City Council

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF MISSION HILLS, KANSAS May 13, 2024 The City Council of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas held a meeting on May 13, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. PRESIDING: Mayor David W. Dickey PRESENT: Councilpersons Bill Bruning, Gregg Davidson, Barbara Nelson, Eden Thorne, and Andy Weed ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Lee, City Administrator (by phone); Meghan Woolbright, Assistant to the City Administrator; Jill Clifton, City Planner; Jason Nickles, City Clerk; Anna Krstulic, City Attorney; Spencer Jones, City Treasurer; Chief Byron Roberson, Prairie Village Police Department (PVPD); and Chief Steve Chick, Consolidated Fire District No. 2 (CFD2) VISITORS: Sean Gordon, Lawrence, KS; Mike McQuaid, Fairway, KS and Tim McQuaid, Mission Hills, KS CALL TO ORDER Mayor Dickey called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and the pledge of allegiance was recited. GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Dickey greeted visitors and noted that the order of the agenda would be adjusted to accommodate the interests of the visitors. Mayor Dickey noted that the meeting would be recorded for the purpose of meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING – April 8, 2024 Councilperson Nelson moved to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2024 meeting. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police Report Chief Roberson referred to the April narrative report and noted the first incident was a theft from an unlocked vehicle that was parked at a residence. He highlighted that sensitive personal documents were stolen in this incident. Councilperson Bruning asked if the report indicated why passports and a birth certificate were left in the unlocked vehicle. Chief Roberson replied that the individual could have been preparing for a trip and opined these types of documents should be kept in a secure location. He added that these types of documents can be fraudulently used or manipulated by the criminal element and reiterated personal documents are highly sensitive and should be secured. Chief Roberson noted there were two incidents of package theft from front 1 porches that appear to be crimes of opportunity. He noted that criminals still take notice and, in some cases, follow delivery trucks and steal unconcealed packages. He encouraged residents to communicate with their delivery providers and request that deliveries be placed out of plain view. Chief Roberson noted in the theft of vehicle incident that the vehicle was not actually stolen but damaged when a suspect entered it, and when the ignition was punched in an attempt to steal it. Chief Roberson added that the April narrative report includes several incidents where the victim only wants a report for insurance purposes and does not desire to prosecute. He noted he consulted with the patrol staff and detectives and there was not a definitive reason why residents are choosing not to prosecute. He added the PVPD encourages victims to prosecute because if they do not then there cannot be charges or a trial if a suspect is identified. He noted that although prosecution is a personal decision, it benefits neighbors and the community, because the suspect could be connected to and charged for additional cases. Councilperson Bruning asked if there is a justifiable concern about the personal risk to seek charges, especially if there could be a trial. Chief Roberson noted that if a case goes to trial, which is very uncommon because the vast majority of these cases are prosecuted by plea deals, then there would be a day in court where the accused can see who is accusing them of a crime. He added that typically burglary and theft cases are prosecuted by a plea deal which holds them accountable. Councilperson Davidson noted the theft of vehicle attempt occurred at 4 pm, which is a busy time of day and adjacent to Belinder Avenue, which is a well-traveled street. Chief Roberson noted that the suspect could have been interested in the contents of the vehicle or the model of vehicle. Councilperson Bruning noted that his home and a neighboring residence were robbed many years ago and the neighbor chose to prosecute and had to face the accused in trial. He opined that the City and PVPD could help educate residents that typically burglary and theft cases are plea deals and in cases that go to trial the victims will be protected. Chief Roberson agreed and noted that he has asked the patrol commander and investigations commander to help educate residents on the prosecution process. He added that general information about cases is a public record. Chief Roberson noted that the PVPD is responsible for keeping the community safe and prosecution holds people accountable for their actions otherwise the suspect could not be charged with any cases and continue to commit crimes. Councilperson Weed noted that there appears to be a disproportionate number of crimes in February, March, and April between Belinder Avenue and State Line Road and between 65th Street and 70th Street. He added that since he lives in this area his neighbors have asked him about specific incidents in their neighborhood and if there is a common thread. Chief Roberson replied that unfortunately there is most likely not a common thread and noted that as the weather gets warmer criminal activity generally increases. He added that this neighborhood is close to State Line Road and savvy criminals know that if they flee across the state line before