. She stated
they are hugely concerned about the traffic, especially without the traffic light.
She stated they feel like things are being done backwards. She stated just the
other day she pulled out with no one coming in her site and the next thing she
knows, there was someone going at least 55 mph right past her. She stated they
have to pull out into the traffic going west just to avoid people coming so fast up
the hill, as the hill is very dangerous.
DENNIS CLOUGHLEY stated he has one other concern about the bike path. He
stated they went to the Planning Commission meeting on December 19, 2005 and
were given no indication that this bike path was planned for the west side and
PAGE 39
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
indicated it will be on the east side. He stated that less than one week ago, they
received a packet stating the bike path was switched to the west side. He stated it
is going to be around 150 yards long and they will have kids crossing the street at
35 mph trying to get to this bike path.
Councilmember Sawyer asked if the bike path is on Lackman Road.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY answered yes.
Planning Director Chaffee stated he believes the bike plan shows Lackman Road
as having a bike trail along there.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY stated it is an eight foot wide bike trail.
Planning Director Chaffee stated he would note that there is no change to the staff
report between the Planning Commission meeting in December and tonight’s
meeting. He stated the Planning Commission does not get into where the bike
paths are going to lie, as those are engineering issues.
Councilmember Sawyer stated they should not be concerned about that tonight,
but he would mention that the bike path along Maurer Road is on the east side and
it makes sense to him that if they were going to put a bike path here, that it stay on
the east side, which is on the side of the development, but that is a whole other
issue.
DENNIS CLOUGHLEY presented the drawing from the developers showing the
bike path on the west side. He stated he knows it is part of the long term plan to
be connected, but they have no timeline as to when that will be, but it sounds like
at least in five to ten years.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he agrees, but his point is if they are going to
allow this development, the bike path should be on the east side of Lackman Road
and not on the west side.
ANDREA CLOUGHLEY stated they really feel like they have been hit pretty
hard with this and over the holidays it was really hard to deal with, as they
seemed to get surprise after surprise. She stated they hope that the engineering
company and Great Plains Investments is going to bear with them, along with the
City of Shawnee and remain open to communication, which has not happened up
to this point.
Mayor Meyers assured Mr. and Mrs. Cloughley that their comments have been
noted and are on record. He encouraged them to stay involved in this process and
continue stating their concerns.
Councilmember Goode asked for the name of the spokesman.
PAGE 40
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
MARY FRANCES STUMPFF replied that Jeff Leonard was the only person she
talked with.
JEFF LEONARD, 10710 West 72nd Street, Great Plains Development, stated that
he originally talked with Mary Frances Stumpff in their design phase. He stated
he informed her and gave her a little knowledge about what was going on with the
plan. He stated he felt he should contact her because they felt they were going to
be doing some cutting down on the Lackman Road hill. He stated this was the
beginning of the design stage and as time went on and they resolved some issues
with the City, as far as the curve values and design of the road, he felt the amount
of impact with Mary Frances was minimized by what they had talked about with
the City.
Councilmember Goode asked Mr. Leonard if he then notified Ms. Stumpff,
because when she first telephoned him, she was rather alarmed and had
mentioned some things that he was unaware of himself.
JEFF LEONARD asked Councilmember Goode to clarify what he meant when he
asked if he notified Ms Stumpff.
Councilmember Goode countered that Mr. Leonard talked to Ms. Stumpff and
informed her that the City would be making some moves and at that time, she
telephoned him and was rather alarmed as to the potential damages to her
property. He wondered if Mr. Leonard passed on to her his knowledge.
JEFF LEONARD replied that he informed Ms. Stump of what was going to
happen, if that is what Councilmember Goode is asking.
Councilmember Goode stated at that time, there were other things involved that
Ms. Stumpff thought would affect her.
JEFF LEONARD asked Councilmember Goode for clarification.
Councilmember Goode responded that Ms. Stumpff has two entrances into that
piece of property with the U drive and she is totally opposed to some of the plans.
JEFF LEONARD stated he understands that and noted that all of their work is
currently taking place in the existing street right-of-way and the only type of work
they are going to be doing on Ms. Stump’s property is to fix her driveways. He
stated that is throughout this entire project.
Councilmember Goode stated he thinks that is agreeable.
Councilmember Sandifer stated he is also in favor of putting the bike trail on the
east side and asked Mr. Leonard if he is in favor of doing that.
PAGE 41
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Mayor Meyers stated he does not think they should get into that at this point.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he tends to disagree, because if they are taking up
property for a bike lane, they need to get it out of the development that is taking
place here and not be putting it on the west side onto someone else.
Mayor Meyers stated the comments are on record and the staff has heard these
comments, along with the developer. He stated he does not think they need to get
into a lengthy discussion tonight, as tonight they are merely talking about the
rezoning from agricultural to single family residential and it is the first step in the
whole process.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the City put in some new ordinances for the slope
of driveways when the City actually does a project. He asked Planning Director
Chaffee if they can make sure that the City is going to abide by those with Ms.
Stumpff’s property.
Planning Director Chaffee stated the City’s engineering division always abides by
their rules and regulations. He stated if there is a need for a variance at some
point in time, they will certainly follow the appropriate processes.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he wants to make sure that Ms. Stumpff is
covered on this deal.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember
Goode, moved to pass and ordinance approving Z-13-05-12, a request to rezone
from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the development of
Granite Falls, a 73-lot single-family subdivision in the 14900 block of Johnson
Drive, as per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the January
9, 2006 staff report. The motion carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2799 was
assigned.
COUNCIL ITEMS
18.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2006.
a)
&
Consider the 2006 Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) Marketing Plan and
Budget.
Councilmember Goode stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
Council approve the 2006 Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Marketing Plan
and Budget.
