Docstoc

CITY OF DERBY

Document Sample
CITY OF DERBY Powered By Docstoc
					                            CITY OF DERBY

_____________________________________________________________

                    MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
                          REGULAR MEETING
                              April 10, 2007
                                7:00 PM
________________________________________________________________________
   6:30 P.M. – RECEPTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER KEN MULANAX

ORDER OF BUSINESS

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

FLAG SALUTE:

INVOCATION:     Pastor Rick Wheeler, First Christian Church.

ROLL CALL

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:              Regular Meeting, March 27, 2007

PUBLIC FORUM

PROCLAMATION:        National Library Week


A.    REAPPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.                         Presented by Phil
      Alexander, City Attorney.

      RECOMMENDED ACTION:             Reappoint Jim Meidinger, Loren Johnson and
                                      George Arnold as representatives of Wards I,
                                      II and IV respectively, to serve out the balance
                                      of the unexpired terms for which they were
                                      originally appointed.


B.    SWEAR IN REAPPOINTED COUNCIL MEMBERS.                       Presented by Jean
      Epperson, Director of Finance/City Clerk.




1
C    CHARTER ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR FILLING OF COUNCIL
     VACANCIES AND REPEALING CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 2.
     Presented by Phil Alexander, City Attorney.

     RECOMMENDED ACTION:        Adopt a charter ordinance providing for
                                election of Council members, qualifications
                                for the office, tie votes and filling of
                                vacancies; exempting the City from the
                                provisions of K.S.A. 14-204; and repealing
                                charter ordinance no. 2 of the City.


D.   CLEAN INDOOR AIR ORDINANCE. Presented by Mandy Wagner, Assistant
     to the City Manager

     RECOMMENDED ACTION:        Adopt a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance with
                                amendments and stipulations deemed by the
                                City Council to be in the best interest of the
                                community.


E.   SWEAR IN NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.             Presented by Jean Epperson,
     Director of Finance/City Clerk.


F.   PRESENTATION ABOUT GANGS.          Presented by Brian Norris, School
     Resource Officer.


G.   PAINTING OF POOLS AT ROCK RIVER RAPIDS. Presented by Robert
     Mendoza, Director of Public Works and Parks.

     RECOMMENDED ACTION:        Approve the bid from Wildcat Painting Inc. in
                                the amount of $48,650 for repainting of RRR
                                pools and surface striping, and authorize the
                                City Manager to execute the contract in
                                substantially the form presented.


H.   PURCHASE PICKUP TRUCKS FOR PUBLIC WORKS & PARKS.
     Presented by Robert Mendoza, Director of Public Works and Parks.

     RECOMMENDED ACTION:        Approve the purchase of three ¾ ton pickup
                                trucks from Rusty Eck Ford for $62,014.



2
I.    PURCHASE TRUCK-MOUNTED PRESSURE CLEANER.              Presented by
      Dan Squires, City Engineer.

      RECOMMENDED ACTION:     Approve the purchase of a Vactor Ram Jet
                              from Key Equipment in the amount of
                              $134,870 and authorize the City Manager to
                              execute the necessary documents.


J.    RESOLUTIONS FOR SEWER, DECEL LANE AND SIDEWALK
      IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE RIDGE POINT 4TH ADDITION. Presented
      by Charlie Brown, Director of Community Development.

      RECOMMENDED ACTION:     Approve the resolutions for sanitary sewer,
                              decel lane and sidewalk improvements to
                              serve Ridge Point 4th Addition.


ADJOURNMENT

Return to Homepage




3
                                        UNAPPROVED
                                  REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
                                        March 27, 2007
                                           7:00 PM


       Mayor Dion Avello presiding.

       ROLL CALL:                             COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:

       WARD I                                 Jim Craig
       WARD II                                Loren Johnson, Chuck Warren
       WARD III                               Charlie Schwarz, Cheryl Bannon
       WARD IV                                Ken Mulanax, George Arnold

                                              COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:

       WARD I                                 Jim Meidinger


       Flag salute was led by Council President Cheryl Bannon.

       The invocation was led by Council Member Chuck Warren.


CONSIDERATION OF
MINUTES

       Minutes of the March 13, 2007 Regular Council Meeting.

       MOTION:         Bannon moved to approve minutes of March 13, 2007 Regular Council
                       Meeting. Warren seconded.

       VOTE:           Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                       Bannon yea, Mulanax yea 6 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion carried.

PUBLIC FORUM

Keith Volz, 1003 Arbor Meadows spoke regarding the Kansas Long Range Transportation Plan
meeting he attended on March 21st in Manhattan. KDOT is putting together a strategic plan for
the next 20-25 years. They are beginning phase 2 which runs through July of this year. This is a
group of four meetings, with the 21st being the first and it was an overview meeting for 5 study
committees that will be working on this strategic plan. Kansas urban areas are served by nearly
12,000 miles of roadway, 93% being comprised of local roads that are operated and maintained
by cities and counties, with the other 7% being highways. Some of the trends to be looking for
as the Kansas population begins to shift to urban areas adding congestion and maintenance needs
both for the state and local roadway systems. Right now there are over 100 miles of roadways
that are classified as congested, so the plan is to see what can be done about that both locally and
state wide. This is trend is expected to increase over 75% in the next 20 years. We know that
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -1-                                       03/27/07
the population of Kansas is aging and that needs to be addressed, traffic congestion on urban
roads is increasing and new and existing development will limit ability to expand freeways,
urban arterials and local roads. The growing congestion and quality of life issues will create the
need for more coordinated planning and decision making with respect to land and transportation
use. KDOT has formed, along with other local people, five study groups. The next meeting for
the group discussing metropolitan issues will be held in Wichita on April 19th.

Kathy Sexton, City Manager thanked Mr. Volz for representing Derby on this committee.
County Commissioner Tom Winters contacted the mayor to see if Derby could be represented on
this. It was a really good compliment to call us and say we should get involved in this and Keith
willingly offered to do that.

Council Member Schwarz commented there is an article in today’s paper titled “Drinking
juveniles mix spring break and jail”. This occurred in Wichita with several parties being busted
and kids going to jail. We in Derby are not immune to that; we had a substantial party broken up
with several children arrested. Last fall there was a rather large field that was east of Derby
where kids would party on a Friday and Saturday night, and that field was shut down. Both of
these situations were brought to the attention of the City of Derby through citizen involvement.
Underage drinking and drug use is a very serious situation and he commends the people that
called the city and alerted the police to these situations because drug use and underage
alcoholism leads to very serious problems in our society. He commends those that take time out
to call the city and inform us of when these things occur. He encouraged people to be on the
lookout in their own neighborhoods, he knows of two drug houses in Derby and he has relayed
that information to the police department. He encourages everyone who sees those types of
activities to get involved and help keep our city the way we want to keep the city.

Ms. Sexton requested a show of hands from those that have received their community newsletter
in the mail. There is a full page article with the crime stoppers phone number and when to call
the police department’s non-emergency line, when to call 911, as well as numbers for some tip
lines. It is kind of a tutorial for citizens as to who to call and when.

Council Member Bannon urged everyone to get out and vote, as next Tuesday is Election Day.
We have council members up for Ward IV and we have a chance to appoint some new school
board members. The only way you can have a say on what goes on in the community is to vote.

Mayor Avello advised there is a public debate scheduled for Thursday evening at 6:30 at city
hall; it will be televised as well.

Council Member Mulanax stated that as his time on the council comes to a close; one of the
issues he brought up several times is about the quiet zones on the railroad. There was a nice
article in the paper a few weeks ago about that and he encouraged the council and the city to
continue to work on that. Since he lives right on K-15 it gets rather noisy and all the help he can
get he would sincerely appreciate.

Ms. Sexton announced that we continue this week to take applications for our new community
fireworks display committee. We need some folks to serve on this committee; it is the annual
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -2-                                      03/27/07
Fourth of July fireworks event that is paid for by the city. The committee that organizes it got
pretty small this past year so we are recruiting new members and hope everybody can have a say
in how that event occurs. There is no fundraising involved so it is truly a planning committee.
We are taking applications through Friday with applications on the city’s website or you can
contact City Hall to obtain one.

Council Member Craig commented that we had a pretty tough winter with a lot of snow and
ice. If some reason you see pavement that is starting to come apart, please call public works. It
is better to treat it as a small item rather than a large item that will jeopardize the undercarriage
and suspension of your car later on. He thanked public works for responding to those issues.

Council Member Warren turned in his application for the fireworks committee. He thanked
Victoria French who has chaired that committee for a number of years, and last year almost
single handedly. It is too big of a job to do by yourself so we really do want a lot of community
input, both to spread the work and to get some new and fresh ideas. Victoria will be the first to
admit that fresh blood and fresh ideas is what is needed from that standpoint. The Fourth of July
has traditionally been one of those celebrations where it really is great for the community to get
involved and it has been a little bit difficult with Derby Days coming in so close. One of the
things that this community is going to have to decide is how do we want to proceed. Do we want
to try to make the Fourth of July a big celebration or do we want to do some things in
conjunction with Derby Days and just exactly how all of that is going to work. There are some
important decisions to be made along with some fun things that will be going on. He encouraged
those that are interested in being involved in the community, it is a great way to get to know
some folks and it is a lot fun. It’s a good place to start, if you haven’t been involved in the
community in the past this will be a great way to start off.

PROCLAMATION

       Mayor declared Friday, April 27, 2007 as Arbor Day in the City of Derby.

Robert Mendoza, Director of Public Works accepted the proclamation and thanked the Mayor
and the council. He just returned from Manhattan where he received the award for Tree City
USA and the Arbor Day and Growth Award for the City. This is the first meeting he has
attended and he was amazed at the amount of money, $125 million, spent on planting trees
statewide. That is a lot of money, work and effort and he thanked the men and women of Public
Works and Parks who actually go out there and maintain these things. We are excited with the
Parks and Forestry Board about the Arbor Day Celebration coming up on Friday, April 27th.
This too is an excellent opportunity for the community to get involved.




SWEAR IN NEW
COUNCIL MEMBER,

COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -3-                                       03/27/07
GEORGE ARNOLD,
WARD IV

Council Member George Arnold was sworn in by Jean Epperson, City Clerk.

LIBRARY DESIGN
CONCEPT AND
FINANCING OPTIONS

Kathy Sexton, City Manager introduced the architects from GossenLivingston Associates; Tom
Montgomery, Vice President and Kirk Jurgensen, Project Manager.

DISCUSSION:

Tom Montgomery presented the concept for the new public library. The project was started a
number of months ago working with the library design committee, developing goals for the
project. A lot of the goals we heard were the desire to develop a facility that attracts interest and
encourages use by everybody in the community. They had a process in which they engaged the
public in 15 different work sessions throughout the community with a good cross section from
the young to the elderly. Some of the most energetic work sessions were with the youth and it
was refreshing to hear the youth get involved. As they gathered information provided by
community input it really became the foundation that they used to develop the concept presented
tonight. He presented pictures of the library concept to the council.

Kirk Jurgensen, Project Manager explained the layout of the library concept.

Council Member Warren thanked Mr. Jurgensen for his presentation. He is still concerned
about a commercial building this large and the possibility of it leaking. There is something
about big roofs and big spaces that leak. His concern is that the more places where you have
joints that butt up or different elevations, you increase the opportunity, versus something that has
one roof, even though you lose something architecturally. It seems to him that we are increasing
the opportunity for roof leakage. He asked for some reassurance that there will not be a problem
with leaks.

Mr. Jurgensen advised the drawings presented are only concept drawings, they will take it
under advisement. The concern has been noted and will be looked at during the next phase. He
advised he does not believe he can convince Mr. Warren tonight based on previous
conversations but he feels they can make it work one way or the other.

Council Member Warren asked if there were a significant difference in cost with this design
versus a design that has a more uniform roof across the top.

Mr. Johnson explained that there will be some difference in cost but he does not believe it will
be that much. Even if we had one roof over the entire building you still have to design
expansion within the building. What’s nice about the way the design is done now is it helps
naturally develop expansion and contraction characteristics with this design. A lot of the cost
that goes into that is how you deal with those types of details, this can address it very simply but
COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -4-                                       03/27/07
it is going to be the city’s facility and they want it to work for the city. If there is a cost
advantage in going a different route then they will work with that and take advantage of it.

Council Member Warren asked what “not that much” means.

Mr. Johnson explained that they would be using primarily the same materials, whether you
break it up or have all one roof you would be using the same materials. It could be a difference
of 2-3% of the job.

Council Member Craig stated that he saw two main entrances or is there just one main
entrance.

Mr. Jurgensen pointed out the one main entrance. The other entrance is typically just to exit
the building.

Council Member Craig questioned how the building is set up for expansion, or if it were to get
smaller, what do you lose, where would you start if you were going to reduce the size of this
building.

Mr. Jurgensen explained it depends on the final request from the city for the new library. If
you want it scaled down, then everything will just be scaled down.

Council Member Craig asked about another addition to the building.

Mr. Jurgensen explained their task was to locate 15,000 square feet for a city arts type building
and to show where that addition could occur and that is what that image is. It is not an addition
for the library.

Council Member Craig asked how that would play into this type of facility.

Mr. Jurgensen explained there could be another entrance off of that point to the future addition
very easily. It is just a matter of the security system that is installed. Maybe the library is closed
at certain times but you want the future addition to be open at different hours, there could be a
function that could operate off of the parking lot that is right there.

Council Member Craig advised he thinks a lot of people are interested in some of the other
things that might be developed in the future as far as a walking garden and a reading area in the
outdoors instead of just inside the facility.

Mr. Jurgensen pointed out that if you look at the triangle space between the future addition in
the parking area and the library, there is some nice geometry there that could be used for a very
interesting walking garden. Also on the east side of that it could wrap around the building and
he thinks there are a lot of great opportunities there to do that.
Council Member Bannon stated that she was on the design committee for the library so she has
seen it start from early needs to all of the meetings they had with people of every age and ideas
of what everyone wanted. If this is your first look at this design you may be looking at it and
COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -5-                                        03/27/07
asking where the red brick is and the limestone corners and “normal library”, but once we went
through all of the different requests and you look at the buildings surrounding this area,
Tanglewood, City Hall, you will notice that it really ties together. It is not a wart, but the design
grows on you and there is a reason that it is all designed the way it is. She pointed out that when
the library first moved into the south end of this building they were supposed to have had the
entire south end of the building. At that time the senior center was growing so large that they
needed space so it ended up being that the library and senior center have shared that space. It is
again time for the two entities to grow. This building would allow the library its’ space and
allow the senior center to use part of that space. The city could make community rooms or
office, whatever they may need. We are at a point where there are a lot of things to be done.
She does not think the building is too large, if you figure 100,000 volumes, if every person in
this city had only 5 books, that is not too many and this city is going to grow. She does not
know if this is a perfect design yet and she too shares some of Mr. Warren’s concerns about
leakage, about materials costs. There are a lot of things we will get into as time progresses; this
was just the concept design to get us to where we needed to be. The school district did not want
to deal as far as the land until they had seen a conceptual design as far as how it would fit on the
property and how it would work together. Until we had something we couldn’t even give cost
estimates for not only the building and construction, but the additional operating costs. She
thanked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jurgensen for doing a great job and asked everyone on the council
and at home to look at the buildings in the area and not only the needs and concepts of what they
have in their minds for what a library needs, but for everyone. It is not just for a certain sector, it
is for the entire community.

Council Member Mulanax advised he served on the design committee as well and he sincerely
thanked the literally 100’s of people throughout the community who got involved in this from
the rotary clubs to youth meetings, to the senior center. One consistent theme throughout all of
the discussions was a community room; it is something that is sincerely lacking in this
community. There is one or two over at the DRC but they are used constantly and trying to book
those in advance is becoming almost impossible. He requested that Mr. Johnson or Mr.
Jurgensen explain how the community room can be segregated so after hours it could be used but
the library wouldn’t be open to the general public walking through it.

Mr. Jurgensen pointed out the entrance into the library itself and explained it could be locked
down leaving access to bathrooms for the community room use. There is a small stage and small
coffee bar in the area. The space will serve as a fall out space for the people using the function
of the community room. Instead of having a small space, they will have almost twice the space
to use as a pre gathering area for meetings.