being stopped by PVPD officers we generally will not be able to pursue them into Kansas City, MO. Chief Roberson shared photos with the Council of the PVPD’s newest piece of technology, the grappler. He noted a few other agencies in Johnson County are also installing the grappler on their vehicles. He explained that the grappler is attached to the front bumper of a patrol car and 2 has two arms that extend to grapple a suspect vehicle then a netting is deployed that wraps up into the suspect’s wheel wells and as the officer’s car is stopped the suspect’s vehicle is stopped. He added that the grappler will be a tool to stop vehicles that are fleeing officers after a crime was committed. Chief Roberson noted that safety and speed limitation policies for using the grappler are being developed. He added that car pursuits are dangerous for officers and citizens and the grappler can stop a chase before it begins. Chief Roberson added the grappler has been added to two Mission Hills and two Prairie Village vehicles and is rated for the Chevrolet Tahoe, which is why the department has selected to purchase Tahoes. He added that officers started grappler training last week and will begin using them in the City. Councilperson Nelson asked if the vehicle being grappled must be in motion. Chief Roberson replied yes and noted that the arms of the grappler contact the vehicle being pursued and the net is released into the wheel well and wrapped around the tires as they turn. He noted when the officers apply the brakes to their vehicle, it slows the grappled vehicle to a stop. Mr. T. McQuaid asked how close the pursued vehicle must be before the grappler can be deployed. Chief Roberson replied approximately six feet. Councilperson Nelson noted many of the streets in the City are windy and narrow and asked if the grappler could be used on them. Chief Roberson replied that deployment on windy streets can be better because it forces the vehicle being pursued to slow their speed. He added that 20 to 25 mph is ideal to deploy the grappler and the goal is to stop a vehicle before it starts to flee and run through traffic stops or intersections, which puts others in danger. Councilperson Nelson asked if the grappler had been used in Mission Hills. Chief Roberson replied no and added that Lenexa and Olathe police departments have stopped several vehicles with grapplers. He noted the grappler technology was first utilized in the southwest and he has observed their development and use over the past few years before recommending their use. Councilperson Nelson asked the cost of a grappler. Chief Roberson noted there is one proprietary company and each grappler costs approximately $2,000 and the nets are replenishable and can be replaced by the officers. He added that officer vehicles currently have stop sticks that are placed in the roadway with the hope that the pursued vehicle will run them over and puncture their tires. Chief Roberson noted that the grappler is a safer alternative to stop sticks, because the officers do not have to exit their vehicle and enter the roadway. Chief Roberson noted ten of the eleven additional license plate readers (LPR) and cameras approved by the Council in Phase 3 have been installed and are active. He noted the power source at the intersection of 56th Street and High Drive is currently an issue and once that issue is resolved that installation will be complete. He opined that Mission Hills per capita has LPR and cameras at more intersections and locations than any other city in Johnson County. He noted the Mayor and Council had previously discussed Phase 4 to include the remaining ingress and egress locations to the City. Mayor Dickey noted that the Council determined to pursue Phase 4 at the Strategic Planning Financial Retreat and noted that City staff would coordinate that effort with the PVPD. Councilperson Weed asked if there is density threshold for server capacity, especially if other communities observe the success the City has had and want to implement a similar program. Chief Roberson replied that other communities have their own systems with separate servers and the systems communicate between agencies. He added that server capacity is managed by data retention policies at each individual agency. He noted that other communities, 3 including Kansas City, MO and Johnson County, are expanding their system network especially when new neighborhoods are being developed. Mayor Dickey thanked Chief Roberson and the PVPD for attending Beverages with Byron, which the City plans to be an annual event. He noted that the Kansas City Country Club (KCCC) will be starting a significant construction project at the end of the summer and will need assistance from PVPD to keep people from trespassing into an active construction site. He noted that given the lack of barriers to the greens along Indian Lane and 63rd Street, walkers frequently trespass onto the KCCC property and doing so during active construction will not be safe. B. Fire District Report Chief Chick noted that he and the Consolidated Fire District No. 2 (CFD2) Board are currently preparing the 2025 budget and will be working with the Board to incorporate budget initiatives. He noted that following a request for qualifications for a remodel and expansion of Station 22 located at 63rd Street and Mission Road, Haren Companies was selected, and he expects the contract to be approved by the Board at their May meeting. He added it is a design build project, so he will be actively involved in the design process. Chief Chick noted that