PAGE 42
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to approve
the 2006 Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Marketing Plan and Budget.
The motion carried 8-0.
b)
Consider Decorative Street Lights and Street Signage for the Reserve of Belle
Meade.
Councilmember Goode stated that the Committee recommended 3-1 that the
Council deny the request to use decorative street signs and street lights in the
Reserve of Belle Meade.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated that he asked City Manager Gonzales to talk to
the developer to see if he was willing to agree to a stipulation.
City Manager Gonzales stated that City Engineer Wesselschmidt passed that
information on to them and she does not know if Mr. Davidson responded back to
him or if he would like to speak to it himself.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the rejection was basically put into place at the
Finance and Administration Committee meeting, because the majority of the
committee members did not agree that the City should incur expenses in the
future with maintenance and/or if there were accidents to the more decorative
poles that cost more to replace in the future. He asked staff to talk to the
developer and asked the developer at that meeting if the homeowner’s association
was willing to incur either the full expense of any future replacements. He stated
they have already agreed to pay for the more expensive items themselves, i.e.
light poles. He asked if the developer would agree to put into the covenants of the
homeowner’s association either full replacement value, or would even go so far as
to say the differential of what the City would pay, if there was a light pole
knocked down, versus what it would cost to put in a new one. He asked Mr.
Davidson if the homeowner’s association was willing to cover that and would he
be willing to go there.
BRAD DAVIDSON, 5203 Reeds, Mission, Kansas, thanked City Engineer
Wesselschmidt for preparing a packet for the City Council for his request. He
stated he understands and works a lot within the City of Shawnee. He stated it
was stated at the Finance and Committee meeting that it is good to have full range
of residential housing in Shawnee. He stated his personal passion is for more
expensive type upper bracket homes because that is what he grew up doing
through the years since high school.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated he had what he thought was a simple request, as far as
upgrading street signage and street lights from the standard to a more fancier
design. He commended the Council on the new City structures outside of City
Hall, as this is exactly what he talking about for the Reserve of Belle Meade. He
PAGE 43
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
stated the Council approved the downtown upgrades and he wants to bring that
into a residential development and not just around City parks and City Hall.
Councilmember Pflumm asked for the delta price.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated City Engineer Wesselschmidt called him today to see
if he would be interested in assuming the added cost to the City, if there is a
knockdown and those types of things. He stated in paying up front for the upcost
in these structures, the property they are doing right now in the Reserve of Belle
Meade Farms brought in a whopping $143.00 in property taxes in 2004. He
stated assuming that the houses that are projected to be built in this subdivision
will be at an average price of $650,000 to $700,000, property tax income off of
this same piece of property will be around $250,000.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated with that added cost, of course there is fire protection
and street maintenance, but he feels like he should not and the percentage of
knockdowns in a residential subdivision of this nature is very limited. He stated
he feels like the subdivision itself would support such a minimum upgrade. He
stated he does not expect for this to be for him solely as Councilmember Kuhn
suggested, but for any other developer that would want to do this. He stated there
does need to be some regulation done and he was notified that these street lights
need to be painted every 15 years and would say that the homes’ association
would be willing to take that responsibility, but leave it at that.
Councilmember Pflumm asked for delta costs between the City’s standard and
what he is providing.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated City Engineer Wesselschmidt has that information.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the cost for a standard post top street light
placed in the City’s residential subdivisions is approximately $2,500. He stated to
put in a downtown style light, it will cost around $4,000. He stated Mr. Davidson
is proposing that he cover all of the additional up front costs, in case there was
some type of a knockdown and they were not able to get the culpable parties’
insurance company to cover that cost, then the City would have to bear that cost.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the street signs are a fairly minimal cost,
however they have a higher incident of knockdowns and lean-overs. He stated a
street sign installation typically costs the City about $200.00 and to go with this
more decorative sign, it would cost about $1,500.00.
Mayor Meyers asked for staff’s recommendation.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that staff’s recommendation is to deny
this request. He stated, as was stated at the committee meeting, he would
commend Mr. Davidson for wanting to look at doing something to upgrade the
PAGE 44
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
subdivisions within the City of Shawnee. He stated that currently, the City is
using the downtown lighting in somewhat of a unique situation in the downtown
areas and in the City parks, along with one other commercial development,
Shawnee Crossing, which will have somewhat of a downtown look itself. He
stated the street signs actually are in one location – Shawnee Crossings.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated there is one exception with the developer of
the Forest Park Estates subdivision. He stated they requested a black light fixture
and that is the only location within the City that has black light poles in the
residential areas. He stated one of the stipulations on this development, was that
the developer provide a couple extra poles to cover knockdowns over the span of
10 or so years. He stated he thinks they have already used up those light poles,
but it is a much hillier subdivision.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the reasons for denial: 1) for the uniqueness;
and 2) due to the additional cost of maintaining these above-standard fixtures.
Councilmember Pflumm asked for the difference in the number of light poles and
street signs for Forest Park Estates and Belle Meade Farms.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that Belle Meade Farms is a smaller
subdivision and he projected eight (8) street lights. He stated Forest Park Estates
probably has around 20 to 25 street lights. He stated Belle Meade Farms is
estimated to have eight (8) street lights and five (5) street signs.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated he would think that the added property tax issue that
these upper end home subdivisions bring to the City, would well be worth it to the
City, if and when a knockdown would occur. He presented a picture of a
subdivision in Shawnee and noted the very basic street lights. He stated his
passion is to bring the City’s standards up somewhat higher. He stated it is
always a big thing for cities to bring in big corporations and national retailers, so
it would be nice for the people who can afford these types of homes to actually
find them a place in the City of Shawnee to their liking to make their home.