Mr. Johnson explained that the community room seats 180 and the gathering space acts as a
pre-function area and intermission area. It ties very well together with the community space and
he thinks it makes a great facility for Derby; it will be a highly utilized facility.

Mayor Avello asked if summertime activities would be held in the community room.

Judy Bennett, Library Director advised they would use that area, not just in the summer.


COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -6-                                         03/27/07
Mayor Avello asked if the area were big enough because the crowds he has seen that the library
caters to are larger than 180.

Ms. Bennett explained they are larger than 180. They have discussed it as a staff and decided
that instead of offering one large event that they do now, since they have the use of Tanglewood
which will seat 300 to 400 people, they will offer those events more than one time, which would
accommodate that. Where they gain the advantage is that if you are a theater owner and you are
going to show a premier movie you don’t show it at city hall, you show it at your theater. When
the library offers programs that are tied into reading and literacy, the library is where we are
trying to get the people to so that they get the feel that they are there for cultural, learning and
reading events. When they are offsite at Tanglewood they lose that, there are people that come
only there and never come to the library. Even though we may have to go to two sessions for the
same program, we are right there which means they have access to reading material that they can
check out, they can go to the teen area. We are hoping to make that a very technological area
with a TV. and at some point envision using the community room as a gaming area so we can
bring kids in after school and after hours when the library is closed. One of the things she knows
in this community that we hear over and over is that we are family oriented and we want our kids
to not have to participate in underage drinking or illegal use of drugs, we want them to have
places to go and this offers one more opportunity that we can provide and this space gives us
some flexibility for that.

Council Member Johnson stated that it was mentioned earlier in the presentation that this
building would be appropriate for the growth of Derby for the next 25 years and questioned what
that was based on.

Ms. Bennett explained that is based on standards for public libraries in the State of Kansas that
say for cities with a population between 10,000 and 25,000, of which we are getting towards the
upper end, recommends that a library be a minimum of 12,600 ft. up to 21,200 ft. Had the
library been able to expand to the south end of the current complex we would be just about at the
21,200 ft.

Council Member Johnson clarified that that size is based on our population.

Ms. Bennett stated that was correct. We are looking ahead into the future and in 2010 we
estimate that we will be almost at 22,000 people, and by 2030 we are looking at over 31,000. By
standards in the library industry, when you reach a population of 25,000 you jump to the next
category, which falls between 25,000 and 100,000 population. At that point in time the
recommendation is that you go from the minimum of 21,200 sq. ft. to 58,000 sq. ft. or larger.
She believes that hitting that medium road of about 36,000 sq. ft. is going to get us through the
population of 32,000 and beyond. It will give us the flexibility we need as technology changes,
as the community needs change to be able to move the collections and rooms into other services
that will develop over the course of the next 25 years.

Council Member Johnson asked what this will look like 50 years from now.



COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -7-                                       03/27/07
Ms. Bennett explained that if the community remains within the same population area you may
want to put that 15,000 sq. ft. addition on and you could possibly keep it right in there. The
closer you go to the 100,000 population the more space you need, that is a given for any type of
public building of this nature. She envisions that if you are going to remain somewhere between
32,000 and 50,000 that you have room there to do lots of things before you have to consider
adding additions.

Council Member Johnson stated that he has seen three libraries and two remodels within a
fairly short period of time, which is going to go much faster in the future. If we are going to do
something like this we should plan for a 30-50 year deal. He is not saying we could build the 50
year deal now which would be 58,000 sq. ft. as it would probably be unreasonable and does not
think we would want to pay for that. This does not look like a plan that could be added to very
well. If in fact that were the deal are we going to abandon another library building and build a
58,000 sq. ft. building somewhere else in the future and make this the golden agers building, we
need to think about that in the planning.

Council Member Bannon pointed out the area where there could be a 15,000 sq. ft. expansion
to the building, as well as additional land to the north that can be used for expansion as needed.

Council Member Johnson asked if this looked like a nice architectural plan, to him it looks like
it was done in Poland (he apologized to the polish people). He questioned if anyone would do
that to their house.

Mr. Johnson stated that if you look at the basic design, it is a 30 x 32 ft. grid, very easy to add
on to, you could probably double the size of that building. If you have certain shapes that block
you in it is hard to add on to, but this is a simple grid and you could double or triple the size if
you want to. He explained that the area depicting the future addition is just a block to show the
15,000 sq. ft., it could be placed in several different areas.

Council Member Bannon explained the addition was never meant to indicate the exact location
or design; it was just that the land space is there and you could conceivably add on to that in lots
of ways. That is why the middle of it and the design is so open so that as technology changes
and the needs change, the building can change with it. There was a lot of thought put into what
could happen down the road.

Mr. Jurgensen added that he can double the space in the library if he needed to. It is designed
with most of the shelves in the adult and kids area to be three shelves high. If we would
purchase tall shelves, for a small amount of money, they can go with the same type of shelves
that are in the current library that hold 6 or 7 shelves, instantly doubling the area without
expanding the building at all.

Ms. Bennett stated that the City of Derby has had several buildings, starting off in 1957 in
Lorraine Dewey’s garage. It went from there to a small space in a strip mall on K-15; from there
it went to an area donated by Robert Smith behind the chamber offices. That was a little under
6,000 sq. ft. and when we moved to this facility in 1990 the library got about 9,000 operating sq.
ft. and they had use of the community room, which provided the additional sq. ft. that was
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -8-                                       03/27/07
needed, but it did not provide any place for collection. When you look at the size of population,
which was close to 10,000, we were already 3,000 sq. ft. below the minimum that was
recommended at that time, and that has been almost 18 years ago. As a taxpayer she does not
want to spend a lot of extra money, by in large you will see that librarians are some of the most
efficient spenders of money. They can do a lot with what they have, they would always take
more but they know that that isn’t going to be part of what they have. They take a very hard
look at what they have and what they can make work for the community. Having worked with
Kirk and having worked with the community and finding out what they want and working with
the city manager, this design concept will carry them a long way down the road. She suspects
there will be a new library at some point down the road, but it may not be that you want to add
on; maybe it will be that you want to create a branch in another part of the city. Those are
options that could be considered and branches may fit very easily into strip malls or retail
development spaces because you are not looking at a full service operation, you would be
looking at a part of the library services, with this being a main branch. That would increase
operating costs but it would decrease the need to add additional space to this one. Regarding the
earlier question about whether they could compress the area and make is smaller, if they do that,
they are looking at less than 10 years. By the time it was paid off they would have been about 5
years past maximum for that space. They currently have about 70,000 volumes and they are in
the process of brining that down about 10,000 because they are out of room again. Taking it
down to about 22,000 sq. ft which is the high end recommendation of where they should be now
with the current population they would have zero growth for the children’s area and there would
be no teen area. They would be able to accommodate additional growth for collection for about
2 years. They would gain the community room and the study room and a larger computer space,
the coffee bar. If they wanted to eliminate all of those areas it could provide additional space for
collection, but what you are looking at is that within a 10-year time period to pay off the building
you have already outgrown it. She thinks that as a taxpayer she would rather see her money go
for something that is going for something that is going to fit us for now and give us the
opportunity to grow for the next 25-30 years.

Council Member Warren commented there are a couple of different approaches in designing a
building like this. You can start off saying you have “x” number of dollars to work with and see
what you can get built for that amount of money, or you can determine all your needs and figure
out the cost after that; we have taken the latter approach on this and determined our needs. As he
participated in one of the sessions he questioned how we decide how far we are going to go and
what we are going to spend. Once you figure out your needs, you can decide how much you are
going to spend and we are at that point now, how much do we want to spend? He questioned if
we have a better feel for the cost and do we have a little better feel for the ongoing maintenance
costs and what the procedure is for getting input from the community at this point. If there are
alternatives and are we at a point to look at those and discuss them. He also questioned if we
committed to this plan at this point.

Council Member Craig clarified that the library currently has 70,000 volumes and are scaling
back to 60,000.

Ms. Bennett advised that was correct.


COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -9-                                       03/27/07
Council Member Craig asked if the design facility as it stands now is 100,000.

Ms. Bennett stated that was correct.

Council Member Craig advised that means you will move in with 60,000 volumes. Right now
we are at the point where we need separate needs and wants. Wants has been the collective thing
that everybody wants and we are not in a position to do that.

Ms. Bennett pointed out they did not come close to what the wants were.

Council Member Craig stated we have to find out what the real needs are now because the
analysis is not complete. He is interested in seeing where the process goes now and thinks we
should plan for the future, up to 25 years. The discussion should be continued and see where it
takes us as far as the needs and what we are willing to understand through how much we can
afford.

Ms. Bennett responded that she believes that is what the city manager’s report will help with.

Ms. Sexton thanked Judy Bennett and Jean Epperson who helped a great deal with financial
scenarios as well as Robert Mendoza and Ted Austin. There is a lot that goes into operating any
kind of public facility. She then presented the staff report.

Background:
   • After hearing from the library architects about the design concept for a 36,620 square-foot
      facility, consideration now shifts to how to pay for the construction project as well as the
      increased operating costs of a larger facility.
   • For planning purposes, the project cost estimate of $8.5 million in 2007, which was
      provided by the architects, was inflated to $9.0 million for construction that would
      realistically occur primarily in 2009. It may be technically possible for the construction
      project to begin in late 2008, depending on the availability of funding.
   • For planning purposes, an estimate of $500,000 was used for renovating the current
      library and HVAC system into space usable for the Derby Senior Activity Center, a
      shared community room, and City Hall office/storage space in 2010. Complete renovation
      of all this space will require more than this estimate, and at this point, grants are
      anticipated to make up the difference. More research is required on this matter, so this
      estimate is subject to change.



Financial Considerations:
   • Four financial questions need to be addressed: How much do we want to spend? Where is
      the money coming from? What financing mechanisms are available to us? Who will make
      decisions about which taxing source and which financing mechanism to use?

   •   First, how much do we want to spend?

COUNCIL MINUTES                                -10-                                      03/27/07
        o On February 28, 2006, the Council established a Library Design Committee to
          determine the needs and desires of the community for a new library and to develop
          a design concept with the assistance of the architects. A great deal of time was put
          into this effort this past year. This size of library is recommended by the Design
          Committee as well as the Library Board. However, it remains the Council’s
          decision as to how much to spend.
        o Judy Bennett and various City staff are to be commended for developing estimates
          of operating costs for the new library. Utilities, insurance, and maintenance costs
          will inherently rise with the addition of a new building to our inventory of
          facilities. It is also reasonable to project that some additional staffing will be
          required to operate a larger library. The additional operating costs projected for
          the first full year of operations is estimated to be around $320,000.
        o Another cost to consider in the overall decision about how much to spend is the
          timing of the construction project. If the City chooses to use a sales tax beginning
          in 2010, construction could easily begin in 2010 using the proceeds of the tax. If
          the City decides to construct the building sooner and construction is scheduled
          primarily for 2009, temporary financing would have to be undertaken. This means
          that the project cost would increase approximately $800,000 to pay the interest on
          borrowing $8.5 million to pay for construction nearly two years prior to collecting
          sales tax revenue.

 •   Second, where is the money coming from?
        o The City has two primary funding sources available to finance library construction
           and operations: a property tax (increasing the mill levy) and/or a sales tax.
           Assuming a sales tax would be most palatable if implemented following the
           termination of the aquatic park half-cent sales tax in 2010, several options have
           been examined for Council consideration, as follows:
                  A. Sales tax (0.50 cent for 10 years) for new library, renovation of current
                       building, and an operating reserve for the library.
                  B. Sales tax (0.35 cent for 10 years) for new library & renovation of
                       current building, and a permanent sales tax (0.15 cent) for additional
                       operating expenses of the library.
                  C. Property tax (approx. 7 mills) for new library, renovation of current
                       building and additional operating costs of the library.

 •   Third, what financing mechanisms are available?
        o General Obligation bonds – G.O. bonds are issued to provide the cash up front to
            pay project expenses. These bonds are backed by the taxing authority of the City.
            A funding source (sales tax, property tax, or both) must still be designated to repay
            the bonds over time. If G.O. bonds are to be used for a library project, state law
            requires an election by the voters.
        o Certificates of Participation – State statute governs the size and types of projects
            eligible for Certificates of Participation. With this size of project, the law also
            requires a public notice and is subject to a protest petition. A valid petition signed
            by 5% of the qualified electors of the city within 30 days would require an election

COUNCIL MINUTES                              -11-                                       03/27/07
             to be called. A C.O.P. also likely would require a higher interest rate than a G.O.
             bond, thus increasing the total cost of the project.
           o Revenue bonds – Revenue bonds could be issued by a Public Building
             Commission for a library project. These bonds also would be subject to a protest
             petition (5% of the electorate, within 30 days).

   •   Lastly, who will make decisions about which taxing source and which financing
       mechanism to use?
          o City Council – The Council decides whether it is interested in pursuing a new
              library project, the exact wording of any question to put before the voters for
              election, and whether the Public Building Commission should be used to issue the
              financing.
          o Public Building Commission (PBC) – The City of Derby passed a Charter
              Ordinance in 1997 to establish a Public Building Commission. It has not yet been
              used to authorize financing of any public improvements. Members would need to
              be appointed to the PBC. Revenue bonds issued by a PBC are subject to protest
              petition but do not automatically require a vote of the people. The pros and cons of
              using a PBC will be discussed in further detail at a future Council meeting.
          o Voters of Derby – If the Council determines that a sales tax would be the
              preferable funding source for a new library, the question would be scheduled for a
              vote of the people, by special election either at the polls or by mail ballot. Either
              type of election could be held in the September-October 2007 timeframe.

Legal Considerations:
   • A special purpose sales tax would be limited to 10 years under current law.
   • The Legislature is currently considering bills that may eliminate the 10-year limit on
       special purpose sales taxes.
   • A general sales tax to fund library operating expenses is not time-limited.
   • Legal issues presented will vary based on choices made with respect to what entity – the
       City or the PBC – constructs the project and which funding and financing mechanisms
       are selected.

Policy Considerations:
   • A number of grant sources have been pursued over the past several months. Most grants
       found are limited to library materials or programs and specifically are not for buildings.
       One grant was found that may help with renovation of part of the current library to be
       used for the senior center, and that grant is being pursued. Efforts to review possible
       alternative funding sources will continue.
   • Since library patrons include people who do not live in Derby, one idea is to create a
       library district that would be geographically larger than the city, which might help spread
       the costs over more users. This has been done in only a few communities in Kansas and
       requires special legislation. For example, the City of Independence and USD 446 were
       authorized to form a library district using the boundaries of the school district.
           o Another option is for the City and USD 260 to consider an interlocal cooperation
               agreement, which does not involve a new library district, but essentially would

COUNCIL MINUTES                                -12-                                      03/27/07
               enable property taxes levied for the library to be assessed throughout the entire
               school district instead of just within the city limits. This arrangement would be
               similar to the Derby Recreation Commission. The DRC was established by mutual
               agreement of the City and school district, and the DRC is funded by a property tax
               of the school district. The drawback is that an interlocal agreement does not
               increase the taxing authority of either the city or the school district.
   •   The location currently being considered most seriously for the new library is a portion of
       the lot currently owned by Derby Public Schools at the corner of Walnut Grove and
       Sumac streets, just east of Tanglewood Elementary School. The City is working with the
       school district to develop terms of an agreement to transfer the land to the City if the
       library financing is approved.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSION:

Mayor Avello thanked Ms. Sexton for her thorough and well presented presentation. He also
wanted the community to know that at this point nothing has been spent on a design on this
building.

The council recessed at 8:40 p.m. returning at 8:50 p.m.

Council Member Craig asked for an estimate of how many personnel will need to be added to
the payroll to run this type of facility.

Ms. Sexton explained that the additional city cost for personnel will be two people. One for
inside facility maintenance and the second one for exterior maintenance, mowing and
maintaining landscaping, etc. It will not be a person devoted to that building alone, per se, but if
you think about it the public works department will have 5 guys out there clearing sidewalks on
the weekend of snow in the winter, clearing parking lots and that sort of thing. At another time of
year there will be three people mowing and weed eating so we figured if we added one full time
position to the public works and parks staff that it should balance out the load.

Ms. Bennett explained that number of jobs created would be incorporated over a course of 3
years. At whatever point we can begin the design the library board has approved the addition of
a technology assistant to free up the current technology assistant to begin with the networking.