Engine 22, which is the pumper truck that serves this area needs replacement. He added another item for Board approval is replacing Engine 22, which is eleven years old. He noted it will take four years to produce a replacement engine, so this engine will be at the end of its frontline life before it is replaced. Chief Chick noted that CFD2 is fully staffed with one intern who just completed their training through Johnson County Community College’s fire science program. He added upon the intern’s completion of all certifications a final hiring decision will be made. Chief Chick referred to the 1st Quarter report and noted there has been a 35% increase in call volume as call volumes around the district have increased. He noted there were no active fires or fire calls in the City during the 1st quarter. Chief Chick noted that Emergency Medical Service (EMS) call volumes were higher than the previous year and clarified that HAZMAT calls include any kind of hazardous condition calls, such as a gas leak. He noted that Special Ops calls, which are any type of rescue call, remained flat and the All Other calls category, which includes automatic alarms, lift assists, and lock outs were higher than the previous year. Chief Chick noted that the response times break down report shows that both turnout and travel times have significantly decreased over the previous year. He opined that once Mission Road was reopened, CFD2 had more direct routes to residents in the City. Councilperson Nelson noted that she received a call from someone very convincingly claiming to be from the gas company who was concerned that gas had not been used at her home for two months. She added she had received a gas bill for usage during the timeframe the caller suggested, but knew it was a scam when the caller asked for her social security number. Chief Chick noted this type of scam is trending and scammers also sometimes pose as the electric company. He added that when CFD2 receives reports of this nature it is reported to the appropriate police department. Councilperson Weed noted the Emergency Medical Services calls and that lift assist calls are being generated by senior and nursing facilities and asked how those 4 requests are being managed. Chief Chick noted that he has started dialogue with these facilities because there is a liability with lift assists on behalf of the department and the public. He added that if CFD2 responds to a nonemergency call at a nursing home that is staffed with nurses and 24-hour care providers and there is an emergency call then the CFD2 resources would already be engaged. He reiterated that he is having dialogue with these facilities about the appropriate situations for requesting lift assistance and evaluating case by case requests to determine if the service is being abused. Chief Chick added that nursing home residents are residents within CFD2 and if there is a lift assist emergency he wants to provide service, but if there is a nonemergency request, the public is put at risk because resources are not available. Councilperson Weed asked Chief Roberson if the PVPD receives nonemergency lift assist requests. Chief Roberson replied that typically these requests are directed to CFD2. Chief Chick noted that nursing homes have been experiencing staffing challenges like many fields, but individuals are paid to provide care at nursing homes, and he reiterated that the risk to the public for nonemergency calls is not acceptable. Councilperson Bruning noted he previously attended an educational tour of the Fire Station that explained how CFD2 operates and suggested CFD2 offer another event of this nature. Chief Chick noted that a few years ago CFD2 hosted a lunch and learn event for elected officials and offered hosting this event again. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims Ordinance No. 1655 Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Claims Ordinance No. 1655. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. NEW BUSINESS A. 2023 Financial Audit Mr. Gordon noted his firm completed the 2023 audit of the City and referred to the Independent Auditor’s Report opinion paragraph that states the accompanying financial statements present fairly in all material respects, which is the highest and cleanest opinion that can be issued for the City’s financial statements. He added that this opinion reflects very well on the financial and internal control management by the City staff during the calendar year of 2023. Mr. Gordon referred to the Balance Sheet and Income Statement and noted that all assets are up compared to 2022 and all liabilities are down compared to 2022, which demonstrates good financial management by City staff. He added that the City’s bottom line increased in 2023 by a little over $1 million. Councilperson Weed asked if assets include only cash and financial instruments and if physical buildings such as City Hall are included. Mr. Gordon replied that physical assets are included. Mr. Gordon referred to the Notes to the Financial Statements and noted there were no major changes from previous years and no major changes required by the State in 2023. He added that this section documents information on capital assets, long term debt activity that happened over the year and financial changes for the City based on the Kansas Public Employee Retirement System (KPERS). He added the last section of the audit report includes budget activity for each of the other funds of the City. Mr. Gordon noted that there were not any auditor recommendations this year, which reflects well on the financial and internal controls management of the City during this period. 