BRAD DAVIDSON presented a picture showing more of the finished product
and stated this picture was taken in Mission Hills. He stated these pictures show
exactly the outcome of what he wants his end result to look like. He stated for the
benefit of those who were not present at the committee meeting, there will be
street trees planted all along the subdivision every 60 feet. He stated he sees the
streets lined in Red Oaks.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to deny the
request to use decorative street signs and street lights in the Reserve of Belle
Meade.
PAGE 45
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Pflumm stated he wanted to bring up the point that these items
look really nice and is for anything the Council can do to make Shawnee look
better, especially when it does not cost the City anything, because long term they
are talking extremely minimal dollars with eight poles.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked how many poles on a street posted at 25 mph in
a small subdivision end up getting whacked.
BRAD DAVIDSON answered very few.
Mayor Meyers stated they just heard City Engineer Wesselschmidt state that in a
short time period they already replaced two poles in another subdivision, but
asked how often this type of incidence takes place.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt deferred to Traffic Engineer Sherfy.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy stated he tried to pull some of those numbers together and
it was rather difficult. He stated on an average, he would say they probably have
two dozen 14-foot residential street light poles knocked down each year in all of
Shawnee.
Councilmember Tubbesing asked roughly how many residential miles would that
cover.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy did not respond to the question. He stated they can reset
a lot of those, without damage to the poles. He stated he can not speak to how
these poles are going to fall.
Mayor Meyers stated he thinks they can say it is an occurrence and not
uncommon.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy stated that sign posts are actually more frequent and a lot
of times the sign posts happen while the subdivision is getting built, so one
stipulation he would have in even considering something like this would be to
install the decorative signs after the houses are constructed. He stated he believes
they replaced in the Grey Oaks subdivision, multiple signs many times because of
the contractor’s construction trucks.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated that brings up something he thought about when City
Engineer Wesselschmidt called him earlier today. He stated most of the knockdowns do occur during construction. He stated he thinks if the subdivision is 50
percent complete and there is a sign or street light knocked down on a lot which is
under construction, it would be the responsibility of either of the association,
and/or that contractor on that lot. He stated for the 50 percent lots that are already
built up and a sign is knocked down during construction, but it is a completed lot,
PAGE 46
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
he would like to think that would be covered under a normal City situation of a
knock-down.
Councilmember Sandifer asked Mr. Davidson if his homes’ association would not
be interested in entertaining a situation of possibly having insurance or a bond to
cover these things in case there are any damages. He stated they could either pay
for them or have some type of insurance in their homes’ association to cover all
the fixtures on their streets.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated that is a good question and he has not investigated
that, but asked the same thing to City Engineer Wesselschmidt when City
knockdowns occur. He asked if the City has insurance that covers these hit and
runs.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt replied that basically the City does not. He stated
the City is reimbursed for such things, when there is actually a traffic ticket given
and an insurance claim is performed.
BRAD DAVIDSON stated Councilmember Pflumm stated it would be nice to
upgrade the City with no cost to the City. He stated he gets that question asked of
him all the time, people wanting him to build them a $500,000 home for $100,000
and he just can not do that. He stated it costs money to make things look nicer,
but he feels with the property taxes received to the City from this subdivision, it
well pays for itself.
A roll call vote was taken.
Therefore the motion read:
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by
Councilmember Kuhn, moved to deny the request to use decorative street signs
and street lights in the Reserve of Belle Meade. The motion carried 5-3, with
Councilmembers Scott, Sawyer, Goode, Kuhn, and Novosel voting aye, and
Councilmembers Pflumm, Sandifer, and Tubbesing voting nay.
c)
Consider a Design-Build Team for the Justice Center and Fire Station #2.
Councilmember Goode stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
Council approve staff's recommendation to forward the Request for Proposal for
the Justice Center and Fire Station #2 to each of the following four Design-Build
teams: McCown Gordon Construction/Hoefer Wysocki Architects, LLC; J.E.
Dunn Construction/DLR Group; The Konrath Group-Law/Treanor Architects,
P.A.; and Turner Construction/Hollis & Miller Architects.
Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to
approve staff's recommendation to forward the Request for Proposal for the
Justice Center and Fire Station #2 to each of the following four Design-Build
teams: McCown Gordon Construction/Hoefer Wysocki Architects, LLC; J.E.
PAGE 47
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Dunn Construction/DLR Group; The Konrath Group-Law/Treanor Architects,
P.A.; and Turner Construction/Hollis & Miller Architects.
The motion carried
8-0.
d)
Consider the State Legislative Program.
Councilmember Goode stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
Council approve the 2006 Legislative Program.
Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to approve
the 2006 Legislative Program.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he would like to reiterate that the streamline tax
is a horrible law and should not actually be a law they use in the State of Kansas.
He stated the eminent domain issue, which is something that is both sensitive as
well as important at times for the growth of municipalities and counties, is going
to be one that changes this year and he thinks it would be a little like a ostrich in
the sand for the Council to sit there and not change it. He stated if they do not sit
there and say to what extent they are willing to go, as the Chamber of Commerce
did in their statement, which was to say they do not want it to change, but
knowing that it probably will and here are the tolerance levels they have to allow
it to go. He stated that to sit there and act like it is not going to happen, all their
statements are going to be ignored.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the eminent domain law in the State of Kansas
will change in this legislative session and for them to sit there and ignore that or
just sit there and ask that they do not change it means they will just be ignored.
He highly encouraged the Council to consider the motion, as made either by the
Chamber of Commerce or they can talk about it and draw something tonight in
discussion, but for them to sit there and act like it is not going to happen is
foolhardy.