Council Member Craig asked for a total number.

Ms. Bennett advised they currently have 13 full time employees, between now and 2010; the
maximum would be 22 full time employees. National history shows that when a new library
opens in a community the circulation at least doubles and the new space will be three times the
size of the old.

Council Member Bannon stated that if they looked at option 1 and kept it for a solid 10 years
with no early pay out, isn’t it conceivable with our retail growth that we could be looking at $5-
$6 million or better going into the O&M account.

COUNCIL MINUTES                                -13-                                       03/27/07
Ms. Sexton explained that if you look at the footnotes on that page, the sales tax projections for
revenue include assumption that we are getting a Target store and Kohl’s is included in there
also. We have not added any additional chunks of money for other retail or restaurant because
those two retailers are pretty big and we put an additional chunk in for those. There is annual
growth of 3% a year put in there, it may not sound like much but it is a realistic number in terms
of, we have always had new businesses opening in past years and there are other things that
affect sales tax, it could be a faster growth rate than that.

Ms. Sexton thanked Judy Bennett and Jean Epperson who helped a great deal with financial
scenarios as well as Robert Mendoza and Ted Austin. There is a lot that goes into operating any
kind of public facility.

Council Member Bannon clarified it could be a solid 10 years, ending and going away.

Ms. Sexton stated that was correct, it is all in how you word the option for the ballet. You could
say for sure 10, or you could be more flexible to stop it sooner.

Council Member Bannon asked if the cost of building this before Rock River Rapids paid off
could be offset by any higher building costs.

Ms. Sexton responded that one would think if you build a building a couple of years later it
would cost you more and that is generally the case when we estimate construction projects. We
build in an inflation factor, that is a higher inflation factor in construction estimating than just
normal inflation. Normal inflation right now is 2.5-3%, but with construction inflation you
could get in a lot of trouble if you use numbers that low. It could easily be more like 5-8%. In
construction cost estimating there are other things besides just the market basket of goods. It is
about how much building we are doing in China that takes all the steel and concrete away. We
have had pretty high costs these past couple of years and it is feasible that the costs could soften.

Council Member Bannon asked if accommodation for city wide growth and higher taxes that
would be collected have been included. Say we add 5,000 people and 2,000 homes in the next
10 years are we including that figure as well?

Jean Epperson, City Clerk advised we were. The early years has a higher percentage in the
sense that we have included in the impact of Kohl’s and Target on the assessed valuation. In
later years we have used 4%. Derby has had a history of much higher, but from a mathematical
equation it would be very dangerous to assume that we are going to sustain more than 4% as that
number grows so that is why we picked 4%.

Council Member Bannon asked if they proceed this evening and sometime between now and
whatever a “drop dead” date would be for a ballot issue and we find out that Dillon’s becomes
viable, or another location or something totally unexpected falls out of the sky, can we stop and
reevaluate?

Ms. Sexton advised there is a lot of time to stop and reevaluate. If you direct us to work with
the election commissioner and bond counsel to develop language for a ballot, we will
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -14-                                       03/27/07
specifically find out at what point is the “drop dead” point. In terms of having an election in
September or October time frame, she does not think you want to wait too much longer to make
that decision because you want to give people a chance to learn about the issue and get the word
out, as well as if there are people that are opposed to the project, give them the opportunity to get
their word out and influence the voters.

       MOTION:         Bannon moved to direct staff to develop draft language for a ballot
                       question and bring back to the council for consideration in approximately
                       one month. Arnold seconded.

Council Member Craig asked what actions staff is looking for from the council this evening to
proceed. We have an ongoing action in negotiation with USD 260. What other actions is staff
looking for?

Ms. Sexton explained that if council gives the indication that they favor a sales tax over a
property tax, if they have feelings about option A, B or C it will help staff get a sense of
finalizing some numbers. If there is a sense of the building being too big or if the council wants
more information about staff, etc., staff needs to hear that tonight so that when we come back in
a month, assuming this motion passes that we can provide all the answers to those questions and
add some finality. Obviously you can make any of those decisions tonight too but she is
assuming council might want to discuss it.

Council Member Craig indicated clarification in the motion would be to develop draft language
for the ballot. That is just a general motion, whereas are we looking for a specific A, B or C
option so he thinks we need to refine that if we are going to deal with that or build a version of
all three back to the council. Even though it has been stated he thinks it needs to be
reemphasized there has been no commitment made to the size of this facility. He thinks there
will be a lot of public feedback once people start reading numbers as far as the cost. He wants to
keep all options available to us at this time as Ms. Bannon mentioned but he would like better
definition of the motion so we know if we are going to come back with three different options
for the proposed ballot language.

Council Member Mulanax asked how much a special election costs.

Ms. Sexton advised she has not contacted the election commissioner and started that research
yet. However, one decision to be made is whether we prefer to do a mail ballot election where
the county election commissioner mails the ballots to all the registered voters in Derby or if we
would rather set up the polls for people to vote. That will be two different costs and the city will
have to bear that cost as well.

Council Member Mulanax advised that decision can be made once we determine the costs.

Ms. Sexton responded to Mr. Craig’s comments and advised she probably should have put more
options on there for different motions. Certainly it would be helpful if someone made a motion
to eliminate option “x” from consideration, or make a motion to look at option “y” to indicate
where staff should focus their attention.

Council Member Warren advised he is not prepared to vote in favor of the motion tonight
because we have been looking at this thing for over a year and have seen it coming. The folks
that are on the library board and the committees that have been working with that have been
working on it for well over a year and have seen it coming, but to a large extent the general
public is getting their very first look based on this council meeting. The figure of $8-9 million is
going to be a new figure for a lot of people in the community. A lot of options have not even
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -15-                                       03/27/07
been discussed and he wants to know if people in the community feel like it is worth discussing.
For example, do we want to look at a pre-engineered steel building, we lose something
architecturally and it will not be as nice looking as what we have, but can that option be looked
at and would there be significant savings. Can we get more square footage and more programs
for less money could also be looked at. He is not proposing that and is not saying that is the
direction he wants to go but he would like to know what the community feels about that. He
would like to get some feedback from the community on what they are looking at from a tax
standpoint as they look at the options that are out there. Are they willing to bite off a 1 mill or a
2 mill increase in order to take the long range maintenance of this or are they more comfortable
with the .15 sales tax that would be an ongoing thing. There are a lot of things out there that the
general public is just now going to be getting a first look at and to start proposing things before
we get some feedback from them, he is not ready to go down that road and he will have to vote
no. A library is good and we need a new one. He is not trying to rain on that parade but a very
mall number of people in the community have had a chance to look at it and we are just now
getting it out to the larger group. To start making decisions about which way we are going to go
before we have that is a little premature.
Council Member Craig stated he believes there is a middle ground with a combination of
continued .5 cent sales tax and maybe a mill increase that insures the coverage of maintenance
and operations for the future. Those options are not here and he too would like to hear from the
constituents about this. He is interested in moving forward with USD 260 so they have a
concept and know that we want to do that, but there are other options that might be available that
might not even involve that, so there are still quite a few questions. He likes the way this points
for the future but right now he too would have to say he would like to see a little bit more
information and feedback from the voters and taxpayers.

Council Member Bannon stated she knew she was premature in making a motion. We could
add and subtract from it all night long, but when you are looking for citizen input, the best input
she knows they are going to give is in an election and if we don’t get that ballot question written
we won’t be able to make a time frame of this fall. If we don’t make this fall we won’t be able to
get this built in 2009 or even 2010 perhaps. The past four years she has seen advocates on this
council for individual items, be it police, fire, skate park, Rock River Rapids, smoking, adult
entertainment, everyone has been an advocate for something and this is hers. Knowledge is
power, and they can’t take that away from you. We have held back our public services part of
our city, being the senior center and the library for a number of years. In the meantime we have
built up the other areas of our city that have needed it, this is the time. We have had this room
full of people saying we need to give better choices to our children, we need healthier choices,
this is the right thing. There are 100 different ways to go about it, she was looking at a good
discussion tonight on the information that Ms. Sexton and her staff has put together as far as how
we are going to fund it. She has only heard one person discuss the type of payment. We have all
had the chance to look over the information and we have all known this was coming; it is not a
surprise to anyone. As far as how to pay for it, she believes option A is the best, she is not
comfortable with a mill levy increase for what this would take, the same way she was not
comfortable when we did a career fire department. She is also not comfortable putting on a
permanent financing tax for the citizens, she does not think that is fair. The Rock River Rapids
financing has been wonderful and she pointed out that we have spent about $13 million so far on
Rock River Rapids and it is open about 80 days a year; that’s it and it will probably be less than
that next year. It appeals to people from about 3 to 18 years of age, a library is open in excess of
345 days and it takes you from birth to death. It is not a want, it is not a desire, it is a need and
when the City of Derby started it library, by state statute we are now required to provide
adequate library facilities. We are not doing that; we need to get on the stick.

Council Member Warren appreciates Mrs. Bannon’s passion for this issue, his only point is
that it is a marathon and today is not the day to start the 100 yard dash. We are still in the middle
COUNCIL MINUTES                                 -16-                                       03/27/07
part of the race and he wants to see where the community stands on a number of these issues.
Don’t take his no vote as anything against the library; it is just that he needs to know where the
community is coming from as a part of the marathon.

Council Member Craig asked for clarification on the motion, are we going to narrow it down or
will staff bring 3 opportunities back to the council. He knows everyone is looking option C as
not a favorable one because it has to do with raising the mill levy, he wants a feel for what is
going to be brought back to the council as far as language for a ballot question.

Ms. Sexton stated if the motion is passed it tells her that the council does not want option C
because you don’t need a ballot question for a property tax increase. A bond would go to the
voters later but you don’t need to draft anything for that. It would be helpful to hear if the
council is looking for option A or B. If you are not ready to decide that tonight in terms of draft
language for one option or the other then we will draft it for both and give you that month or so
to think about those two options and hear from the public.

Council Member Craig suggested an amendment to the motion that option A & B are worked
for possible language for a ballot question.

Council Member Bannon advised that would be fine, but according to what Ms. Sexton said,
by making this motion we throw option C out anyway because it wouldn’t go to ballot.

        AMENDED MOTION:               Bannon moved to direct staff to develop draft language for
                                      options A & B for a ballot question and bring back to the
                                      council for consideration in approximately one month.
                                      Arnold seconded.

Council Member Warren stated he personally does not favor option C, but he does not want to
take that option off the table until he hears from the community. He does not think people are
going to want that, but why do we not want to hear from the community on what they want. It is
like we have to rush this thing through.

Council Member Arnold advised that he thinks A & B should definitely be considered.

Council Member Schwarz stated that Rock River Rapids was his passion and he was involved
as a citizen before he got on the council. He watched that whole scenario develop and has seen
how wonderful a .5 sales tax and the benefit it can do for our community. He does not want to
slam the door shut on option B, where it takes a piece of the sales tax and carves it out for
operational revenues. He is not leaning towards that, but it has been a wonderful facility for a lot
of communities and he would expect from staff when they come back in a month is what other
communities are doing, such as Olathe and Overland Park as to what they do with their sales tax
to facilitate their budgets. He would be in favor of going ahead with the motion tonight to get it
off dead center and get it rolling. If you look at what we did with the aquatic center, that was an
even more condensed period of time. He has heard from people that said they would not agree
with a property tax. He believes options A & B are the only viable options they have going.

Ms. Sexton clarified that Mr. Schwarz was not concerned per se about libraries; he is just
thinking about are other communities using sales tax for operations of, whatever.

Council Member Schwarz would like that discussion to see how it benefits other communities.
Ms. Sexton advised staff will look at that, but explained there probably won’t be very many
doing it yet because the legislature just changed that law within the last two years to where cities
are allowed to use more sales tax authority, up to 2 cents, rather than just 1 cent. The whole
COUNCIL MINUTES                                -17-                                       03/27/07
point of that was cities were beating down their doors saying “you complain about property
taxes, but that is all you are giving us”. That is the only thing cities can do is raise property taxes
when we have city needs, whereas the legislature has income tax, sales tax, property tax,
franchise business tax, cities don’t have those options. The legislature loosened that law up
allowing cities more ability to use it, but also the ability to use it for ongoing operations of
whatever. We could use that .15 cent for a library and could use another portion for something
else someday if we wanted to if the people felt that was a better way to fund city operations then
the reliance on the property tax.

Council Member Schwarz advised he would fully expect in the next 30 days to have lots of
comments from lots of folks. If we are going to make a decision we need input from lots of
folks.

Council Member Mulanax commented that option C is really not off the table because this
motion has nothing to do with it, plus, all this motion says is to bring back some draft question.
No vote has even been taken to put it on the ballot yet so it is just bringing back what we might
take a look at so he doesn’t think option C is off the table even though he doubts that anyone in
the city would vote for that.

Council Member Johnson advised he is not sure he understands the motion. We may have the
cart before the horse and questioned if we shouldn’t decide how much we are going to spend
first, and then decide how to finance it, that would seem logical to him. Secondly, coming from
the most conservative member on the council, he would be in favor of option C and thinks that is
the only way the general tax paying public can keep taxes in line. For those that don’t realize it,
this sales tax is a tax increase to you and there will be more in the future as well as other types of
taxes in the future that you will pay. You will never know what they are unless you keep every
little receipt that you have paid. But when you get a tax bill from the county you know exactly
what your government is spending or how much you are paying for what your government is
spending. If that goes up drastically, like some that recently received a 10% increase in their
assessed valuation, remember that will provide the cities with a lot more money without even
changing our mill levy just because the assessed valuation is going up. That will give Ms.
Sexton more money to play with and she will love it, but it will do nothing for our fiscal
responsibility. The only way to do that is to put our fiscal costs into general property taxes.
Everyone loves sales taxes, look at Wal-Mart and Lowe’s and all of the out of town people that
come here to shop, maybe it’s good for us but it is almost dishonest, expecting them to pay for
our library because we probably don’t go to Mulvane to spend money for their library. He thinks
that is taking advantage of those people.

Council Member Craig advised he is in favor of the motion because it will not matter at this
time whether we are talking about 36,000 sq. ft. or 27,000 sq. ft, or the option of Dillon’s. It will
just bring something back to us to say whatever the case might be of the future library, funds
have to come from some source and that is what we are doing now.

Ms. Sexton clarified Council Member Johnson’s point, she did say earlier in her presentation
that there are four questions and the first one is how much do you want to spend. She purposely
didn’t put that as a motion tonight because hearing these numbers for the first time she did not
believe the council would be ready to say how much they wanted to spend. That is definitely
something that has to be decided and would be back before the council in approximately a month
when all this comes back up. She suggested that maybe one motion isn’t the only motion to
make tonight. If there is more than one council member who is concerned about the size of the
project it would be nice to know that as well because it will take some effort to pare this thing
back. If a majority is wanting us to pare it back we could be spending time doing that over the
next month so when it comes back to the council we have good knowledge for the council so it
won’t take additional time to get further information requested by the council.
COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -18-                                        03/27/07
Mayor Avello pointed out that when the question has been called we have to make a vote, or
vote not to vote on the question.

       MOTION:        Craig moved to call for the question. Johnson seconded.

       VOTE:          Arnold yea, Craig yea, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea, Bannon
                      yea, Mulanax yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion carried.

       RESTATED/AMENDED MOTION:

                      Bannon moved to direct staff to develop draft language for options A & B
                      for a ballot question and bring back to the council for consideration in
                      approximately one month. Arnold seconded.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Johnson nay, Warren yea, Schwarz yea, Bannon yea, Mulanax
                      yea, Arnold yea, 6 yea, 1 nay, 1 absent, motion carried.

Ms. Sexton asked if any council members would like to comment on the size of the proposed
size of the building.

Council Member Craig advised he believes we should pare down the size of the facility. The
sticker shock is pretty high when it comes to $8-9 million. He knows some people will say to
build it big and grow into it which is fine, but the way the facility is designed they have done a
great job of making it addition friendly so he would like that taken into consideration, to under
30,000 feet, specifically 27,000 to 28,000 sq. ft.