5 Councilperson Weed referred to page seven and asked if the delineated fiscal assets also need to be insured and if the auditors evaluate if the City is adequately protected. Mr. Gordon replied that there is a Statue that requires the auditor to review insurance coverage, limits, and premiums. He noted the City’s insurance carrier would tie the value of coverage to accurate asset values. Councilperson Bruning noted that the City has an insurance policy that covers physical assets including statuary. Councilperson Weed referred to page twenty-eight regarding risk management and noted that larger communities in the region have been targets of cyberattacks. He asked if the auditor’s purview is to analyze if the City is adequately protected against these types of attacks. Mr. Gordon replied that the Statue requires the auditors to verify that the City has risk management coverage, but adequacy of coverage would be determined by the City’s insurance carrier. Councilperson Weed noted the City’s existing reserve funds and asked if other cities have funds specifically for emergency contingency. Mr. Gordon replied yes and noted his firm has consulted with cities to establish guidelines for the percentage of general fund expenses that is appropriate to be held in reserve. Councilperson Weed asked if the State has guidelines on these reserve funds. Mr. Gordon replied there is not a recommendation or requirement from the State. Mayor Dickey gave kudos to the City staff, especially Ms. Fang for their financial management. FINANCIAL REPORT A. April Financial Report B. 1st Quarter Reserve Fund Analysis No additional report was provided. OLD BUSINESS A. Repeat Nuisance Properties Mayor Dickey noted that there are two properties on the repeat nuisance report and since the April Council meeting there have been internal changes to manage repeat nuisance issues. Ms. Woolbright noted the first change is once a property has escalated to the repeat nuisance property list it will continue to be monitored for six months. She noted for example that a property might take immediate action to address a nuisance issue in the fall, but the following spring these same nuisance issues arise. Ms. Woolbright noted that all properties with repeat nuisance issues over the last six months were reviewed. She added that since there are nuisance issues at 2517 W. 68th Street this was cause for it to return to the repeat nuisance list, whereas all other properties previously on the repeat nuisance list did not have cause to return. Ms. Woolbright noted the second change is when there is an active building permit the City inspector will educate the contractor about the presence of nuisance issues. She added that the building inspectors have primarily focused on codes issues during an active building permit with the expectation that nuisance issues will be addressed before the project is finalized. She noted this change will formalize the site review and ensure that a final inspection cannot be issued if there are any outstanding nuisances. She noted that the nuisance lawn at 6510 Indian Lane continues to be abated by the City and there is an active Kansas Gas project at this location so a large portion of 6 the front yard has safety fencing. She added that the nuisance lawn at 2517 W. 68th Street was noticed and has been abated by the property owner. Ms. Woolbright noted 2517 W. 68th Street received a second notice of additional nuisance issues and if these items are not addressed within the abatement window, then the City will address them and issue citations in accordance with the repeat nuisance fine structure that was previously adopted by the Council. Councilperson Nelson asked if either of these properties are occupied. Ms. Woolbright replied neither property is occupied. Mayor Dickey noted the changes to the repeat nuisance list are intended to improve the nuisance monitoring procedures and reduce the impact to neighbors. Councilperson Bruning noted that once a nuisance for lawn height is observed the property owner is provided 10 days to abate the nuisance, so the neighborhood could be impacted for several weeks. He asked if the notice period for the property owner to abate could be reduced. Ms. Krstulic noted that property owners must be provided with a notice period that allows them to request a hearing before the Council to appeal the nuisance violation. She added that only one notice is required for lawn nuisances within a 12-month period, so the City can move to abate without providing additional notice. She referenced the State Statues and noted there could be some flexibility, but five days would most likely be the minimum notice period for nuisance violation. Councilperson Weed asked if there could be a notice escalation for properties that have lawn nuisance year after year. Ms. Krstulic replied that the State Statues require a notice period that allows the property owner an opportunity to abate. Mayor Dickey reiterated that only one notice for lawn nuisance is required in a 12-month period and noted the City could provide 24-hour notice to the property owner before the City abates it. Councilperson Bruning referred to the status report on 6510 Indian Lane and noted the uncertain future of the property and whether this was relevant to neighboring property owners. Ms. Woolbright noted that in this case the neighbors are communicating about the future of the property. Mayor Dickey noted that for the benefit of the other neighbors the City will