Mayor Meyers stated he does not disagree with Councilmember Tubbesing. He
stated it sounds like the legislature is going to take some type of action on
eminent domain and that has been communicated to them quite often and it
sounds like serious talk. He stated at the same time, he does not know if they
want to change what they have stated currently and say that they do not want to
see any change and still promote the City standpoint on the importance of having
eminent domain powers for their Governing Body.
Mayor Meyers continued that he thinks if they change it to say this is what is
acceptable to them, and they often see 20 various opinions as to why a resident
might not want a certain development to take place, this could end up being one
of those situations where if they say they will accept a change up to one point and
another entity says they will accept a change up to another point, he does not
think it gives the legislature a strong indication as to what exactly is acceptable or
not acceptable. He stated he does think if they can get as many entities to show
PAGE 48
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
they do not want to see change, or if there is going to be change, they try to make
it as minimal as possible, he personally believes that is the best route to go.
Mayor Meyers stated he would not be in favor of changing the language at this
point. He stated he does agree with Councilmember Tubbesing and thinks there is
going to be action taken. He stated he does not know what that action is and
hopes it is as minimal as possible, as far as how it effects how they are able to
handle their City government issues with regard to eminent domain.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated he would ask that they consider the Chamber of
Commerce’s position, that the stipulation is essentially, ‘Please don’t change it,
but if you do, here are the three things we are willing to deal with or accept’. He
stated he does not think the Council should go to the third one, which is basically
supporting paying the buyout up to 125 percent of the value, though he would
have a hard time understanding why the Council would not support the other two.
He stated they could either hold a public hearing or have it pass by super majority.
He asked when they are taking someone’s private land, when would they not hold
a public hearing or when would they not want it to be a super majority, because it
is that important of a decision.
Councilmember Kuhn stated that implies that by saying to the State that they do
not think that the right to use eminent domain or the right to make the decision
whether it should be used, should remain at a city level. She stated that does not
in any way imply that the Council does not support having open public hearings
or would not support opportunities such as those.
Councilmember Kuhn stated what it says, is that it needs to stay at a city level and
a city needs to decide what the appropriate action and reaction is to the request for
eminent domain. She stated it is a whole different ballgame. She stated they can
not go to someone and say to them, ‘Hey, you are probably going to change the
law, so let me show you my entire hand and tell you what I am willing to take and
I am not going to complain about later’. She stated they need to go to them with
the strongest possible statement of what they need and request and then from
there, negotiate. She stated they surely do not go in with a weakened position.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the power of eminent domain is not just
something that the cities have the authority to do, but is provided to them by the
State. He stated the State already creates the law that allows them, so it is not
something they have an inherent right to, as the State allows and provides them
the power through State law to use eminent domain.
Councilmember Pflumm stated it is probably a Federal law that is not restricted
by our State at the current time.
Councilmember Goode stated from what he read in the Kansas City Star this
morning, this is going to be a big issue at this new legislature meeting. He stated
PAGE 49
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
as far as he is concerned, if this goes in the way it is going in, he does not see any
reason with what they have entered into this would have any bearing on the final
conclusion as to what they come up with in Topeka as far as the State is
concerned.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated if he is unsupported by every other Council
member, he will accept that.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember
Sandifer, moved to approve the 2006 Legislative Program. The motion carried 80.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
a)
Stormwater Utility – Fairway Hills Homes Association.
GENE RUSSELL, 13039 W. 74th Street, handed out a document that he wished to
discuss with the Governing Body. He stated he is the President of the Fairway Hills
Homes Association which is generally located at 71st and Blackfish. He stated that over
one year ago, the City Council passed a stormwater utility for the purpose of collecting
funds to be used to improve the conditions in Shawnee relating to stormwater.
GENE RUSSELL stated that since the assessment was passed and funds are now being
collected, he thought except for the fact that they took a lot of time this evening on a
controversial topic, now might be a good time to forward his thoughts concerning the use
of those funds.
GENE RUSSELL stated the Shawnee City Line, which he believes has done a good job
of informing people about the new stormwater utility, talks about three different things.
He stated it talks about maintaining the stormwater sewer system and providing flood
protection; generating funding for increased inspection, cleaning, or repairs to the system
and other efforts needed for their NPS/APA stormwater permit; and, also provides the
system improvements, not funded through the current Parks and Pipes. He referred to an
excerpt from the Mill Creek Study which some of them may have heard something about.
This area that is crosshatched is directly in the middle of the Fairway Hills Homes
Association.
GENE RUSSELL stated they have five detention facilities and a stream running through
their property in their common area. He stated he is submitting this to the Governing
Body for the simple fact that it clearly addresses an item that he would like to make sure
the Council considers as the stormwater utilities are discussed this year. He stated he has
devoted a considerable amount of time to understand the issue this past year, including
discussions with Project Engineer Gregory and Public Works Director Freyermuth.
GENE RUSSELL stated that because of their detention facilities and people he has talked
to, he understands the Mill Creek Study, which was started in 1997 and completed in
PAGE 50
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
2001 and it was worked on until just six months ago by Burns and McDonnell after funds
were depleted to try to update it, and is finished for all intents and purposes from the
County. He stated Andy Sauer from the County and Kent Lage have talked to him about
certain areas like this and Fairway Hills which was approved in 1998 and the
development was completed probably around 2000, yet there is an area that still needs to
be considered for improvement.
GENE RUSSELL stated one of the things he noted in reviewing the project works for the
Mill Creek Study, is City Engineer Wesselschmidt asked Kent Lager a couple of times if
there would be funds available to go back for new developments and update these studies
for new developments where there are no topographic changes. He stated at the time,
Kent said it was expensive and beyond the scope and probably would not be done.