Council Member Arnold commented that if you look at the history of this city we have always
been playing catch up and he would much rather see us be proactive and take into consideration
the growth rate we have had over the last 8-10 years. He thinks Council Member Craig’s
estimate may be less than what will be needed eventually. At the same time, the cost, if we have
to expand will be tremendously greater then than it will be now. He sees no problem with the
design as a concept; obviously to take that design and decide what we really need is something
we will have to look at as we go down the road. He would rather see something a little larger
than smaller simply because of the costs related to that expansion at a later date would be
tremendously high.

Council Member Warren indicated the problem he has with going forward rapidly now is that
he would like to know what the possibility would be of the Dillon’s building. He is not
proposing this, but if we can get a building that has 1/3 more square footage than what we are
talking about right now, and we can get it for 1/3 less cost, then we can add a lot more programs
to the community. What we don’t get is a really nice architectural building, we get a box. It’s
not a very attractive box, and we are not going to get a lot of bells and whistles from that
standpoint, but it will be a very functional box because it is all open. That is something that has
to be discussed and if that building is not going to be available for a year, 2 years, then it no
longer becomes an option. If the owners of that building have other plans it is no longer an

COUNCIL MINUTES                                -19-                                      03/27/07
option. If it is an option and we don’t look at it he thinks the voters will question why we didn’t
look at an option that would save several million dollars and provide a larger facility.

Council Member Bannon stated that Council Member Arnold is correct, the city has always
been playing catch-up. Thirty-seven percent of the library patrons are non Derby citizens and as
the areas outside of Derby continue to grow, patronage to our library will grow as well and that
is part of the reason it is beneficial in her mind that they pay the sales tax. She believes this is as
good a place to start as any and there is backup documentation for the size of library needed
given the number of citizens in the community.

Council Member Mulanax asked Ms. Sexton’s feelings on the negotiations with USD 260,
does it look positive?

Ms. Sexton advised it looks positive. We are doing environmental testing and survey work and
those types of things right now and that will take a little more time. Her perception of the school
board is they want to have a contract agreement which staff is working on writing up that would
indicate we only want this land for a library. If the people or the city council votes and say they
don’t want a library then we don’t want their land.

Mayor Avello commented for the benefit of the citizens that this is just a jumping off spot and
education for the public and an opportunity to provide feedback. We have a lot of work to do
and nothing is in concrete. It can all come back before the council or in public workshops.

Ms. Sexton agreed.

ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST – THE OAKS
ADDITION

Don Losew, City Planner presented the staff report.

Background:
   • This site is located east of Woodlawn and north of Meadowlark and is among the
      properties included in the zone changes and subsequent platting, in the year 2000,
      associated with The Oaks golf course development. As indicated by the legal description
      for the zone change, the application area is a platted lot, presently under “B-1” Office
      District zoning.
   • In addition to this zone change request 10 “B-2” Neighborhood Business District, the
      applicant has submitted a companion case requesting a lot split. The application for this
      zone change notes an intended use for the site as a video rental “building and business”.
      The request for a lot split implies that only a portion of the present lot would be for the
      above indicated use, with a second building site being created for a future use.
   • Although existing municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to the site, the
      creation of a separate building site through the lot split process will require (and has been
      made a condition of lot split approval) that a public sanitary sewer line be extended to the
      eastern tract created by the lot split.

COUNCIL MINUTES                                  -20-                                        03/27/07
   •   During the public hearing no citizen opposition was expressed toward the zone change.

Financial Considerations:
   • As noted above, this site presently has access to municipal water and sanitary sewer. The
      related Lot Split case requires the extension of sanitary sewer and is considered separate
      from the requested zone change.

Legal Considerations:
      On March 1, 2007 the required Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was
      held. No protest petitions have been filed. The Commission approved the zone change
      by a vote of 9 to 0. Following are the findings of fact adopted by the Commission for the
      requested zone change.

   1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: As noted above, while the area
      immediately adjacent to the zone change application area is zoned “R-1”, single-family,
      it has been developed for a golf course and is buffered from those areas by natural
      conditions (heavily wooded areas in association with a stream(s). As for the zoning and
      uses at the other three corners of the Woodlawn and Meadowlark intersection, the
      neighborhood type uses (retail and service) allowed under “B-2” zoning could provide
      convenient access to nearby residential uses such as the multi-family use to the west and
      would in general be no more intensive than the uses typically provided under “I-1”
      zoning.
   2. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: The previous
      rezoning of this site to the “B-1” district established the expectation that non-residential
      development was the most appropriate use of the site. The size of the site and its
      somewhat awkward shape also makes development of the site for residential uses, at least
      one or two-family, impractical.
   3. AFFECT OF REZONING ON NEARBY PROPERTIES: The change from “B-1” to “B-
      2” zoning is at most a marginal intensification of use for this area. Consequently, no
      significant change or impacts would be expected due to the zone change from what
      would be expected if the site were to develop under its present zoning. There is also no
      increase in the area involved in the zone change request, the request involving an already
      platted lot.
      For the multi family development to the west, the proposed zoning is in line with the use
      of transitional zoning as a means to buffer residential areas from the more intensive non-
      residential uses associated with “B-3” or other more intensive uses. At this time,
      however, such more intensive uses do not exist in the vicinity of the zone change
      application area. However, also, as a zoning classification intending to provide
      “neighborhood” type uses, such zoning should be a benefit, i.e. providing services closer
      to users.
   4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED:
      Regardless of this site’s present or past zoning, given the site’s location within the
      developed area of the City, its still undeveloped nature is a concern. From an even more
      pragmatic view, the site’s wooded and over grown appearance has been a problem over
      the years and its development would remove what could be considered an “eyesore”.

COUNCIL MINUTES                               -21-                                      03/27/07
      Being zoned and platted for nearly seven years and given its location at a fairly important
      intersection also implies that the site’s present zoning may be too limiting.
   5. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC: “B-2” Zoning is intended to provide retail and
      other services on a neighborhood level and this site is well positioned in regard to such
      residential areas. Also, as noted above, this site has not just been vacant for many years
      but is quite unsightly and the area’s appearance would benefit by this site’s development.
   6. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Derby’s recently adopted
      2005/06 Comprehensive Plan has recommended the development of mix used areas.
      Such areas are intended to provide for the intermixing to some degree of residential uses
      with compatible, neighborhood oriented uses. The primary objective of creating such
      mixed used areas is to make services and retailing uses readily accessible to area
      residents, even to the point that such activities are within walking distance. Under the
      Comprehensive Plan’s Goals for Residential Areas for example it is stated “Provide
      convenient access to neighborhood services from residential areas so activities of daily
      living can occur within walking distance”. Although this goal is presented for areas of
      new residential development, doing the same, when possible for an existing residential
      area, should be considered the same desirable goal.
   7. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Given this site’s existing platting and
      zoning, no significant impacts, beyond those already planned for, should result due to the
      zone change. While certain uses under “B-2” zoning could be more intensive than those
      allowed under the present “B-1” zoning, none of those uses would be significantly
      greater nor exceed the services already available in this area. That is, sanitary sewer,
      water and traffic improvements are already in place to service this site. While a lot split
      has been submitted for the zone change application, lot splits do not typically allow a
      more intensive level of development but rather is a means for a site to be developed
      under more than one ownership. Municipal facilities do in some lot split situations need
      to be extended to a tract being created by the lot split but again such extensions do not
      typically imply a more intensive use of such municipal services

Policy Considerations:
   • The City Council is allowed to modify the zoning to a classification more restrictive than
       the one requested and/or for a smaller area than encompassed by the original request. If
       any such changes are different than as recommended by the Planning Commission, the
       Council must do so by a majority vote of at least 6 and base such decision(s) on an
       appropriate finding of facts review.

                                   ORDINANCE NO. 1884

AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
LANDS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS, AND AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OR MAPS OF THE CITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CITY.

DISCUSSION:

Council Member Warren clarified that all the proper notifications were made.
COUNCIL MINUTES                               -22-                                      03/27/07
Mr. Losew advised that was correct.

       MOTION:        Warren moved to approve the zone change from “B-1” to “B-2” for Lot 1,
                      Block G, The Oaks Addition, located east of Woodlawn and north of
                      Meadowlark, based on the Findings of Fact as recommended by the
                      Planning Commission and instruct staff to publish the zone change
                      ordinance. Bannon seconded.

Council Member Craig asked what “B-2” zoning included.

Mr. Losew gave examples of allowed uses.

Council Member Craig asked if the notifications included the intended use of the property.

Mr. Losew advised they did not.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                      Bannon yea, Mulanax yea, Arnold yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion
                      carried.

REVISED RESOLUTION
FOR WATER LINE
IMPROVEMENT TO
SERVE SPRINGCREEK
PLAZA ADDITION

Dan Squires, City Engineer presented the staff report.

Background:
   • Springcreek Plaza Addition is located east of Rock Road on the south side of Madison.
   • Springcreek Plaza Addition was approved by the City Council on November 23, 2004.
   • Most recent resolutions to construct public improvements were approved on November
      28, 2006.
   • Bids were received for the waterline project on February 20, 2007. The bids received
      resulted in the total project costs exceeding the approved resolution amount.
   • The developer has opted to submit a new petition which increases the allowable project
      costs and Gilmore & Bell has prepared the corresponding resolution for Council
      consideration, which would repeal the original resolution (25-2006).
   • If the revised resolution is approved by the Council, the bids for the water line
      construction will also be considered at the March 27th Council meeting.

Financial Considerations:
   • Funds for the construction work were included in the 2006-1 Temporary Note issue.
   • Costs for the water line improvements will be paid 100% by the benefit district and none
      by the City-at-Large.
   • Special Assessments will be spread against the benefit district properties over a 15-year
      period.

COUNCIL MINUTES                               -23-                                    03/27/07
Legal Considerations:
   • This is a valid petition in accordance with Section 126a of the Kansas Statutes.

Policy Considerations:
   • The Council has made a practice of financing such proposed improvements through the
       use of special assessments.
   • The City Council has previously committed City funds to construct this project
       (Resolution Number 25-2006).

                                 RESOLUTION NO. 33-2007

WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS/SPRINGCREEK PLAZA ADDITION.

       MOTION:        Bannon moved to approve the revised resolution for water line
                      improvements to serve Springcreek Plaza Addition. Schwarz seconded.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                      Bannon yea, Mulanax yea, Arnold yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion
                      carried.

BIDS FOR WATER LINE
IMPROVEMENTS,
SPRINGCREEK PLAZA
ADDITION

Dan Squires, City Engineer presented the staff report.

Background:
   • A bid opening for the construction of Water Line Improvements to serve Springcreek
      Plaza Addition, was conducted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.
   • Requests for quotations were submitted to contractors after advertisement in the
      appropriate publications.
   • The following bids were received by the City Engineer’s office and witnessed by the City
      Clerk:

               Mies Construction                     $21,070
               McCullough Excavation                 $21,000
               Engineer’s Estimate                   $15,486

Financial Considerations:
   • Council is to consider revised resolution for this project at the March 27, 2007 Council
      meeting, increasing the allowable project cost to accommodate this bid.
   • Funds for the construction work were included in the 2006-1 temporary note issue.
   • Costs for the Storm Water Sewer Improvements will be paid 100% by the benefit district
      and none by the City-at-Large.

COUNCIL MINUTES                               -24-                                      03/27/07
   •   Special Assessments will be spread against the benefit district properties over a 15-year
       period.

Legal Considerations:
   • The City has followed all statutory procedures in securing financing and in planning the
      project.

Policy Considerations:
   • McCullough Excavation has completed several projects in Derby and has submitted all
       required bonds and financial sureties for the project.
   • Upon approval of the bid, staff will prepare the required contract documents for the
       Mayor’s and City Clerk’s signatures.

       MOTION:        Warren moved to approve the bid of McCullough Excavation in the total
                      amount of $21,000 for the construction of Springcreek Plaza Addition,
                      Water Line Improvements. Johnson seconded.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                      Bannon yea, Mulanax yea, Arnold yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion
                      carried.

RESOLUTIONS FOR
SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR
ANDERSON FARM
COMMERCIAL
ADDITION

Dan Squires, City Engineer presented the staff report.


Background:
   • Anderson Farm Commercial Addition is located at the northwest corner of Rock and
      Patriot Avenue.
   • Anderson Farm Commercial Addition was approved by the City Council on April 12,
      2005.
   • Resolutions to construct public improvements were approved on May 10, 2005.
   • A decision to split the existing Sanitary Sewer resolution into two phases was recently
      made by the developer to serve Lots 1-4, Block A as Phase 1 and Lots 5-9, Block A as
      Phase 2.
   • These resolutions repeal Resolution 14-2005 originally issued to construct sanitary sewer
      for the entire plat in one phase.

Financial Considerations:
   • Funds for the construction work will be included in the 2007-1 Temporary Note issue.
   • Costs for the sanitary sewer improvements will be paid 100% by the benefit district and
      none by the City-at-Large.
COUNCIL MINUTES                               -25-                                     03/27/07
   •   Special Assessments will be spread against the benefit district properties over a 15-year
       period.

Legal Considerations:
   • These are valid petitions in accordance with Section 12 6a of the Kansas Statutes.

Policy Considerations:
   • The Council has made a practice of financing such proposed improvements through the
       use of special assessments.
   • The City Council has previously committed City funds to construct these projects. This
       proposed Council action only modifies the benefit district by splitting the original benefit
       district into two phases.

                                  RESOLUTION NO. 34-2007

SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 1/ANDERSON FARM COMMERCIAL
ADDITION.

                                  RESOLUTION NO. 35-2007

SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2/ANDERSON FARM COMMERCIAL
ADDITION.

       MOTION:        Craig moved to approve the revised resolutions for sanitary sewer
                      improvements to serve Anderson Farm Commercial Addition. Arnold
                      seconded.

Council Member Warren clarified if the split was about 50/50 in terms of the land and
indicated a concern that sometimes when they phase these things in and end up loading one
particular piece of land with a higher special or cost. He hoped that staff keeps an eye out for
that sort of thing to make sure we don’t create a problem.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                      Bannon yea, Mulanax yea, Arnold yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion
                      carried.

ADJOURNMENT

       MOTION:        Schwarz moved to adjourn at 9:48 p.m. Warren seconded.

       VOTE:          Craig yea, Meidinger absent, Johnson yea, Warren yea, Schwarz yea,
                      Bannon yea, Mulanax yea, 7 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, motion carried.




                                                                    Dion P. Avello, Mayor

COUNCIL MINUTES                                -26-                                      03/27/07
    ATTEST:




    Jean Epperson, City Clerk

    Return to agenda




COUNCIL MINUTES                 -27-   03/27/07
                                                                                       AR Council vacancy CO
                                                                                                April 5, 2007




                      CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:      Mayor and City Council
From:    Phil Alexander, City Attorney
Subject: Charter ordinance providing for filling of council vacancies and repealing charter
         ordinance no. 2

Guests:        None anticipated.

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007.

Background:

•   Under K.S.A. 14-204, city council vacancies are filled by appointment for the balance of the
    unexpired term.
•   Charter ordinance no. 2 of the City, enacted in 1961, provides that Council vacancies are
    filled by appointment “until the date of the next April City election”.
•   Council minutes dating from adoption of charter ordinance no. 2 do not disclose the motive
    for departing from state law with respect to filling council vacancies.
•   Notwithstanding charter ordinance no. 2, the practice in Derby has generally been to appoint
    for the unexpired term.
•   Adoption of the proposed charter ordinance would conform City ordinance to the generally
    established practice of filling council vacancies for the unexpired term of the office.

Financial Considerations:

•   None.

Legal Considerations:

•   The City’s practices should be consistent with its organizational documents.
•   Filling vacancies for the unexpired term of office is consistent with state law, the practice in
    other cities and past practice in Derby.

Policy Considerations:

•   Repeal of charter ordinance no. 2 eliminates the need to conduct an off-cycle election to fill a
    vacancy on the City Council.

Recommendation:

•   Adopt a charter ordinance providing for election of Council members, qualifications for the
    office, tie votes and filling of vacancies; exempting the City from the provisions of K.S.A.
    14-204; and repealing charter ordinance no. 2 of the City.
                          AR Council vacancy CO
                                   April 5, 2007




Go to charter ordinance
                                                                                       Council vacancy CO
                                                                                              April 5, 2007




                                                                Passed:
                                                                1st Publication:
                                                                2nd Publication:

                         CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. __________

       A CHARTER ORDINANCE EXEMPTING THE CITY FROM AND
       MAKING INAPPLICABLE TO IT THE PROVISIONS OF K.S.A. 14-204;
       PROVIDING SUBSTITUTE AND ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE
       ELECTION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, QUALIFICATIONS THEREFOR,
       TIE VOTES AND FILLING OF VACANCIES; AND REPEALING
       ORIGINAL CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 2 OF THE CITY.


    BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF DERBY,
KANSAS:

        SECTION 1. Exemption from K.S.A. 14-204. The City of Derby, Kansas (“City), a
mayor-council-manager city of the second class, by the power vested in it by Article 12, Section
5, of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, hereby elects to exempt itself from, and make
inapplicable to it, the provisions of K.S.A. 14-204, and to provide substitute and additional
provisions as hereinafter set forth in this ordinance. Such referenced provision of Kansas law is
either an enactment or a part of an enactment which is applicable to this city, but is not
applicable uniformly to all cities.

        SECTION 2. Election of Council Members; qualifications therefore; tie votes and
filling of Council vacancies. Each ward of the City shall have two council members who shall
be chosen by the qualified electors of their respective wards and no person shall be eligible for
the office of council member who is not at the time of his or her election or appointment an
actual resident of the ward for which he or she is elected or appointed. If any council member
shall move from the ward from which he or she was elected or appointed, his or her office as
council member shall thereby become vacated. Whenever there shall be a tie in the election of a
council member, the winner shall be determined by lot by the judges of the election of the ward
in which such tie occurred. All vacancies in the office of council member shall be filled by
appointment by the remaining members of the council; such appointment shall be for the
unexpired term of the vacant office.

       SECTION 3. Charter ordinance no. 2 of the City of Derby, Kansas, is hereby repealed.

       SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be published once each week for two consecutive
weeks in the official City newspaper.

       SECTION 5. This charter ordinance shall take effect sixty-one days after final
publication, unless a sufficient petition for a referendum is filed and a referendum held on the
ordinance, as provided in Article 12, Section 5, Subdivision C (3) of the Constitution of the State
                                                                                   Council vacancy CO
                                                                                          April 5, 2007




of Kansas, in which case, the ordinance shall become effective if approved by a majority of the
electors voting thereon.

        PASSED BY THE GOVERNING BODY, not less than two-thirds of the members-
elect voting in favor thereof, this ______ day of _________________, 2007.




                                                      Dion P. Avello, Mayor

ATTEST:



Jean Epperson, City Clerk

Return to agenda
                     CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:      Mayor and City Council
From:    Mandy M. Wagner, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Clean Indoor Air Ordinance

Guests: None

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007

Background/Discussion:

   •   At its meeting on February 13, 2007, the Derby City Council deliberated on a Clean
       Indoor Air Ordinance. After much discussion, the Council agreed to table further
       discussion and action until a future date, noting that more time to reflect on this issue
       would be beneficial.
   •   The City Council has since indicated its desire to revisit the issue at its April 10, 2007
       meeting. The Council has also indicated its interest in continuing deliberation on the
       ordinance with an extended effective.
   •   The attached ordinance is the same as considered previously. The ordinance:
           o Prohibits smoking in all public places, places of employment, and within 20 feet
              of all entrances, exits, and air intake ventilation systems of these locations;
           o Does not regulate private places (i.e. home, car) unless used for childcare,
              healthcare, or adult day care; and
           o Has an effective date of August 1, 2008.

Financial Considerations:

   •   There are no direct financial consequences associated with adoption of this ordinance.

Legal Considerations:

   •   The City is empowered to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
   •   When challenged, clean indoor air ordinances in Kansas have been upheld by the courts.
   •   An equally applied ordinance is more defensible from legal challenges.

Policy Considerations:

   •   The Ordinance Review Advisory Board has endorsed the ordinance as it is presented and
       without further amendments.




Recommended Action:
   •   Adopt a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance with amendments and stipulations deemed
       by the City Council to be in the best interest of the community.

Alternative Options:

   •   Adopt a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance with an effective date of January 1, 2009.

   •   Adopt a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance with an effective date of August 1, 2009.

   •   Amend the Clean Indoor Air Ordinance to exempt the VFW. If the governing
       body desires such an exemption, the following amendments would accomplish an
       exemption for the VFW and other non-profit private clubs without creating a
       loophole for for-profit private clubs and drinking establishments:
          o Motion to amend Section 2 by inserting a new subsection “b” to define Class A
              clubs as follows:
                      “Class A club” means a premises which is owned or leased by a
                      corporation, partnership, business trust or association and which is
                      operated thereby as a bona fide nonprofit social, fraternal or war veterans’
                      club, as determined by the director, for the exclusive use of the corporate
                      stockholders, partners, trust beneficiaries or associates (hereinafter
                      referred to as members) and their families and guests accompanying them
                      as defined by K.S.A. 41-2601(e).
          o And amend Section 2 by inserting a new subsection “c” to define Class B clubs as
              follows and renumbering the subsections thereafter:
                      “Class B club” means a premises operated for profit by a corporation,
                      partnership, or individual, to which members of such club may resort for
                      the consumption of food or alcoholic beverages and for entertainment as
                      defined by K.S.A. 41-2601(f).
          o And amend Section 3 by inserting a new subsection “q” to read “Class B private
              clubs” and renumbering the subsections thereafter.
          o And amend Section 7 by inserting a new subsection “c” to read “Class A private
              clubs and fraternal organizations.”

Go to ordinance
                                                                                 CITY OF DERBY


                                           Ordinance # _____

        AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF DERBY,
        SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS.

         WHEREAS, secondhand smoke, which contains 4,000 chemicals, 63 of which cause cancer, is
the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and the National Cancer Institute
determined in 2000 (Monograph #10) that secondhand smoke is responsible for the early deaths of as
many as 65,000 Americans annually; and

        WHEREAS, (1) the Public Health Service’s National Toxicology Program has listed secondhand
smoke as a known carcinogen (U. S. DHHS, 2000, citing Cal. EPA, 1997), and (2) numerous studies
have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution and that breathing
secondhand smoke (also known as environmental tobacco smoke) is a cause of disease in healthy
nonsmokers, including heart, stroke, respiratory disease, and lung cancer; and

        WHEREAS, the ills of smoking and secondhand smoke are well documented in all of the
independent medical studies and secondhand smoke is particularly hazardous to elderly people, children,
individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including
asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and

        WHEREAS, (1) the U. S. Surgeon General has determined that the simple separation of smokers
and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of
nonsmokers to secondhand smoke, (2) the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that
secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation, (3) air
cleaners, which are only capable of filtering the particulate matter and odors in smoke, do not eliminate
the known toxins in secondhand smoke, (4) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) bases its ventilation standards on totally smoke-free environments
because it cannot determine a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, which contains cancer-
causing chemicals, and ASHRAE acknowledges that the technology does not exist that can remove
chemicals from the air that cause cancer; and

        WHEREAS, (1) a recently promulgated ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco
Smoke concludes that at present, the only means of eliminating health risks associated with indoor
exposure is to ban all smoking activity, and (2) ASHRAE further concludes that no current ventilation, air
cleaning or other technologies have been demonstrated to control health risks from environmental
tobacco smoke exposure in spaces where smoking occurs; and

        WHEREAS, a significant amount of secondhand smoke exposure occurs in the workplace, and
employees who work in smoking permitted businesses suffer a higher risk of heart attack and higher rates
of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory disease and a
measurable decrease in lung function; and

        WHEREAS, smoke-filled workplaces result in higher worker absenteeism due to respiratory
disease, lower productivity, higher cleaning and maintenance costs, increased health insurance rates and
increased liability claims for diseases related to exposure to secondhand smoke; and

        WHEREAS, the Derby City Council recognizes that environmental tobacco smoke poses a
serious public health hazard; that nonsmokers need protection from environmental tobacco smoke
exposure and that regulation of the burning of tobacco in public places and places of employment is
imperative in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Derby;

     NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF DERBY,
KANSAS:
                                                                                   CITY OF DERBY


        Section 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to (1) improve and protect the public’s
health by eliminating smoking in public places and places of employment; (2) guarantee the right of
nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air; and (3) recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall
have priority over the choice to smoke.

         Section 2. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Ordinance,
shall be construed as defined in this section:

a.   “Business” means any sole proprietorship, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation or
     other for-profit business entity, including retail establishments where goods or services are sold as
     well as professional corporations and other entities where legal, medical, dental, engineering,
     architectural or other professional services are delivered.

b.   “Employee” means any person, including but not limited to, independent contractors and
     volunteers, who is employed by an employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages
     or profit, or any person who volunteers his or her services for a non-profit entity.

c.   “Employer” means any person, partnership, corporation, including a municipal corporation, or non-
     profit entity, which employs the services of one (1) or more individual persons.

d.   “Enclosed area” means all space between a floor and ceiling which is enclosed on all sides by solid
     walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage ways) which extend from the floor to the ceiling,
     including all space therein screened by partitions which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid,
     “office landscaping” or similar structures.

e.   “Food Service Establishment” shall mean any place in which food is served or is prepared for sale
     or service on the premises or elsewhere. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, fixed or
     mobile restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order café, luncheonette, grill, tea room, sandwich
     shop, soda fountain, tavern, private club, roadside kitchen, commissary and any other private, public
     or nonprofit organization or institution routinely serving food and any other eating or drinking
     establishment or operation where food is served or provided for the public with or without charge.

f.   “Health Care Facility” means any institution, place, building, or agency required to be licensed
     under Kansas law, including, but not limited to, any hospital, nursing facility or nursing home,
     boarding home, assisted living facility, supervised living facility, or ambulatory medical and surgical
     center. A private residence being visited by a health care provider for the purposes of providing in-
     home health care shall not be deemed a health care facility.

g.   “Licensed Premises” shall mean any premises where alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages, or
     both, by the individual drink as defined by K.S.A. Chapter 41, and amendments thereto, is served or
     provided for consumption or use on the premises with or without charge. Such term shall include
     drinking establishments, Class A Private Clubs, Class B Private Clubs, and cereal malt beverage
     retailers, all as defined by K.S.A. Chapter 41, and amendments thereto, and this Code.

h.   “Office Landscaping” means indoor office areas without permanent walls, or walls that are not
     floor to ceiling; open space such as waiting area and atriums; cubicles and/or open desk seating
     areas.

i.   “Permanently Designated” means a hotel or motel room that has been identified as a smoking
     room. Hotels and motels may designate smoking rooms only once a year.

j.   “Place of Employment” means any enclosed area under the control of public or private employer
     which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including, but not limited to,
     work areas, employee lounges and restrooms, conference and classrooms, employee cafeterias and
     hallways. A private residence is not a “place of employment” unless it is used as a childcare, adult
     day care or health care facility.
                                                                                       CITY OF DERBY



k.   “Private Place” means any enclosed area to which the public is not invited or in which the public is
     not permitted, including but not limited to, personal residences or personal motor vehicles. A
     privately owned business, open to the public, is not a private place.

l.   “Public Place” means any enclosed area, other than those expressly exempted from operation of
     this ordinance, to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not
     limited to, banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundromats, public transportation facilities,
     reception areas, production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail
     stores, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a public place.

m.   “Retail Tobacco Store” means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and
     accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental.

n.   “Service Line” means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons are waiting for or receiving
     service of any kind, whether or not such service involves the exchange of money.

o.   “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or weed.

p.   “Sports Arena” means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools,
     roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys and other similar places where members of the general public
     assemble either to engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness sports
     events.

     Section 3. SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES PROHIBITED. Smoking shall be prohibited in all
enclosed public places within the City of Derby, including, but not limited to, the following places:

a.   Elevators.

b.   Restrooms, lobbies, reception areas, hallways, and any other common-use areas.

c.   Buses, bus terminals, taxicabs, train stations, airports, and other facilities and means of public transit
     under the authority of the City of Derby, as well as ticket, boarding, and waiting areas of public transit
     depots.

d.   Service lines.

e.   Retail stores and shopping malls.

f.   Libraries, educational facilities, child care and adult day care facilities.

g.   All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in all businesses and non-profit
     entities patronized by the public, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ offices, and other offices,
     banks, laundromats, hotels, and motels.

h.   Food service establishments and licensed premises, excluding areas of a food service establishment
     or licensed premises that are not enclosed such as patios, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards.

i.   Galleries, libraries, aquariums, museums, and grounds.

j.   Any facility which is primarily used for exhibiting any motion picture, stage, drama, lecture, musical
     recital or other similar performance, except that performers may smoke when the smoking is a part of
     a stage production.
                                                                                    CITY OF DERBY


k.   Any indoor place of entertainment or recreation, including but not limited to gymnasiums, theaters,
     concert halls, bingo halls, billiard halls, betting establishments, bowling facilities, arenas, and
     swimming pools.

l.   Sports arenas and convention halls, including enclosed places in outdoor arenas.

m. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings under the
   control of any board, council, commission, committee, including joint committees, or agencies of the
   City of Derby or any political subdivision of the State during such time as a public meeting is in
   progress, to the extent such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Derby.

n.   Waiting rooms, hallways, wards and semiprivate rooms of health facilities, including, but not limited
     to, hospitals, clinics, physical therapy facilities, doctors’ offices, and dentists’ offices.

o.   Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in apartment buildings, condominiums, trailer parks,
     retirement facilities, nursing homes, and other multiple-unit residential facilities.

p.   Polling places.

q.   Outside of any of the above, within 20 (twenty) feet of all entrances, exits, and ventilation system air
     intake mechanisms.

     Section 4. SMOKING IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT PROHIBITED. Smoking shall be prohibited in
all enclosed places of employment within the City Derby.

a.     It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide a smoke-free workplace for all employees.

b.     Each employer having any enclosed place of employment located within the City of Derby shall
       adopt, implement, make known and maintain, a written smoking policy which shall contain the
       following requirements:

                 Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of employment without
                 exception. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and
                 meeting rooms, private offices, elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias,
                 employee lounges, stairs, restrooms, vehicles, and all other enclosed facilities.

c.     The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within thirty (30) calendar days of the
       adoption of this ordinance.

d.     All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon request to any existing or
       prospective employee.

        Section 5. DECLARATION OF NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. Nothing in this ordinance
shall be construed to limit the right of any owner, operator, manager or other person in control of any
establishment described in this ordinance to declare such establishment to be entirely a non-smoking
establishment.

        Section 6. CITY-OWNED FACILITIES. Notwithstanding other provisions of this ordinance, all
enclosed facilities and vehicles owned by the City of Derby shall be non-smoking at all times
notwithstanding other provisions of this Ordinance.

         Section 7. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS NOT REGULATED.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance to the contrary, the following areas shall not be
subject to the smoking restrictions of this Ordinance:

a.     Private places, except when used as a childcare, adult day care or health care facility.
                                                                                     CITY OF DERBY



b.     Outdoor places of employment except those covered in Section 5 of this Ordinance.

        Section 8. POSTING OF SIGNS. The owner, manager or other person having control of a building
or other area where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance shall conspicuously post signs clearly stating
that smoking is prohibited at each entrance and within the building or other areas where smoking is
prohibited. Such signs shall have bold lettering of not less than one (1) inch in height or, in the alternative,
the international "No Smoking" symbol, consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette
enclosed in a red circle with a diagonal red bar across it.

     Section 9. NOTICE, INSPECTIONS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION. Notice of the provisions
set forth in this Ordinance shall be given to each applicant for a City business license and drinking
establishment or other liquor license.

a. The Derby Fire & Rescue Department, the Derby Police Department, and the Codes Enforcement
   Division of the Community Development Department shall, when conducting any required inspection
   of an establishment, inspect for compliance of this Ordinance.

b. The City of Derby may contract with Sedgwick County Health Department or any other public agency
   to promote the purposes and objectives of this ordinance to the public affected by it, and guide
   owners, operators and managers in their compliance with it. Such promotion may include publication
   of a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions of this Ordinance to
   affected businesses and individuals.

   Section 10. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT. The City Manager or his or her designated
agent shall be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Ordinance.

a.      Any person may file a complaint with the City Manager or his or her designated agent to initiate
        enforcement of this ordinance.

b.      Any owner, manager, operator or employee of any establishment regulated by this Ordinance
        shall be responsible for informing persons violating this Ordinance of the provisions through
        appropriate signage.