continue to be vigilant about identifying and addressing nuisances. Councilperson Bruning noted the property is close to Brush Creek and noted concern that animals could inhabit the property if left unattended. He opined that the City should not speculate about the motivations of owners. Ms. Woolbright agreed and noted the intention was to communicate that the City is not certain about the future of the property and the report can be updated. She added that the cosmetic issues at the property can be addressed if the Council would like to pursue that option. She noted that typically the City does not abate cosmetic issues and the weekly visit by the codes inspector is to determine if a cosmetic issue has escalated. Councilperson Weed noted the City’s use of SeeClickFix (SCF) for residents to report and track issues which has been highlighted in the City’s newsletter and asked if there is a point person for managing nuisance issues in the City. Ms. Woolbright noted that the City is complaint driven for nuisances and whether the City receives a complaint by email or phone it is managed through the SCF portal. She added the codes department visits the site and reviews the reported issue and determines if there are any additional nuisances. Ms. Woolbright added she then sends the appropriate notice of violation. She noted in SCF that nuisance issues and no parking sign requests for resident events are private, so there are no updates to the neighborhood map and the reporter is directly communicating with staff. Mayor Dickey noted that SCF is used for many issues including 7 nuisances and down tree limbs and is an efficient means to communicate issues with the City. Councilperson Nelson noted that a resident on Indian Lane had reached out to her regarding the status of this repeat nuisance property. NEW BUSINESS B. Resolution No. 2024 – I: Contract with RS Electric Utility Services for Streetlights as part of the 65th Street Undergrounding Project Councilperson Weed moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-I for a contract with RS Electric Utility Services for the 65th Street undergrounding project streetlights. Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0. C. Resolution No 2024 – J: Design Guideline Revisions – Raised First Floor Elevations, Raised Outdoor Living Areas, and Wings Mayor Dickey noted that the proposed Design Guidelines revisions are extensive and if the Council’s discussion results in a list of questions or suggestions for the Planning Commission then the topic could be returned to the June Council agenda. Ms. Clifton noted that the Planning Commission is proposing revisions to the Design Guidelines regarding raised first floor elevations, raised outdoor living areas, and wings. She added that the changes regarding the raised first floor elevations and outdoor living areas are in response to neighbor complaints following a couple recently built new homes. She noted that Sargent Town Planning (STP) reviewed these new home plans and presented proposed changes to the Planning Commission last year, which are included in the redline version of the Design Guidelines pages 110 and 111. Ms. Clifton referred to the grading and retaining section on page 110, which would incorporate existing language for narrow lots into this section so that these guidelines and recommendations would apply to all properties. She added this revision would address the issue of new homes raising their grade more than necessary. Ms. Clifton noted that STP also recommended including the photo and caption that some natural elevation differences can be resolved by extending the building wall material below the ground floor level. She added that this recommendation would address properties with a natural slope and help the home blend into the surrounding landscaping. Councilperson Weed asked if a specific dimension for raised first floor elevations was recommended and noted an example where the foundation footing was poured incorrectly. Ms. Clifton noted in this case the foundation was poured three feet taller than approved and the project was returned to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for changes to previously approved plans. She added that the ARB did not approve the change and the contractor was required to remove the footing and start over. Ms. Clifton referred to the third change suggested by STP on page 111 for lots that slope down to the rear property line it might be necessary to step down outdoor living areas to grade level even if located within the primary building area to lessen the negative visual effect to the side and rear neighbors. She added this recommendation is in response to a project where the pool was raised out of the ground to the frustration of their neighbors and the builder’s argument throughout the process was the pool and deck were completely within the primary building area. She noted that the roof ridge can be the tallest in the primary building area and as the structure expands into the secondary and conditional building areas the ridge height must be lower. 