GENE RUSSELL stated now comes the chance for the City to consider how to use the
funds of the assessment being collected and in conversations with Public Works Director
Freyermuth and Project Engineer Gregory, he understands that the City staff is fairly
busy with a lot of development items and he is not sure what the consideration is going to
be for how to use this assessment. He stated he would encourage the City Council to
advance the thought of increasing engineering staff and/or completing studies like this, in
addition to things that have already been discussed for the use of these funds. He stated
that is the purpose of his comments this evening and thanked the Governing Body for
their time.
Councilmember Pflumm stated that actually the first year of the stormwater utility does
bring on four additional maintenance individuals.
Public Works Director Freyermuth added that there is also one new manager position.
GENE RUSSELL stated that is what he talked to Project Engineer Gregory about and he
was gracious enough to come to their facility a couple times to look at the conditions. He
stated they have some improvements to make with silt infiltration and there is two or
three feet that need to be removed. He stated there is a stream along one of the detention
facilities that has significant erosion. He stated they have talked to the Northeast
Watershed Conservation people about help with the funding.
GENE RUSSELL stated earlier they were talking about the homes’ associations and
some earlier developments. He stated he thinks the advancement in what he saw in the
proposals tonight on what the requirements are for new developments are great. He
stated he thinks a lot of things were passed in 2000 and 2001 by the City Council to try to
encourage responsible development. He stated he thinks that is great and has seen a lot
of advancements. He stated he wants to make sure they are not caught in the middle,
where this is a relatively new development, but because of the Mill Creek Study this was
the only section shown to him. He stated he thinks a picture is worth a thousand words.
He stated there is an area that needs to be updated and the way it is being shown right
now, is there is a number of homes that are potentially impacted and they do not even
PAGE 51
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
know what that that impact is. He stated those are the types of things he would like to see
the City consider using.
GENE RUSSELL stated he did talk to Project Engineer Gregory and he did mention the
additional maintenance staff. He stated his thought is to replace a couple maintenance
people for another engineer would go a long way for a lot of the development within the
City to give them additional staffing to help address some of these things as they are
brought to the City.
Councilmember Goode stated this is a relatively new development. He stated they were
supposed to have a handle on things in 1998 or they would not have troubles like this
popping up now. He asked what they did not do right in 1998 that is now causing these
problems.
GENE RUSSELL stated that is why he wanted to make sure that the City Council knows
these things are out there. He stated it is his understanding that the Mill Creek Study is a
lot more conservative and was supposed to address advancement, as well as current
conditions. He stated that because it is a little more conservative, that is the reason for
some of encroachment and there are some other things as well. He stated a lot of it
comes down to a lot of development happening in Shawnee and there is going to be a lot
of future development.
GENE RUSSELL stated the baseline for the City ordinances in 4600 and Sections 12, 16,
and 17, all depend on current and efficient baselines for which to base decisions with the
Planning staff for decisions. He stated he thinks this is one of the areas where the City
could be a little more proactive. He stated he does not know if Public Works Director
Freyermuth or Project Engineer Gregory agree with him, but he does feel getting
additional engineering support might go a long way in trying to make some decisions.
He stated he would be willing to talk about that as well when it comes up for discussion
at a Finance or Public Works committee meeting.
Councilmember Goode stated he appreciates this information, but it really caught him by
surprise as this is a relatively new development. He stated the City is spending a lot of
money on this issue and getting a lot of help from the County.
GENE RUSSELL stated the point is that this is an area of change they know about and
with the change it needs to be updated. He stated once it is updated, it might fall out that
it might be better than thought, but nevertheless, it is something that whenever he talks to
someone whether it be the Conservation Commission or the Kansas Department of
Agriculture, the first thing they ask is if they are going to pay to do a water study, and he
thinks there is one almost done here, so it would be nice they could figure out a way to
use the knowledge and the staff to generate this first one and finish up sections like this.
Mayor Meyers thanked Mr. Russell for his comments.
b)
Cable Television in Shawnee.
PAGE 52
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
CHARLES HAMMER, 4829 Black Swan Circle, stated he is bringing this to the Council
because he can not think of anyone else to bring it to. He stated he has lived 40 years in
Shawnee and paid bills to a cable television monopoly for nearly 20 years. He stated the
Johnson County monopoly’s name has differed over the years and today it is Time
Warner. He stated that since 1996, the deal has always been the same. He stated they
charged him any price they care to because they have no competition.
CHARLES HAMMER stated that Everest Connections has a franchise to wire Shawnee
and thus began a little competition with Time Warner, but three different monopoly
companies are stifling this attempt. He stated Steve Powell, the City of Shawnee’s Rightof-Way Technician, told him it seems unlikely that Everest can complete the wiring of
Shawnee in the five year period required. He stated he is beginning to wonder if that will
ever happen. He stated a major obstacle to Everest in older neighborhoods is one of the
three monopolies - the Kansas City Power and Light Company (KCP&L), which refuses
Everest the same access to its power poles that it long ago provided for Time Warner.
CHARLES HAMMER stated KCP&L allows Everest to apply for use of poles in a group
and the groups take quite a long while to get approved. He stated that nearly always there
is much make-ready costly replacement of many poles and other improvements, work
that is done by KCP&L at Everest’s expense. He stated decades will pass before Everest
can reach older neighborhoods like his in Black Swan Estates. He wonders if Everest is
going to last that long.
CHARLES HAMMER stated that in outlying neighborhoods, two other monopolies SBC
Telephone and Time Warner Cable itself refuse to cooperate with Everest in joint
trenching to install all these services underground at the same time. He stated the City of
Shawnee asked for joint trenching, but did not get it. He stated that by putting all the
wires in the same ditch it makes sense for neighborhoods, but not for monopoly
corporations. He stated that possibly SBC Telephone’s reluctance to cooperate,
developed because Everest competes with the telephone company’s DSL internet service.