         Section 11. RETALIATION PROHIBITED. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire
or in any manner retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment or customer because such
employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke free environment afforded by this
Ordinance.

         Section 12. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS, OWNERS, AND MANAGERS. No person
having control of a place, business, office or other establishment or activity subject to this Ordinance shall
not knowingly permit, cause, suffer or allow any person to violate the provisions of this Ordinance in that
place. Such persons shall take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent or stop smoking in violation of
this Ordinance by employees, patrons and visitors in the place, business, office or establishment,
including, but not limited to posting no-smoking signs and removing all ashtrays; verbally asking a person
who is smoking to extinguish the smoking materials; refusing service to a person who is illegally smoking;
verbally asking anyone illegally smoking to leave the premises; and applying standard business
procedures in the same manner for violations of house rules or other local ordinances or state laws. If the
employee, patron or visitor smoking in violation of this Ordinance is hard of hearing, the communications
with that person may be written, in sign language or other effective means of communication.

        Section 13. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES.

a.      It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited by the
        provisions of this Ordinance.
                                                                                   CITY OF DERBY


b.      It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls any
        premises subject to regulation hereunder to fail to comply with all provisions of this Ordinance.

c.      A person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this Ordinance
        shall be guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00).

d.      A person having control of any premise subject to regulation hereunder and who fails to comply
        with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a public offense, punishable by:
        1.      A fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for the first violation.

        2.      A fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for a second violation within one (1)
                year after the first violation.

        3.      A fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for a third or subsequent violation
                within one (1) year after the first violation.

e.      Each day that any violation of this Chapter occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

f.      In addition to the fines established by this Section, violation of this Ordinance by a person having
        control of a public place or place of employment may result in the suspension or revocation of any
        permit or license issued to the person for the premises on which the violation occurred.

       Section 14. OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS. This Ordinance shall not be construed to permit
smoking on any premises where it is otherwise restricted by law.

         Section 15. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this Ordinance or
the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

          Section 16. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective from after August 1, 2008 and
after its publication in the official city newspaper.

PASSED BY THE GOVERNING BODY this ____ day of ____________, 2007.



                                                           Dion P. Avello, Mayor

ATTEST:



Jean Epperson, City Clerk

Return to agenda
                                                                                  2007 RRR Paint Bids
                                                                                               4/3/07
                                                                                                  rlm


                     CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:      Mayor and City Council
From:    Robert Mendoza, Director of Public Works and Parks
Subject: Rock River Rapids Pool Paint Bids
Guests: None

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007

Background:
   • This is an approved 2007 budget request to repaint the pools and surface striping at Rock
      River Rapids.
   • This is necessary maintenance to provide a safe and functional system.
   • Painting of the pool is expected to occur every three years.
   • 4 vendors were contacted and each provided a bid. These include Wildcat Painting Inc.
      with a bid of $48,650, United Painting Contractors with a bid of $95,220, Hurricane
      Maintenance and Painting with a bid of $115,500 and Pro-Kleen with a bid of $134,987.
   • The Bid Board reviewed all pertinent documents and approved the lowest bid from
      Wildcat Painting on April 3, 2007.
   • Wildcat Painting Inc. has previously been contracted with to provide painting and wood
      sealing services for RRR and has a good working relationship with the City of Derby.

Financial Considerations:

   •   The City estimated the cost of the project to be $50,000.
   •   Approved bid of $48,650.
   •   Total savings of $1,350.

Legal Considerations:

   •   Competitive bidding is not required for procurement of this work.
   •   The City’s purchasing procedure was followed in soliciting proposals for this work.
   •   The contract is under review and will be available at the Council meeting.

Policy Considerations:

   •   The Department followed all bid and purchase guidelines as required by the City of Derby
       Purchasing Policy.

Recommendation:

   •   Approve the Bid from Wildcat Painting Inc. in the amount of $48,650 for repainting of
       RRR pools and surface striping, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in
       substantially the form presented.
                   2007 RRR Paint Bids
                                4/3/07
                                   rlm

Return to agenda
                                                                                      2007 Pickup Bids
                                                                                                4/2/07
                                                                                                   rlm


                     CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:        Mayor and City Council
From:      Robert Mendoza, Director of Public Works and Parks
Subject:   Purchase Pickup Trucks for Public Works & Parks

Guests: None

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007

Background:

   •   This is an approved 2007 budget request to replace 3 light-duty pickup trucks.
   •   Two vehicles will be assigned to the Parks Division and one to the Street Maintenance
       Division.
   •   Existing vehicles will be used as trade-ins.
   •   11 vendors were contacted, of which 3 responded. These include Pfaff Chevrolet with a
       bid of $75,769, Lubbers Ford with a bid of $62,955 and Rusty Eck Ford with a bid of
       $62,014.
   •   Bids were received and opened on March 13, 2007.
   •   The Bid Board reviewed all pertinent documents and approved the lowest bid from Rusty
       Eck Ford on March 26th, 2007 for three ¾ ton, 2-wheel drive, regular cab pickup trucks.

Financial Considerations:

   •   The City estimated the cost of each vehicle to be $22,900.
   •   Actual lowest bid received from Rusty Eck Ford is $20,671 per vehicle.
   •   Vehicles are $2,229 below budget, per vehicle.

Legal Considerations:

   •   All legal requirements governing solicitation and acceptance of bids have been satisfied.

Policy Considerations:

   •   The Department followed all bid and purchase guidelines as required by the City of Derby
       Purchasing Policy.

Recommendation:

   •   Approve the purchase of three ¾ ton pickup trucks from Rusty Eck Ford for $62,014.

Return to agenda
                       CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:        Mayor and City Council
From:      Dan Squires – City Engineer
Subject:   Truck-Mounted Pressure Cleaner Purchase

Guests: None

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007

Background:

   •   The City currently utilizes a Truck Mounted Pressure Cleaner (Jet Rodder) purchased in
       1995 to clean city sewer mains and clear blockages.
   •   This equipment is utilized by wastewater staff daily and is relied upon to clear blockages
       in emergency situations.
   •   The existing equipment is outdated, has a corroded tank, and requires significant ongoing
       maintenance. The pump has been rebuilt 4 times in recent years (at a cost of
       approximately $4,000/each).
   •   In late 2006, the City solicited proposals from suppliers of this type of equipment.
   •   Pricing on the 3 pieces of equipment is as follows, all prices assume trade-in of the
       existing equipment:

               Unit                        Supplier                              Cost
               Vactor Ram Jet              Key Equipment                         $134,870
               Camel Jet*                  Utility Maintenance                   $116,829
               VacCon Hot Shot             Sellers Equipment                     $141,500

               *The Camel Jet did not fully comply with equipment specifications, but was evaluated due to the favorable
               pricing.

   •   In February of 2007, wastewater staff participated in demonstrations and utilized a
       decision matrix to evaluate the Vactor Ram Jet and the Camel Jet units. Seller’s
       Equipment was provided the opportunity to demonstrate the VacCon Hot Shot but elected
       not to do so.
   •   The Vactor Ram Jet from Key Equipment was selected as the best overall value to the
       City. The primary reasons for selection of the Vactor unit over the Camel unit were:

           o The Vactor Ram Jet utilizes a single stainless steel tank. The Camel unit utilizes a
             3-section polyethylene tank connected by hoses. The polyethylene tank is subject
             to puncture, and it is likely the hoses and connectors would require frequent
             maintenance.
           o The single piston pump on the Vactor Ram Jet can run dry for more than 30
             minutes without damage, is more durable, and is easier to maintain. The triplex
             pump utilized by the Camel unit cannot be run dry without damaging the pump.
               The use of this equipment often precludes the operator from being able to watch
               the water level in the tank.
             o The Vactor Ram Jet is shorter and more maneuverable.

   Financial Considerations:

      •   While the purchase price of Vactor Ram Jet is more than the Camel unit, staff believes
          that the Vactor unit offers the best overall value to the City when reliability and future
          maintenance costs are considered.
      •   The 2006 budget included $120,000 for purchase of this equipment, and the money was
          carried forward to 2007 in the Wastewater fund balance.
      •   If the purchase of this item is approved, the 2007 Wastewater Fund budget will require
          amendment for budget authority. The amendment process involves publication of the
          notice of budget hearing and a public hearing concerning the proposed fund expenditures.
      •   It is recommended that the amendment be undertaken later in the year in concert with the
          2008 budget process.
      •   The total cost (with trade) of this equipment is $134,870. The additional $14,870 is
          available from the WW Fund.


   Legal Considerations:

      •   The City’s purchasing procedure was followed in soliciting proposals for this equipment.
      •   The terms for purchase have been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

   Policy Considerations:

      •   None.

   Recommendation:

      •   Approve the purchase of a Vactor Ram Jet from Key Equipment in the amount of
          $134,870 and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Return to agenda
                      CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To:        Mayor and City Council
From:      Charlie Brown, Director of Community Development
Subject:   Resolutions for Sewer, Decel Lane and Sidewalk Improvements to serve Ridge
           Point 4th Addition

Guests: None

Proposed Agenda Date: April 10, 2007

Background:

   •   Ridge Point 4th Addition is located at the southeast corner of Buckner and Patriot Avenue
       (63rd St.).
   •   A lot split for Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point 4th was presented to the Planning Commission
       and approved on December 7, 2006.
   •   One of the conditions for the approval of the lot split was the guarantee of sanitary sewer,
       decel lane and sidewalk improvements.
   •   The developer has submitted those required petitions and Gilmore & Bell has prepared the
       corresponding resolutions for Council consideration.

Financial Considerations:

   •   Funds for the construction work will be included in the 2007-1 Temporary Note issue.
   •   Costs for all of the improvements will be paid 100% by the benefit district and none by
       the City-at-Large.
   •   Special Assessments will be spread against the benefit district properties over a 15-year
       period.

Legal Considerations:

   •   This is a valid petition in accordance with Section 12 6a of the Kansas Statutes.

Policy Considerations:


   •   The Council has made a practice of financing such proposed improvements through the
       use of special assessments.


Recommendation:

   •   Move to approve the resolutions for sanitary sewer, decel lane and sidewalk
       improvements to serve Ridge Point 4th Addition.
Go to sanitary sewer resolution
                                                                                  GILMORE & BELL, P.C.
                                                                                            04/04/2007


                      (Published in The Derby Weekly Informer, on April 18, 2007)



                                       RESOLUTION NO. __-2007

        A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY OF THE MAKING OF A
        CERTAIN INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS,
        AND SETTING FORTH THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT,
        THE ESTIMATED OR PROBABLE COSTS THEREOF, THE EXTENT OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE COSTS THEREOF,
        THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE
        COSTS BETWEEN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE CITY AT
        LARGE; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE
        GOVERNING BODY (SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS/RIDGE POINT
        4TH ADDITION).



         WHEREAS, a Petition was filed with the City Clerk of the City of Derby, Kansas (the "City")
proposing certain internal improvements; and said Petition sets forth: (a) the general nature of the proposed
improvements; (b) the estimated or probable cost of the proposed improvements; (c) the extent of the
proposed improvement district to be assessed for the cost of the proposed improvements; (d) the proposed
method of assessment; (e) the proposed apportionment of the cost between the improvement district and the
City at large; and (f) a request that such improvements be made without notice and hearing as required by
K.S.A. 12-6a04(1) (the "Act"); and

          WHEREAS, the governing body of the City hereby finds and determines that said Petition
is sufficient.

     THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
DERBY, KANSAS:

        Section 1. Findings of Advisability. The governing body hereby finds and determines that:

        (a)     It is advisable to make the following improvements:

                Construct eight inch (8") sanitary sewer improvements parallel to Buckner to serve
                Ridge Point 4th Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas, in accordance with
                the City of Derby Standard Specifications (the "Improvements").

        (b)      The estimated or probable cost of such Improvements is $23,000. Said estimated cost as
above set forth is hereby increased at the pro rata rate of 1 percent per month from and after the date of
adoption of this Resolution
        (c)      The extent of the improvement district (the "Improvement District") in the City, to be
assessed for the cost of the improvements is:

                  Tract B:
                  Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas,
                  EXCEPT that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby,
                  Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said
                  Lot 1; thence S89°35'56"E along the North line of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet; thence
                  S00°52'49"W parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 250.00 feet; thence
                  N89°35'56"W parallel to the North line of said Lot 1, 190.00 feet to a point on the
                  East line of a Road Right-of-Way Easement recorded in DOC/FILM: #28784286;
                  thence N00°52'49"E parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 15.01 feet; thence
                  N14°53'17"E 61.96 feet to a bend point; thence N00°52'49"E along the West line
                  of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet to the point of beginning.

         (d)      The method of assessment is:

                  Tract 'B' shall pay 100% of the costs of the Improvements.

        (e)       The apportionment of the cost of the Improvements, between the Improvement District and
the City at large, is: 100% to be assessed against the Improvement District and 0% to be paid by the City at
large.

        Section 2. Authorization of Improvements. The abovesaid Improvements are hereby authorized
and ordered to be made in accordance with the findings of the governing body of the City as set forth in
Section 1 of this Resolution.

        Section 3. Bond Authority; Reimbursement. The Act provides for the Improvements to be paid
by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City (the "Bonds"). The Bonds may be issued to
reimburse expenditures made on or after the date which is 60 days before the date of this Resolution,
pursuant to Treasury Regulation 1.150-2.

        Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. This Resolution shall
be published one time in the official City newspaper, and shall also be filed of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County, Kansas.

                      [BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]




JLN\400451.87\SANITARY SEWER (04-04-07)
                                                      2
         ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the governing body of the City of Derby, Kansas, on April 10,
2007.



(Seal)
                                                                 Dion P. Avello, Mayor




         Jean Epperson, City Clerk

Go to sidewalk resolution




JLN\400451.87\SANITARY SEWER (04-04-07)
                                               3
                                                                                  GILMORE & BELL, P.C.
                                                                                            04/04/2007

                      (Published in The Derby Weekly Informer, on April 18, 2007)

                                       RESOLUTION NO. __-2007

        A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY OF THE MAKING OF A
        CERTAIN INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS,
        AND SETTING FORTH THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT,
        THE ESTIMATED OR PROBABLE COSTS THEREOF, THE EXTENT OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE COSTS THEREOF,
        THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE
        COSTS BETWEEN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE CITY AT
        LARGE; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE
        GOVERNING BODY (SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS/RIDGE POINT 4TH
        ADDITION).



         WHEREAS, a Petition was filed with the City Clerk of the City of Derby, Kansas (the "City")
proposing certain internal improvements; and said Petition sets forth: (a) the general nature of the proposed
improvements; (b) the estimated or probable cost of the proposed improvements; (c) the extent of the
proposed improvement district to be assessed for the cost of the proposed improvements; (d) the proposed
method of assessment; (e) the proposed apportionment of the cost between the improvement district and the
City at large; and (f) a request that such improvements be made without notice and hearing as required by
K.S.A. 12-6a04(1) (the "Act"); and

          WHEREAS, the governing body of the City hereby finds and determines that said Petition
is sufficient.

     THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
DERBY, KANSAS:

        Section 1. Findings of Advisability. The governing body hereby finds and determines that:

        (a)     It is advisable to make the following improvements:

                Construct a five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Buckner
                adjacent to Tract 'B,' in accordance with the City of Derby Standard Specifications
                (the "Improvements").

        (b)      The estimated or probable cost of such Improvements is $6,000. Said estimated cost as
above set forth is hereby increased at the pro rata rate of 1 percent per month from and after the date of
adoption of this Resolution

        (c)      The extent of the improvement district (the "Improvement District") in the City, to be
assessed for the cost of the improvements is:

                Tract B:
                  Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas,
                  EXCEPT that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby,
                  Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said
                  Lot 1; thence S89°35'56"E along the North line of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet; thence
                  S00°52'49"W parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 250.00 feet; thence
                  N89°35'56"W parallel to the North line of said Lot 1, 190.00 feet to a point on the
                  East line of a Road Right-of-Way Easement recorded in DOC/FILM: #28784286;
                  thence N00°52'49"E parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 15.01 feet; thence
                  N14°53'17"E 61.96 feet to a bend point; thence N00°52'49"E along the West line
                  of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet to the point of beginning.

         (d)      The method of assessment is:

                  Tract 'B' shall pay 100% of the costs of the Improvements.