8 Councilperson Thorne asked if the language “may be necessary” is strong enough. Ms. Clifton noted that applying this recommendation will be dependent on the project scope. Councilperson Weed asked if this recommendation could apply to driveways that due to topography could be higher than a neighbor’s grade and potentially cause impervious surface runoff. Ms. Clifton noted in this example the solution would most likely be to lower the grade of the house and garage so that there is not a grade issue that would likely have to be solved with a retaining wall. Councilperson Weed noted he is wondering if this is an opportunity to address both impervious surface concerns and aesthetics. Ms. Clifton noted that driveways are a future topic for the Planning Commission to discuss. She noted Councilperson Bruning has brought forward the concern that the Design Guidelines recommend against front entry garages, yet side entry garages add more hardscape to a lot for vehicles to enter and can be challenging if there is slope to the property. Councilperson Bruning noted that the side entry garage has caused new homes to be built askew and impacts the rhythm of the properties along the streetscape. He opined that the revisions could use stronger, prescriptive language because the ARB has discretion, but it can be challenging to make prohibitions to projects beyond these Guidelines when the term “generally” is used. Ms. Clifton noted that “generally” could be removed. Councilperson Bruning noted that when the Design Guidelines were originally adopted there were concerns about imposing on building. He opined that now the Guidelines have been in effect for nearly fifteen years and there are examples of homes built where the guidelines could have been more prescriptive. Ms. Clifton noted that the ARB always appreciates guidance from the Council and added the Council liaison role to the ARB and Planning Commission is beneficial to developing Guidelines. Councilperson Davidson noted at the last Planning Commission meeting that the Commission was asking for more direction from the Council on topics such as solar panels on the front of the home. Councilperson Bruning noted a project on 69th Street that was constructed with a considerable rear wing and project on Belinder Avenue and asked if the City has adequate resources to review projects. Ms. Clifton noted there were last minute changes to the Belinder Avenue plans and incorrect topography plans that were sealed as correct by the project architect. She noted the Professional Review Panel (PRP) sent a new home with roof Design Guidelines violations to the ARB about a month ago that was approved with one vote against. She added at the last ARB meeting a project with similar Design Guidelines violations was discussed at the premeeting and the ARB was concerned the PRP was not strict enough in their review of architectural style and roof aberrations, so that request from the ARB was sent back to the PRP. Councilperson Bruning opined that the Design Guidelines should be significantly modified to reflect the difference between development north and south of 63rd Street and noted the post-war development south of 63rd Street has different topography and design. Mayor Dickey suggested there could be a threshold of the maximum number of Design Guidelines violations a project is allowed, and the Planning Commission could guide selecting an appropriate number of violations. Councilperson Bruning and Nelson agreed a maximum threshold of violations could address this issue. Councilperson Nelson opined that over the past ten years the emphasis placed on the Design Guidelines has changed and topography and water issues are more apparent. Mayor Dickey noted that if there is a threshold for Design Guideline violations, it could help to address the applicants who return to the ARB multiple times for approval or changes. Councilperson Thorne asked if new home submittals often have multiple Design Guideline violations. Ms. Clifton noted that a change to the PRP process is staff used to make decisions when it appeared the project was following intent of the Design Guidelines, but following neighbor concerns the PRP now identifies violations, and the ARB decides to deny or 9 accept them. She noted that following this procedure change, the last three new homes have probably had more Design Guideline violations than in the past. Ms. Clifton referenced the differences in development north and south of 63rd Street and noted a PRP member is concerned about how strict the massing of rear wings south of 63rd Street are becoming, especially since the properties north of 63rd Street do not have space between wings and aerial photography shows many of these wings are enclosed with porches. Councilperson Thorne asked if the original design north of 63rd Street utilized the space between rear wings. Ms. Clifton replied yes and noted that the included revision to wings recommends open spacing between rear wings. Mayor Dickey noted to clarify Councilperson Bruning’s comments there is a request for the proposed revisions in Resolution No. 2024-J to use more prescriptive language, such as removing the term “generally” and that the Design Guidelines could be reviewed to become more restrictive. Councilperson Bruning agreed, and noted from his experience serving on the ARB that discretion is very valuable. He noted more firm Guidelines could address his concerns related to looming issues. Mr. T. McQuaid noted at one point the Planning Commission had discussed a floorplate alignment formula that does not appear to be in these recommendations for revision. Ms. Clifton noted that STP provided a stringline formula recommendation that the Planning Commission reviewed and determined would be too complicated. Councilperson Thorne opined that the Design Guidelines could be more restrictive. Ms. Clifton noted that all the recommendations for Design Guideline revisions from the Planning Commission over the last year have all been to make the Guidelines more strict, more understandable, and address loopholes that