CHARLES HAMMER stated a moment ago the City Council awarded sort of a franchise
to SBC Telephone. He stated it occurred to him that if Shawnee wants joint trenching
with SBC in the developing neighborhoods, they might think about that franchise before
they award it so easily. He stated he is now distressed of the cost of a broadband internet
connect to his own home. He stated he wants it, but his neighbor pays more than $40.00
per month for Time Warner’s Road Runner. He stated it is absurd that with their TV
service already installed, Time Warner charges so much for broadband using the very
same cable. He stated he suspects that Shawnee businesses find the charge outrageous
and smaller firms never get that service. He stated lack of it hampers business
development in this City.
CHARLES HAMMER stated he is amazed that he must pay nearly $50.00 monthly for a
TV package that includes only one movie channel free of advertising and a channel that
seldom shows a film made after 1960. He stated he does not want 9/10ths of the channels
PAGE 53
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
in his package and can not choose a couple of good channels that Time Warner offers as
they are just not in his package. He stated the monopoly gives people no choice.
CHARLES HAMMER stated it is amazing to him that Johnson County has so long
tolerated this. He stated he realizes that monopoly is an ugly word and apologized for the
necessity of using it, but that is what they are dealing with. He stated Kansas City Power
and Light is also a monopoly, but concerning the price it charges for power, it is a
regulated public utility. He stated that Time Warner is an unregulated and predatory
monopoly.
CHARLES HAMMER stated more than incidentally a 2001 consumer union report says
that satellite TV can not offer real competition. He stated satellite fills a niche market
and has already proven it does not compete well where cable is available. He stated that
tonight he is asking his City Council to counter these attacks on free enterprise. He stated
Shawnee should cooperate with nearby cities and also call in Johnson County elected
officials and their State legislators to end this outrage.
CHARLES HAMMER continued that perhaps the biggest of these outrages is this; right
now, Time Warner charges a high rate to residents without access to Everest connections.
He stated the moment Everest moves in, the Time Warner rate drops to beat the
competition. He stated if Everest wired Black Swan Estates, he could get his $50.00
monthly TV service from Everest for $38.25, plus a free digital box for which Time
Warner charges about $8.00. He stated at that juncture, Time Warner might concede to
give him a better deal. Meanwhile, all the extra dollars from Shawnee subscribers give
Time Warner an edge in overpowering Everest connections.
CHARLES HAMMER stated to kill off competition, Time Warner gives certain Lenexa
residents a better deal than what most of Shawnee gets. He asked why they should
tolerate that. He stated he is asking tonight his own Ward 1 Council representatives to
get him an even break. He stated all the councilmembers from wards that pay the high
rates have a special interest in reforming Time Warner. He stated this City Council
should ask that all their residents and businesses be offered the lowest rate available
anywhere in this County. He stated that unless Time Warner agrees, the City of Shawnee
should end all dealings with the monopoly and urge other cities to do the same. He stated
that surely, a city of 50,000 people has some leverage.
CHARLES HAMMER stated the Time Warner franchise to use Shawnee public rights of
way expires in 2007. He stated Shawnee could renegotiate that franchise in 2007 to
guarantee better behavior by the monopoly. He stated that next Shawnee and nearby
cities should pressure KCP&L to give Everest better access to its power poles. He stated
that is important to him, because Everest could never trench through the rocks and hills of
Black Swan Estates to install their cable.
CHARLES HAMMER stated that cities should also use their leverage to demand
compliance from Time Warner and SBC on trenching in developing neighborhoods. He
stated these monopolies should be required to cooperate, so the same trench could be
PAGE 54
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
used for all utilities. He stated he suspects that even if Everest does finally wire all of
Johnson County, there will be what is called a merger. He stated if Time Warner’s anticompetition strategy works, they will buy out and eliminate Everest.
CHARLES HAMMER stated the Consumer’s Union Reports stated that major cable
companies have never competed with each other, instead merged repeatedly creating
dominant national players that permeate the industry. He presented an example of the
result and stated the cable industry was deregulated in 1996 ad showed the vertical line
on the right. He stated the yellow line shows the consumer price index. He stated the
blue line is the price of cable TV nationally. He stated the Council can see that after it
was deregulated in 1996, it jumped three times the rate than the consumer price index
jumped.
Mayor Meyers interjected. He stated he does have a choice of cable companies in
Shawnee and hears Mr. Hammer’s frustration. He stated they all are in agreement that
they want the people of this City to have as many options as possible. He stated Mr.
Hammer is saying that the package he receives at his home from Time Warner is not
available to him for the same price.
CHARLES HAMMER answered that is exactly right. He stated he found that hard to
believe and called a couple Everest salesmen who informed him about that and he finally
got a salesman from Time Warner on the phone and asked her why it is that some people
get lower rates than others for the same services. He stated the Time Warner salesman
informed him that when there is competition, it is then a different matter.
Councilmember Pflumm stated most likely the reason why the consumer price index is a
lot lower slope than the cost of cable providers in the City at deregulation, is because at
that time, there was not competition in all those areas.
CHARLES HAMMER stated there is not competition now either. He stated some of
Shawnee has Everest and a lot does not. He stated he does not think a lot ever will,
because Everest is having great frustrations in using these power poles. He stated to be
able to come through old neighborhoods, it is very difficult to do that with trenching, but
can do it easily enough in new neighborhoods.
CHARLES HAMMER stated he would point out that most companies in technologies,
i.e. computers, television sets, and cell phones, make their products not just better, but
cheaper and monopoly cable companies do the exact opposite. He stated they make it
more expensive. He stated he wondered on this issue of broadband internet, he wonders
if Shawnee could do what some other cities are doing. He stated the City of Philadelphia
and the little City of North Kansas City, area are installing their own city-owned fiber
optic high speed broadband cable networks. He stated that customers will get broadband
rates as low as $14.95 per month in North Kansas City and $16.00 in Philadelphia. He
asked the Governing Body to compare that to the $40.00 his neighbor pays Time Warner.