        (e)       The apportionment of the cost of the Improvements, between the Improvement District and
the City at large, is: 100% to be assessed against the Improvement District and 0% to be paid by the City at
large.

        Section 2. Authorization of Improvements. The abovesaid Improvements are hereby authorized
and ordered to be made in accordance with the findings of the governing body of the City as set forth in
Section 1 of this Resolution.

        Section 3. Bond Authority; Reimbursement. The Act provides for the Improvements to be paid
by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City (the "Bonds"). The Bonds may be issued to
reimburse expenditures made on or after the date which is 60 days before the date of this Resolution,
pursuant to Treasury Regulation 1.150-2.

         Section 4. Repealer. Resolution No. 30-1993 of the City is hereby repealed.

        Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. This Resolution shall
be published one time in the official City newspaper, and shall also be filed of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County, Kansas.




JLN\400451.87\SIDEWALK (04-04-07)
                                                      2
         ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the governing body of the City of Derby, Kansas, on April 10,
2007.



(Seal)
                                                                 Dion P. Avello, Mayor




         Jean Epperson, City Clerk

Go to street resolution




JLN\400451.87\SIDEWALK (04-04-07)
                                               3
                                                                                  GILMORE & BELL, P.C.
                                                                                            04/04/2007


                      (Published in The Derby Weekly Informer, on April 18, 2007)



                                       RESOLUTION NO. __-2007

        A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY OF THE MAKING OF A
        CERTAIN INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS,
        AND SETTING FORTH THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT,
        THE ESTIMATED OR PROBABLE COSTS THEREOF, THE EXTENT OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE COSTS THEREOF,
        THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE
        COSTS BETWEEN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE CITY AT
        LARGE; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF THE
        IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE
        GOVERNING BODY (STREET IMPROVEMENTS/RIDGE POINT 4TH
        ADDITION).



         WHEREAS, a Petition was filed with the City Clerk of the City of Derby, Kansas (the "City")
proposing certain internal improvements; and said Petition sets forth: (a) the general nature of the proposed
improvements; (b) the estimated or probable cost of the proposed improvements; (c) the extent of the
proposed improvement district to be assessed for the cost of the proposed improvements; (d) the proposed
method of assessment; (e) the proposed apportionment of the cost between the improvement district and the
City at large; and (f) a request that such improvements be made without notice and hearing as required by
K.S.A. 12-6a04(1) (the "Act"); and

          WHEREAS, the governing body of the City hereby finds and determines that said Petition
is sufficient.

     THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
DERBY, KANSAS:

        Section 1. Findings of Advisability. The governing body hereby finds and determines that:

        (a)     It is advisable to make the following improvements:

                Construct an accel/decel lane on the south side of 63rd Street South and east side of
                Buckner adjacent to Tract "A" and Tract "B;" storm drainage to be installed where
                necessary, in accordance with the City of Derby Standard Specifications (the
                "Improvements").

        (b)      The estimated or probable cost of such Improvements is $160,000. Said estimated cost as
above set forth is hereby increased at the pro rata rate of 1 percent per month from and after the date of
adoption of this Resolution
        (c)      The extent of the improvement district (the "Improvement District") in the City, to be
assessed for the cost of the improvements is:

                   Tract A:
                   That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby, Sedgwick
                   County, Kansas, described as Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Lot 1;
                   thence S89°35'56"E along the North line of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet; thence
                   S00°52'49"W parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 250.00 feet; thence
                   N89°35'56"W parallel to the North line of said Lot 1, 190.00 feet to a point on the
                   East line of a Road Right-of-Way Easement recorded in DOC/FILM: #28784286;
                   thence N00°52'49"E parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 15.01 feet; thence
                   N14°53'17"E 61.96 feet to a bend point; thence N00°52'49"E along the West line
                   of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet to the point of beginning;

                   Tract B:
                   Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas,
                   EXCEPT that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ridge Point Fourth Addition, Derby,
                   Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said
                   Lot 1; thence S89°35'56"E along the North line of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet; thence
                   S00°52'49"W parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 250.00 feet; thence
                   N89°35'56"W parallel to the North line of said Lot 1, 190.00 feet to a point on the
                   East line of a Road Right-of-Way Easement recorded in DOC/FILM: #28784286;
                   thence N00°52'49"E parallel to the West line of said Lot 1, 15.01 feet; thence
                   N14°53'17"E 61.96 feet to a bend point; thence N00°52'49"E along the West line
                   of said Lot 1, 175.00 feet to the point of beginning; and

                   Lot 2, Block 1, Ridge Point 4th Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas.

         (d)       The method of assessment is:

                   Tract 'A' shall pay 23/100 of the costs of the Improvements; Tract 'B' shall pay
                   32/100 of the costs of the Improvements; and Lot 2, Block 1, Ridge Point 4th
                   Addition, shall pay 45/100 of the costs of the Improvements.

        (e)       The apportionment of the cost of the Improvements, between the Improvement District and
the City at large, is: 100% to be assessed against the Improvement District and 0% to be paid by the City at
large.

        Section 2. Authorization of Improvements. The abovesaid Improvements are hereby authorized
and ordered to be made in accordance with the findings of the governing body of the City as set forth in
Section 1 of this Resolution.

        Section 3. Bond Authority; Reimbursement. The Act provides for the Improvements to be paid
by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City (the "Bonds"). The Bonds may be issued to
reimburse expenditures made on or after the date which is 60 days before the date of this Resolution,
pursuant to Treasury Regulation 1.150-2.

        Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. This Resolution shall
be published one time in the official City newspaper, and shall also be filed of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County, Kansas.


JLN\400451.87\STREET (04-04-07)
                                                       2
         ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the governing body of the City of Derby, Kansas, on April 10,
2007.



(Seal)
                                                                 Dion P. Avello, Mayor




         Jean Epperson, City Clerk

Return to agenda




JLN\400451.87\STREET (04-04-07)
                                               3
                                   PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
                                              7:00 P.M.
                                             April 5, 2007
                                     611 Mulberry, Derby, Kansas

ROLL CALL:

LARRY GOULD                                                      KEITH VOLZ
CARLA LEWALLEN                                                   ERIC TAUER
KENT SCHWIEGER                                                   JUSTIN SMITH
DOLAN PELLEY
KELLY FARBER
JACK PULLEY
VAUGHN NUN

Next Council Representatives:

April 10th                                                              Dollan Pelley

April 24th                                                              Jack Pulley

Agenda Item #1


RE:                                        Approve minutes of March 15th, 2007 meeting

Agenda Item # 2

RE:                                        POLICY STATEMENTS for SITE PLAN DESIGN
                                           CRITERIA

Agenda Item # 3

RE:                                        POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION
                                           REGULATIONS

Return to homepage




**NOTICE** If you are in need of an auxiliary aid and/or a special accommodation, please notify Judy Roberts Secretary to the
Planning Commission at 788-6632, as soon as possible so she can make arrangements to accommodate your need.
                       PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
                                 7:00 P.M.
                               March 15, 2007
                              CITY OF DERBY
                       611 MULBERRY, DERBY, KANSAS

ROLL CALL                                            MEMBERS ABSENT

LARRY GOULD                                          CARLA LEWALLEN
KENT SCHWIEGER                                       DOLLAN PELLEY
KELLY FARBER                                          VAUGHN NUN
JACK PULLEY
KEITH VOLZ
ERIC TAUER
JUSTIN SMITH


CITY STAFF PRESENT:

Charlie Brown
Don Losew
Judy Roberts

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.


Agenda Item #1:

RE:                   Approve minutes from March 1, 2007 meeting

Commissioner Volz moved to approve the minutes of the March 1st, 2007
Planning Commission meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Farber
vote 6 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention Commissioner Smith, 3 absent, Commissioner
Lewallen, Commissioner Pelley, Commissioner Nun. Motion carried.

Agenda Item #2:

RE:               CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF REZONE
                  PROPERTIES TO AFB & AT/FP-O DISTRICTS presented by
                  The Wichita-Sedgwick County MAPD

Don Losew City Planner introduced Scott Knebel from the Wichita-Sedgwick
County Metropolitan Area Planning Department.

Scott Knebel , principal planner for the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan
Area Planning Department gave a presentation with hand outs. Scott reviewed

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                   Page 1 of 28
the JLUS study and the recommendations of that plan. Today, the Metropolitan
Area Planning Commission had a hearing. They took the same action this body
took a couple of weeks ago. They recommended approval of the AFB zoning and
will be caring that recommendation and your recommendation forward to the
County Commission. They recommended deferral of action for the
recommendation on the Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Overlay District. They
have directed the Staff of the MAPD to arrange for a meeting with the property
owners and McConnell to come up with a revised overlay district boundary.
They have had discussions, that perhaps, the boundary area was too large. If a
portion of property was within a ½ mile of the buffer it would include all of it.
There are some rather large tracts which would draw that boundary less than a
mile away from the base. There were other concerns expressed at the meeting
from the large manufactures on the north and west side of the base. Spirit,
Cessna, and Boeing indcated that they had some concerns with the 25 ft. height
limitation. They felt it was unnecessary, given the fact; they already have
security on their sites and controlled access to these zones.

Commissioner Tauer asked if Boeing, Cessna, and Spirit were invited to the
Derby Planning Commission Meeting, or did they only attend the Wichita
meeting? Do they have objections to this plan?

Scott Knebel stated they were sent the same notice as all the property owners.
They were informed of your meeting on March 1st . Cessna, at the meeting
today, spoke in opposition. Boeing spoke diplomatically, indicating they have
concerns.

Chairman Pulley asked what Cessna’s complaint would be; based on the fact
that there is an avigational easement on the property. To my understanding,
they could not build anything from the ground up anyway.

Scott Knebel stated it was the property east of there, where they do have some
construction.

Commissioner Tauer asked what the review process for new construction is. Is
that done during a building permit application?

Scott Knebel replied yes, it would be a zoning restriction that would be checked
by the building permit writer. If it was in the overlay, they could restrict a permit.

Commissioner Tauer stated he had gone to the Wichita web site, it does not
talk about the average height, and it talks about the maximum height of 25 feet.

Scott Knebel stated that is the actual adopted code section. The section that
deals with how height is determined and what the exceptions are is another code
section. It is not specific to this district. It reply’s to all height restrictions


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                           Page 2 of 28
Commissioner Tauer asked if that is unique to Wichita. I don’t think Derby’s is
that way.

Scott Knebel replied it is not unique. It is the way the height is calculated in
Wichita, and Sedgwick County code.

Commissioner Tauer stated it leads to a lot of confusion, using the average
height versus a maximum height. Is it measured between the eave and the peak
of the roof, is that correct.

Scott Knebel stated it is measured to the mid point, between the eave and the
peak.

Commissioner Tauer stated he had gone back to the blueprints of his house. I
live on the north side of Derby. I am actually just outside of this zone. I have a
single story home with an eight twelve pitch roof, which is a fairly steep pitch roof.
The total height is 24 feet and the average height for the roof is 17 feet. If it had
been a two story home that added another 9 feet for a second story that would
put it at 26 feet, which is over the requirement. My house, or similar to it, could
not be built in this district. I am glad that Wichita agrees these needs to be re-
evaluated.

Scott Knebel stated they did not ask us to re-valuate the overlay, they asked us
to re-valuate the boundaries of the properties.

Commissioner Tauer stated he had driven this area for about an hour. I looked
at a lot of houses and areas, I did not know existed. There is lot of houses that
you can’t see the base from where they are at. I am glad they are going to look
at this district again, because it is definitely including a lot of property that should
not be included.

Scott Knebel stated in the last paragraph of the code addresses the properties
that you mentioned, where there is not line of sight.

Commissioner Farber stated one of the concerns about the height issue and
the line of sight is. Will it be the responsibility of the property owner to prove they
don’t have a line of sight to the base? Will the property owner be responsible to
have a study done?

Scott Knebel replied yes, they would have the burden of proof and stated it
would be a simple study, as long as they are under 25 foot requirement, nothing
has to be done additionally. If they are over 30 feet which includes a 20 %
administrative adjustment process proof would be required. Standard for that is
not the line of sight analysis.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES     March 15, 2007                           Page 3 of 28
Commissioner Farber stated for clarification the point I want to be clear on, if
the homeowner is in for example, a valley 15 foot below the grade, it will be their
burden of cost to prove they are low enough to build a 30 foot structure, and
won’t be seen from the base.

Scott Knebel replied that is correct.

Commissioner Gould stated he attended the MAPC and heard many of the
same testimonies we heard here two weeks ago. I have also driven that area
lately. We have a height restriction all over Derby and it doesn’t have anything to
do with the air base. I think we are dealing in what we see as a perceived
restriction; it seems that this has grown to something that is far larger than the
actual restriction, when applied to the individual situation. In place, in the original
recommendation, is a remedy for those individual situations; those that choose to
exceed that height restriction.      I think what we are looking at is the entire
Wichita-Sedgwick County and Derby area measured against those particular
properties. I am wondering what the reality of the 25 foot restriction is, weather it
affects those people that have not responded. The individual case negations are
available out there. I am also concerned that we have spent two years working
on the Derby Comprehensive Plan, the very thing that we told ourselves, is that
we will look at the Joint Land Use Study and its recommendations. I am
concerned we are getting ready to stray from our own recommendation. I think
Derby has a responsibility to make some type of recommendation, to follow up to
the MAPC even though they are embarking on a separate type of a situation. I
think our recommendation is important. If we don’t make a decision on
something like this, either up or down in order for that recommendation to be
overturned it has to go before the County Commission and have a positive vote
by all five members. I am concerned that other zoning issues that come down
the track, they will think we don’t have a voice, or we are not using our voice.

Commissioner Schwieger asked if we agreed on this, is there any recourse in a
year or two, or God forbid if McConnell closed, to take a second look at this.

Scott Knebel stated it could go thru the rezoning process. The overlay
restrictions themselves could be amended by amending the zoning status.

Commissioner Volz stated he agreed with Mr. Gould. I do think the 25 feet did
seem restrictive, but due to the slope of the land and some other requirements,
anyone who wants to build a house out there can get it done. If it can’t be
resolved by zoning, they can go the Board of Zoning Appeals for further action.
Sometimes they see things differently. I think it is perceived more restrictive than
it really is.

Chairman Pulley stated he also agreed, and a lot of the restrictions that are
inclusive have been there for a long time, addressing them and adding one


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES     March 15, 2007                          Page 4 of 28
brings it to the surface. I agree with Mr. Gould, I don’t think we need to wait until
they modify those boundaries.

Commissioner Tauer stated at the last meeting, some of the property owners
felt like their property was being stigmatized by this proposed overlay district.
Many of these properties are in McConnell’s map and mission area, which could
be considered a designation area, subject to noise and in the potential accident
zone. I don’t know that this is any thing new for this area of the county. The
initial issue I had was what I perceived as reasonable instead of the
recommendation. That being how far out it went from McConnell and also the
height issue. I am glad Scott that you mentioned that 20 % variance. I think that
would be the key in a lot of cases in making what property owners would
perceive as a difficult situation with building a home, work for them.

Commissioner Gould stated many times a few people end up enduring the
hardships of freedom. Quite frankly, I think that is the particular case that is
happening in this area, some of the people may have to endure the hardships of
freedom. I think we have to endure this to insure the sound of freedom remains
in this area. It has been said no other bases have done this, I think that is
indicative of this area. We have always led on this issue and I don’t feel like at
this particular time we can stand back without taking a position.

Commissioner Gould moved to make a motion to approve the original
recommendation of the MAPC Staff based on Findings of Fact. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Volz, vote 6 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Farber, 3 absent
Commissioner Pelley, Commissioner Lewallen, Commissioner Nun. Motion
carried.

Agenda Item # 3:

RE:            SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIEST for a Lot 1, Calvary Baptist
               Church Second Addition, Sedgwick County.

Don Losew City Planner reviewed the Staff Report for the Site Plan Review
Request for the Calvary Baptist Church.

The Following is a copy of the Staff Report prepared for this agenda item:
March 9, 2007


TO:           PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM:         PLANNING STAFF

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM # 3 March 15, 2005



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                          Page 5 of 28
RE:           SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST for a Lot 1, Calvary Baptist
              Church Second Addition, Sedgwick County.