have been found by architects. Mayor Dickey reiterated that setting a violations threshold could allow the ARB discretion while reviewing projects, while setting a standard for Design Guideline compliance. Mr. T. McQuaid asked how many new house applications have a Design Guideline violation. Ms. Clifton replied that every new house application violates Design Guidelines. She added before the recent PRP procedure change a new house application could have five violations and now there could be eight or ten violations. Councilperson Bruning noted that when the Design Guidelines were first developed there was concern that no one would want to remodel or build in the City, yet redevelopment continues. Councilperson Davidson noted that he is relatively new to the Council, but more guidance helps property owners make decisions when selecting or redeveloping properties and would generally reduce frustration. The Council discussed the importance of the ARB discretion and determined that if a maximum number of violations to the Design Guidelines were set the ARB could still require revisions even if the maximum number of violations was not met. Councilperson Bruning reiterated the importance of having the talent and resources to adequately review application. Ms. Clifton noted that following the Belinder Avenue project that the City’s internal review procedures have been enhanced. Ms. Clifton referred to the proposed revision to wings, which was proposed in response to a resident’s concerns regarding a new home built behind them. She noted the revision adds references to existing language from the conditional building area into the main section on siting and massing guidelines on pages 65 and 66. She noted that because the conditional area wing guidelines were in a different section of the Design Guidelines they were being missed by architects. She noted the intent of duplicated language in this section is to make the guidelines more understandable for architects. Ms. Clifton added the statement that wings and detached accessory buildings should be clearly defined simple masses that are shorter and narrower than the main mass with their own clear roof forms from page 33 was added to page 65. Ms. Clifton referred to rear wings on page 66 and noted that open spacing between rear wings should be no 10 less than the eave height of the taller wing. She added this revision was to provide clarification on the open spacing requirement. She referred to page 91 and noted this language was added for clarity because there was a difference in interpretation and the consensus of the PRP architects and ARB is that a secondary wing on a primary wing does not always have to be perpendicular to the primary wing. She added the diagram and language clarifies that telescoping wings or winglets, which are two- or three-foot bump outs should not be allowed, and any wing should be at least the size of a full room. Mayor Dickey suggested that Ms. Clifton return to the June Council meeting with a list of the topics the Planning Commission is scheduled to review and there could be conversation about the Council priorities. Councilperson Nelson suggested asking the ARB to provide a list of the issues that they would like help addressing. She noted the technical nature of the Design Guidelines and asked if the ARB can practically utilize it. Ms. Clifton noted that she could ask the ARB these questions. She noted Ms. Lee suggested developing a drive-around list of ten recently completed new homes for the Council to view and make comments on first impressions. The Council agreed and Ms. Clifton noted that would provide the drive-around document to the Council. Mayor Dickey noted after the “blind test” drive-around of these new homes, Ms. Clifton could then provide details on the concerns or issues related to the home and number of Design Guideline violations. Councilperson Nelson noted that most of the proposed revisions are in response to neighbors who were impacted by new house projects. Ms. Clifton noted that during the review process the City does not receive many letters of concern from neighbors. Councilperson Thorne noted as the ARB liaison it can be upsetting to see neighbors who are frustrated with another neighbor’s project and opined that it is important to strengthen the community with events so that neighbors see each other in a positive light. Councilperson Weed noted there could be an opportunity to utilize Artificial Intelligence in the project review process. Councilperson Bruning noted the revisions are a good start to the review process and thanked the staff and Planning Commission. He suggested the following edits to the Design Guideline revisions; on page 110 change to “An applicant’s desire to create a taller basement level should not generally be considered a compelling reason to substantially elevate the main floor level relative to neighbors” and on page 111 remove “it may be necessary” so that the applicant must demonstrate a reason to opt out of stepping down the outdoor living area to grade level. With the proposed revisions, Councilperson Bruning moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-J for Design Guideline Revisions to Raised First Floor Elevations, Raised Outdoor Living Areas, and Wings. Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0. D. Ordinance No. 1656: Sport Court Ms. Clifton noted that the Councl requested the Planning Commission (Commission) review the City’s regulations regarding pickleball court installations because of the potential to negatively impact neighbors with the sound. She noted that two residents attended the Commission and spoke about the loud noise being a nuisance. She added the Commission initially looked at the possibility of requiring a special use permit for sports courts, which will be reviewed over the next few months. Ms. Clifton noted while the special use permit is under review by the Commission, the Commission is proposing that the sport court must be closer to the applicant’s house than the side or rear property lines and require evergreen screening at the side and rear of the sport court. She added the Commission was not interested in the acoustic fencing because of its aesthetics. Mayor Dickey noted these proposed changes are an interim step while a special use 11 permit is considered and noted many communities are wrestling with how to manage pickleball courts. Councilperson Weed asked if there could be a prohibition of pickleball courts. Ms. Krstulic stated that would be difficult, especially since existing sports courts can easily be converted into pickleball courts. She added through the special use permit process each lot could be considered individually, special conditions could be required, and typically these permits are time bound with a review for renewal required. She noted this permit would most likely be reviewed by the ARB, Commission, and then Council. Councilperson Bruning noted that this is a challenging topic for the Commission and noted that the Council could provide additional direction. Mayor Dickey noted that the Commission will be sending a list of their scheduled topics to the Council for consideration and potentially prioritization. He added this could be an opportunity for the Council to opine on specific topics. Ms. Clifton noted that the Commission can include comments on these topics and their review status. Councilperson Weed moved to approve Ordinance No. 1656 for revisions to sports courts. Councilperson Davidson seconded. Approved 5-0. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. City Clerk Ms. Woolbright noted that the Council is welcome to select items to order with the 75th Anniversary logo. Mayor Dickey noted that the first community engagement event of the season, Concert in the Park will be the following Saturday at City Hall Park. B. City Administrator Mayor Dickey noted the Police Department’s budget history and noted that 2024 is slightly above the average but is not the highest percentage. He added that if the City maintains the current crime statistics this will bring down the ten-year average, which will also reduce the budget rate. C. City Planner No additional report provided. MAYOR’S COMMENTS A. Appointments The incoming City Clerk, Mr. Nickles, introduced himself to the Council and was welcomed. Mayor Dickey recommended for the annual appointments Jennifer Lee as City Administrator, Anna Krstulic as City Attorney, Spencer Jones as City Treasurer, Kathryn Marsh as City Prosecutor, and Lauren Allen as City Judge. Mayor Dickey recommended reappointment for Kevin Latz, Russel Weltner, Neil Atha to the Crime Prevention and Safety Committee. Lorelei Gibson, Louise Allen, Sarah Summer, Britton Norden, Sally Ott to the Park Board. John Coe and Stacey Winfield to the Planning Commission. Gabrielle Beam to the Board of Zoning Appeals. David Gibson and Stacey Winfield to the Architectural Review Board and Natalie Busch as an alternate to the Architectural Review Board. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve the appointments recommended by Mayor Dickey. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. 12  B. Liaison Reports Councilperson Weed noted that the Crime Prevention and Safety Committee and Community Engagement Committee did not meet. Councilperson Davidson reported that the Planning Commission submitted two items that were included on the Council’s agenda. Councilperson Bruning reported that the Park Board met and noted the use of Sunken Garden by residents has increased, which reflects the success of the community engagement efforts. He noted that the south end of Eisenhower Pond is nearly fully silted and there is ongoing discussion about how to address the health and future of the pond. He added that annuals are currently being planted in all the beds throughout the City and Indian Hills Homes Association is considering partnering with the City for additional planting, irrigation, and lighting at islands, especially Flag Island at 67th Street. Councilperson Bruning noted that Mission Hills Homes Company continues to focus on Sunken Garden and Colonial Court. Councilperson Thorne did not have anything to report. Councilperson Nelson reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met to review three variance requests. She noted one request for variance was denied, one request was approved as submitted, and one request was approved with modifications. Councilperson Nelson noted a new member was appointed to the BZA to replace the long-standing member, Dr. Judy Moore. She noted that Dr. Moore dedicated many hours to the BZA and her City service is admired and appreciated. Mayor Dickey noted that a student requested the City sign a official proclamation recognizing June 7th as National Gun Violence Awareness Day. He shared with the student that the Council has a long-standing tradition of abstaining from topic specific proclamations. Mayor Dickey noted that the City Attorney has provided an attorney-client privileged memo to the Council for consideration and future executive session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. /s/ Meghan Woolbright 13