PAGE 55
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
CHARLES HAMMER stated that Philadelphia planners say their network will break
even on costs in the fourth year and Alice Herman, Executive Director of the North
Kansas City Business Council, called a public network a boon to city business. He stated
even if Everest succeeds in wiring Shawnee and Time Warner does not buy them out, it
will leave two cable companies in Johnson County, a situation the Consumer’s Union
Report describes as duopoly. He stated a duopoly is somewhat worse than an oligopoly.
He stated it is easy for two companies to wink and nod and keep prices high. He stated if
Johnson County had five or six competing cable companies, he would say ‘Fine, that will
do’. Meanwhile, they do not have to sit on their hands and let this monopoly exploit us,
Shawnee should follow the example of Philadelphia and North Kansas City, a city onefifth Shawnee’s size, and build their own broadband network.
CHARLES HAMMER thanked the Council for letting him speak this evening.
Mayor Meyers thanked Mr. Hammer for coming to the meeting this evening and sharing
this information. He stated that everyone on the Council hears his frustration and assured
him he provided the Governing Body with pertinent information to look at and respond to
in the future, when they deal with some of these different marketers to the residents.
CHARLES HAMMER asked the Council to pinch Time Warner somewhat and see if
they wake up.
STAFF ITEMS
19.
CONSIDER 71ST AND PFLUMM ROAD SIGNALIZATION STUDY AND
REPORT, P.N. 3318.
Mayor Meyers stated that the report indicates that a traffic signal is warranted. The study
included two design alternatives for the signal, which are listed in the memo. Staff
recommends that the traffic signal design proceed with a video camera detection system
and no concrete inlays, for a total project cost estimate of $190,000. A neighborhood
meeting was held on Tuesday, January 3rd, with abutting property owners to review the
proposed intersection signalization project. The owners of one property attended and they
were not in favor of a signal at this location.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy stated that the traffic study was completed by Shafer, Kline, and
Warren, who are the consultants for the project. He stated what they found from the
study and from the counts taken, is that one of the eight traffic signal warrants was met at
that location. He stated that warrant is the roadway network warrant, which very simply
means they have an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area, meaning they currently
have a four-way stop.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy continued with another traffic warrant, the traffic accident
warrant, which has more significant merit, as there were six traffic accidents at this
location in 2005 and five accidents in 2004. He stated it has gone up by about one wreck
per year.
PAGE 56
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Traffic Engineer Sherfy stated the traffic accident warrant has two components. One of
those is accident rates and it says there has to be five traffic accidents in a twelve month
period, typically corrected by a traffic signal. He stated they do meet that part, however
the traffic accident warrant also has a volume component that is not met at this location
and it was just two cars short. He stated the staff has looked at the one accident warrant
that is met and the accident warrant as being much closer to being met, almost meeting
two warrants, and recommend proceeding with a traffic signal at this location.
Councilmember Scott asked where the money is located in the budget for this traffic
signal.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy answered it is on the CIP for this year with a $260,000 dollar
amount.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated they met with some of the neighbors and he personally
passes through this intersection every day, at least a couple times. He stated he
understands the engineering purity of wanting to put in a traffic signal, so that all of
Pflumm is signalized all the way down, but as the warrants demonstrate, the only warrant
that actually says the City has to do this, is really the engineering purity of the situation.
He stated the fact of the matter is that this is $260,000 that the City does not need to
spend right now, per the City’s own study. He stated he understands that traffic lights do
have value and in some particular areas control certain traffics, but the accidents that
have been in this location have all been from-stop accidents and not accidents where
people go blowing through the stop signs. He stated they have all been at extremely low
rates of speed, but the minute they put that light in, they will have people cutting down
south on Pflumm trying to beat the light. He stated that increases the possibility of
having a high impact collision.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated there is not a need for this and the warrants do not say
they need to or should even do it necessarily, except for the engineering purity model.
Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to deny the
traffic signal at 71st and Pflumm Road.
Mayor Meyers asked City Attorney Rainey if they have staff recommending approval of
signalization because of it meeting warrants and if there is another accident at this
location, will the City be placed in a liable situation for a lawsuit, based on warrants
being met and a signal being requested by staff. He stated he thinks in his experience as
a councilmember when this item came up several times in the past, any time a warrant is
met and the Council is being asked or recommended by staff to install a signal, it still
does not mean they have to approve it, but does mean they have created liability for the
City if something does happen at this intersection and they do not proceed because a
warrant has been met.
PAGE 57
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the singular warrant has been in place ever since they
did Blackfish and Pflumm.
Mayor Meyers stated this signalization item has been brought up in the past.
City Attorney Rainey responded that he believes, and his immediate reaction to this item
is, that this would be a discretionary act and therefore would not create liability. He
stated there could be instances in which it could, but he will certainly look into it further
before he gives any more response.
Mayor Meyers stated he does not want to put the City into a situation where they meet
warrants and deny staff’s recommendations. He stated he knows in the past the Council
has had information given to them where they could be liable in some situations.
City Attorney Rainey stated there has been at least one instance in which significant
litigation was involved with the City, arising out of a failure to have traffic signals
installed. He stated it was a long time ago, however in general, they do have exemption
for areas where it is discretionary and it sounds to him like this would be a discretionary
action that would give the City immunity or exemption from litigation. He stated he
should really look into it further.
Councilmember Sandifer stated from his understanding, the staff is recommending this,
because that is the only stop sign on Pflumm. He stated there is lighted intersections
every place down Pflumm. He stated if they were to take two stop signs off the north and
south sides and put in some type of indication, letting people know that they were
missing and just leave this as a straight thoroughfare, there would not be any
recommendations for light at that particular intersection.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy responded that he believes they would meet the warrants for a
four-way stop at this location with the volumes. He stated he would like to look at that,
but would haste the decision to remove the stop signs in the north/south directions.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated he would add that staff is recommending this
and this is coming forward based on completing the project on the CIP because of the
accident rates at this location. He stated if the combination of accidents and traffic
volumes make it to where it does not meet that warrant, even though there are a
significant number of accidents at a location and any time there are five at one
intersection the staff takes note to take some type of action, to study it and see if it needs
to have some type of adjustment to what type of traffic control they have at the location.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is really the major emphasis for why it has
been on the CIP for a couple years now. He stated it was actually on the CIP before, as
mentioned earlier, but was delayed at the time they did the Blackfish and Pflumm signal.
He stated this was delayed to do it two or three years out, as opposed to when they
reviewed it at that time. He stated it is not necessarily just because of the progression.
He stated that happens to be the only warrant that is truly satisfied at this point. He stated
PAGE 58
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
the two cars off, out of about 100 roughly, for volume on 71st Street in one hour is a fairly
minor amount of missing the volume on a safety or accident warrant. He stated that is the
reason staff recommends going forward with this.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated the signal is not required or even necessarily even
suggested by the studies and just because it is in the CIP that they can spend money, they
can use their judgment as a Council not to spend money when they are not being told
they should or need to spend money.
Councilmember Kuhn stated, assuming they are two cars off of it being warranted, does
that just mean when they sit down next year to do this, common sense says to her with
the growth of this City they are going to have more than two cars at this location.
Councilmember Pflumm stated they could also have fewer wrecks at that location.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is exactly correct. He stated it would mean
that the warrant could again be reviewed at a later date and may or may not be met at that
time, as they may have the volume, but not have the accident pattern. He stated the
current pattern seems to be one more per year over the past three years, but that may
change and not continue.
Traffic Engineer Sherfy stated they did count it twice. He stated they missed it by two
and they thought they might be able to come up with three more cars, or he could have
jump on the hose three times, but they actually missed it by about 20 cars the second
time. He stated they ran it with the number they had and also in 2000 when this was last
reviewed and studied. The volume on Pflumm went down maybe 100 cars and the
volume on 71st Street went up about 50 cars, but over five years, this intersection,
surprisingly to him, has stayed pretty flat. He stated there is really not a lot of
development left that he sees triggering unusual growth rates on either of those corridors.
He stated they could count the same intersection tomorrow and get their three cars, but
for the most part it has been very static there.
Councilmember Goode stated he has heard about people from Olathe going out to
Pflumm and coming in all the way in to Shawnee on Pflumm Road. He stated that is
where the increase in traffic is coming.
A roll call vote was taken.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember
Sandifer, moved to deny the traffic signal at 71st and Pflumm Road. The motion carried
6-2, with Councilmembers Pflumm, Goode, Kuhn, Novosel, Sandifer, and Tubbesing
voting aye, and Councilmembers Scott and Sawyer voting nay.
20.
CONSIDER BIDS FOR FOURTEEN (14) CITY VEHICLES THROUGH MID
AMERICA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC PURCHASING (MACPP) FOR THE 2006
MODEL YEAR.
PAGE 59
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Mayor Meyers stated that bids were taken by MACPP on September 20, 2005, for the
2006 vehicle bid. The MACPP bid with options totals $465,104. A memo from staff
listing the items the City has chosen to purchase and a tabulation of bids are included in
the packet for review.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve MACPP
Vehicle Bid, for fourteen (14) vehicles, in the amount of $465,104. The motion carried
8-0.
21.
CONSIDER QUOTE FOR FOUR (4) THERMAL IMAGING CAMERAS FOR
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Meyers stated that the quote was received in a letter dated December 19, 2005.
Staff recommends that Council accept the quote from the Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc.,
Olathe, Kansas, in the amount of $35,800.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to approve the
quote from Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc., Olathe, Kansas, for four cameras for $8,950
each, for a total of $35,800. The motion carried 8-0.
22.
CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
HOLLIDAY DRIVE, LOCUST TO I-435, P.N. 3302.
Mayor Meyers stated that the preliminary plans have been submitted by Burns and
McDonnell. The total estimated cost of the project is $7,000,000. The total cost is funded
entirely by Deffenbaugh Industries through a benefit district.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to approve the
preliminary plans for P.N. 3302, for the improvement of Holliday Drive, Locust to I-435
at a total estimated cost of $7,000,000. The motion carried 8-0.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
23.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JANUARY 9, 2006,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,704,241.33.
Councilmember Tubbesing stated they are up about $2 million this month from normal
and asked what got paid down.
Finance Director Kidney stated that by looking at the list, he does not see anything
specific, except for some last year end bills being paid up which is normal. He stated
also starting in January, there are some large items that would normally be paid in
January that are coming out. He stated the large figure last month was due to the
principal and interest on the bond payment.
PAGE 60
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to approve the
semi-monthly claim for January 9, 2006, in the amount of $5,704,241.33. The motion
carried 8-0.
24.
MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
There were no miscellaneous Council items.
25.
CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION.
Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to recess to
executive session for approximately 45 minutes for the purpose of receiving
attorney/client privileged communication, with the City Council meeting to reconvene in
the Council Chambers at the conclusion of the executive session. The motion carried 8-0,
and the meeting recessed at 10:57 p.m.
Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to conclude
the executive session. The motion carried 8-0.
Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to reconvene
the meeting. The motion carried 8-0, and the meeting reconvened at 11:42 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to adjourn. The motion
carried 8-0, and the meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
_________________________________
Carol Gonzales, City Manager