APPLICANT:            Calvary Baptist Church

AGENT:                Don Folger

LOCATION: West side of Rock Road and north of Patriot Avenue (63rd South). (see
     attached map)

ZONING:               “I-1” Single-family Residential

SITE SIZE:            20 Acres

PROPOSED USE: Addition to an existing church.


BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This site was platted in 1999 while in the County and developed initially under
County zoning (a PUD) and obtained building permits also through the County. In
2006, the site was annexed to Derby. As typical of annexed property, it was
placed under Derby’s “R-1” single-family zoning. Subsequently, the church
requested and got approved “I-1” institutional zoning. Churches and their related
uses are permitted outright under “I-1” zoning. As indicated by the site plan
drawings, an addition is being planned to the existing church structure(s).
According to the agent, the addition is a “multi-use or purpose” structure. Among
the structures uses are basketball and other gymnasium type activities,
receptions, classes and so forth.

STAFF COMMENTS:

A.     Utilities:     While this site’s platting required approval by the City of
       Derby, utilities from the City were not yet available to this site and the
       applicant had requested and received approval through the County to
       develop under Planned Unit Development zoning. Consequently the site
       was not required to request annexation in 1999. While sanitary sewer was
       to be and has been provided by an on-site lagoon and water was either to
       be from a rural water line or on-site well, petitions for the future use of
       Derby water and sanitary sewer were required. The applicant is advised
       that use of Derby water and sanitary sewer will be required when
       those facilities are “reasonably available” or as required by other
       regulations.

       During the platting process, this site was also required to submit
       guarantees for certain improvements to 63rd Street South. Any such

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES     March 15, 2007                      Page 6 of 28
       improvements were or should have been installed by the County as part of
       that street’s recent reconstruction.

B.     Drainage: This site’s drainage plan was approved during the site’s
       platting in 1999. Both City and County Engineering reviewed the site’s
       drainage and as noted on the site plan drawings, a detention pond has
       been provided at the northwest corner of the site. The original drainage
       plan anticipated building additions and the appropriate amount of
       impervious area was included in the calculations. No modifications to the
       existing storm water detention pond are required.


C      Layout: The indicated location of the Church and this planned addition,
       are well clear of platted setbacks and easements.

D.      Access, Circulation and Parking: As allowed for by the platting of this
       site, two openings have been provided to (Patriot Avenue (63rd Street)).

       The parking (existing) presently shown by the site plan drawings was
       provided under the site’s then requirements by the County. The applicant
       is advised that any future circulation aisles and parking spaces will
       need to comply with Derby’s requirements for a 24-foot wide two-way
       circulation aisle and parking stall dimensions of 19 feet by 8.5 feet.

       As for the number of parking spaces, the applicant’s agent has
       indicated that the church sanctuary has a seating capacity of 800.
       Derby’s parking requirements for a church are based on the seating
       capacity of the sanctuary or largest such similar church area. With
       seating for 800, 134 parking spaces are required (1 space per 6
       seats). The plan is indicating that 232 spaces presently exist. The
       “existing addition” may include uses beyond those related to the
       seating in the sanctuary. Similarly, the new addition may also have
       activities that if in progress concurrently with church services would
       increase parking needs beyond the 134 based on seating. That is, the
       applicant is requested to verify if the existing 232 spaces is adequate
       given this addition or if parking needs could exceed that number of
       spaces given this addition’s anticipated uses.

       The applicant’s agent is requested to be prepared to submit to the
       Commission a parking analysis for this development, based on the
       various potential uses of the site. That is, what is the maximum level
       of activity that would reasonably be expected on this site at a given
       time and consequently what parking is needed to serve such
       activities.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                      Page 7 of 28
       With the present number of 232 parking spaces, seven spaces are
       required to be for handicap parking. The site plan indicates that seven
       such spaces are being provided. The applicant is advised that in each
       of the two areas used for handicap parking, signage (spaces) shall
       also be identified for “van accessible” parking.

       Site plans also need to provide for pedestrian access. Such access
       is not just as involves public sidewalk adjacent to the site but should
       also include reasonable means of access interior to the site. For
       obvious safety reasons, such pedestrian access should be separate
       from driveways used for vehicle access. On revised site plan
       drawings the applicant shall indicate sidewalk or some other form of
       acceptable “walkway” from the sidewalk along Patriot Avenue to the
       main entrance of the church.


E      Signs: Two existing monument signs were approved and have been
       installed along this site’s frontage to Patriot Avenue. No additional signage
       or changes to the existing signs has been requested. As noted above,
       ADA requires that any handicap parking areas include spaces signed
       for van accessibility.


F.     Landscaping and Screening: Given the adjacent zoning and location
       of the site’s present parking areas, the landscaping and screening
       requirements for this site involve a landscaped street yard along Patriot
       Avenue, screening, buffering and or landscaping along the site’s west
       property line and the provision of parking lot trees.. Given the “B-3” zoning
       along the site’s north and east lines, it is those properties that will be
       required to provide screening for the benefit of this church site.

                                    Street Yards
       For purposes of landscaping, Derby’s standards require the establishment
       of a specific street yard of a given width along a site’s street frontage and
       in which a required number of trees is to be planted and / or parking lot
       screening, if required, is also to be provided. This street yard area is not
       the total area from the front of a building out to the street right-of-way line,
       but is instead, based on a lot’s depth, 10 feet, 15 feet or 20 feet wide
       immediately adjacent to the street (right-of-way). While the site plan is
       indicating a street yard with a width of 20 feet, as is required for a lot
       with a depth of over 400 feet, the calculation on the number of trees
       being provided is based on trees in some cases that are well outside
       of the 20-foot wide yard area. At a rate of one shade tree per 500
       square feet of yard area (13,200 sq, ft.), 26 shade trees would be
       required. Ornamental trees can also be used but with two being
       required for one shade tree. Shrubs beyond those used for parking

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES     March 15, 2007                          Page 8 of 28
       lot screening can also be substituted for up to 1/3rd of the required
       shade trees at a rate of 10 shrubs per one shade tree.

       This site does have a number of trees already planted along Patriot
       Avenue, along the west property line, around the existing building
       and at other locations. The attached landscape plan is apparently the
       plan that was used for the Church’s development, when it was still in
       the County and under a PUD. Although staff has not verified that all
       the indicated plantings have been provided, that is that they exist at
       this time. A date on this plan appears to indicate that it was prepared
       in late 2001. Using that plan, within or reasonably near to the 20-foot
       street yard, is indicated 9 or 10 shade type trees (Oaks) and six (6)
       ornamentals.

       Essentially, based on Derby’s landscaped street yard requirements
       only ½ half of the required trees are indicated by this plan (and
       “may” have been planted). The Planning Commission needs to
       determine if additional trees, within the street yard need to be
       provided and if so, the site plan revised to indicate those
       requirements.



       Parking Lot Screening

       Given the distance that the parking areas (lot) are from Patriot Avenue,
       staff recommends that screening in the landscaped street yard is not
       required. That is, such screening is indicated as required when the parking
       area is “along any street right-of-way”. The Commission needs to
       indicate if it agrees with Staff’s interpretation.

                                Parking Lot Trees
       With 50 or more parking spaces, parking lots are required to install parking
       lot trees. Such tree requirements are 1 shade tree or 2 ornamental trees
       for each 50 parking spaces or fraction thereof. Given the layout of this
       site’s two areas and the locations of trees at and near the parking areas,
       staff believes the intent of this requirement is “not” being satisfied
       by the site’s present landscaping. The Commission needs to indicate
       if parking lot trees are to be required, that is, indicated on a revised
       landscaped plan.


       Screening and Buffering along the West and North Property Lines
       As a non-residential use with residential zoning or uses to the west, the
       landscaping plan is required to provide both screening and buffering to
       those adjacent residential areas. However, since this church is now

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                         Page 9 of 28
       being developed under “I-1”, institutional zoning, a 25-foot wide
       “landscaped” area could be substituted for required screening (fences,
       walls, berms, continuous row of evergreens, etc.). As indicated by the
       existing landscape plan, a yard area of over 25 feet presently exists to the
       west of both the existing church structure and will also exist west of the
       planned expansion. Further, a fairly continuous row of trees is indicated
       along the west property line, extending from Patriot Avenue to a point
       somewhat north of the planned addition. The Planning Commission
       needs to determine if this landscaping meets the requirements for a
       landscaped yard in lieu of screening (fencing, etc.). Further, the
       Commission needs to indicate if the remaining west property line,
       north of the proposed addition to the site’s north line, should be
       screened or additional landscaping provided at this time. If not to be
       required at this time, staff notes if additional development occurs in
       the northern half of this site, such screening and / or landscaping
       would again need to be considered at that time.


                      Miscellaneous Landscape Comments

       If an outdoor trash storage area is planned, that area needs to be
       shown on the site plan drawings and an acceptable means of
       screening indicated. Further, any outdoor equipment such as the
       transformers on the north side of the existing building or any
       additional such equipment. Also needs to be screened if viewable
       from adjacent residential property or public rights-of-way. Roof top
       equipment may either be placed back from a wall 5 feet for every foot
       of height and / or may need to be screened depending on the roof’s
       design. As noted by the original landscape plan unpaved areas will be
       seeded and watering was to be provided by an irrigation system.

G.     Lighting:     There is no indicated parking lot lighting or other significant
       form of exterior lighting. Consequently, spillover lighting or glare would not
       be a concern. The applicant is advised, if any such lighting is installed in
       the future, such lighting should not spillover onto adjacent street rights-of-
       way or adjacent property and in particular adjacent residential areas.

H.     Miscellaneous:      On revised site plan             drawings     the    legal
       description for this site shall be provided.

In summary the following “major” items concerning this site plan are:

1. If and when City water and sanitary sewer are available to this site, those
municipal services shall be used.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                         Page 10 of 28
2. The applicant needs to verify the parking requirements for this site and
determine if additional parking is needed.

3. Pedestrian access needs to be provided from Patriot Avenue.

4. Landscape requirements under Derby’s standards would call for additional
trees in the street yard and parking lot trees.

5. If any outdoor trash storage is to be provided and other ground level or roof
top equipment are visible from adjacent residential areas or public streets, such
equipment must also be screened.

RECOMMENDATION:

STAFF RECOMMENDS that the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan
Review Request subject to three copies of revised site plan drawings being
submitted which depict all identified changes requested by the Commission.

Commissioner Farber asked Don if the requirement for the landscaping in the
street yard out front, was that not a requirement originally.

Don Losew stated this was being developed in the County under a PUD. I
believe this was the actual landscape plan that was provided back in 1999. That
was the landscaping necessary to meet those requirements. We are indicating
today that we don’t count the trees that are between the landscape street yard
and the building as required trees. Landscape street yard trees are to be within
the 10, 15, or 20 foot area. When you have a 20 foot yard it can, however, be
quite dense in terms of requiring that exact number of trees.

Commissioner Farber asked if the street yard changed when the road was
widened. Does it affect the street yard or the way it looks?

Don Losew stated I do believe so. It probably does change the way it looks.

Commissioner Farber asked if the one parking space per six seats was normal.
I doubt there are six people in each car. Is that more than what is required?

Don Losew replied that is our standard. I don’t think we are much different than
Wichita or the County would be.

Commissioner Farber asked do they currently have enough parking, and how
many do they seat now.

Don Losew stated I believe the seating is 800 and the number of existing
spaces would exceed the required number.


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                      Page 11 of 28
Chairman Pulley asked why we are requiring a walk way from Patriot Avenue all
the way to the door.

Don Losew stated we do have a requirement during site plan review to raise the
issue of pedestrian access. My point is, we have ignored pedestrian access to
the point, you can’t get anywhere except to drive. I hope that is not the
philosophy we continue.

Chairman Pulley stated he agreed as long as it is reasonable, but this does not
look reasonable to me. Two Hundred and Fifty cars are driving to the spot and
walking to the door.

Commissioner Volz stated it is a requirement by the ADA to have pedestrian
access, and for wheel chair access all the way to the door. I agree that is a long
way.

Don Losew stated he checked with the ADA and found churches are exempt.

Commissioner Volz stated he looked it up and did not find that.

Don Losew stated my position is the site plan requires it, you can, of coarse,
decide the best way to do it or if you felt it wasn’t necessary.

Commissioner Volz stated with properties like this, I agreed with Mr. Pulley it is
a long way. Staff and City have to bring that out, and then we determine what is
fair, based on the site. Most people are not walking to church except in the inner
City.

Don Losew stated it is like the chicken and egg. We haven’t helped people to
walk anywhere, in many cases. As you can see, in our residential areas, there is
a lack of sidewalks. We are seeing more and more the benefits of making a walk
able community. Our Comprehensive Plan has also addressed this issue.

Commissioner Volz commented about the issue of parking spaces. Mr. Farber
mentioned one to six ratios seemed small, I agree. I went to the parking lot a
week ago last Sunday. I saw roughly 15 spaces that weren’t being used. That
means they are using most of the parking lot now. There could have been
something special going on that day. I looked at the drawing and didn’t think
there was enough parking out there. It always seems pretty full now. With an
addition going in, there might be different functions going on in both of the
buildings.

Don Folger agent for applicant summarized the Staff Report comments. We are
in agreement with item # 1. Concerning item #2, about parking, I will give a little
background on the church. The 800 seats in the sanctuary are based on the
building code of 18” per person for pews. It actually comes up to 790. The first

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                        Page 12 of 28
Sunday and the first few months when we first opened we had that many people.
The average since, is 700. In terms of a ratio, when we were designing this
building, we did a study of the old church parking versus amount of attendance,
and compared it with the new church attendance and parking; the code for the
county was 1 to 4. What we found out is that we are in that range. In
relationship of the new building, it will be used at the same time as the
Sanctuary. The main thing at the church is Sunday, Wednesday Services. The
church is keeping track, and will add more parking if needed. We are on the 3rd
Phase of this building, the master plan has allowed for more parking. It has been
pretty well thought out. As far as pedestrian access, as a church body, this has
not been addressed. If it is something that we need to do we will? We are not
seeing walking people to the church, considering its location and how far it is
from the city. We are not saying it can’t happen in the future. It would be our
preference to address that as it occurs. The landscaping, the biggest thing I
would see, I am not sure that all these trees the way they are and the position
they are in. The islands shown on this plan are not out there. To put them in
would be a major thing to do. This is not the way the parking is. The parking is
turned a different direction. The soil is very stiff clay and it drowns the trees. It
would be very hard for anything to grow in an island in the parking lot. The rest
of the landscaping is negotionable with Don’s requirements. On the trash
storage and buffering, we are all in favor of that. Right now there is a trash bin in
front of the property on the north end that we have a fence around. We also
have propane tanks, with fencing.

Commissioner Volz stated at first it didn’t look like there was enough parking,
but with the drawings made clearer I see there is enough parking.

Commissioner Farber mentioned that they would prefer to hold off on
pedestrian access until the city grows out to them. Is that something possible for
us to require.

Don Losew stated from our stand point, unless it is happening with some
development, like the actual construction of the building, in which, we are able to
go out and make sure any requirements by the site plan are done at that time,
we are not likely to remember to get it in two to five years down the road. As a
practical matter it is pretty difficult to get.

Commissioner Tauer stated he did not have a problem with waiting until the
new addition is completed, to consider additional parking. The area to the east
and south of this is commercial, there is a lot of multi-family southwest, but it is
quite a distance and there is a creek between the multi-family and this. I don’t
see that there will be a lot of residential that would be immediately around this
area for pedestrian traffic. I know it is just a conceptual design but I noticed there
is a lot of recreational activity that goes on the lawn out front. I would imagine
that it would go around to the west or follow the parking lot. If the city continues


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                          Page 13 of 28
to grow that direction we will have another opportunity to require that at a future
date if it is deemed necessary.


Commissioner Gould stated that Derby moved to the church, the church didn’t
move to Derby. They did fulfill all their requirements in 1999. I would be
concerned if we required a pedestrian access to an area that is potentially in the
place of the future sanctuary. Based on the rapid growth we have seen in the
last eight years, the sanctuary may be sitting on that sidewalk fairly soon. We
often talk about not having enough parking spaces in retail business’s, that would
spill out on the road way. I can’t conceive that on a parking issue, they would
ever park of 63rd St. It becomes a situation that if the church doesn’t provide
enough parking they would hurt themselves.           I feel on the landscape
requirements, they have satisfied them once. I am a little concerned we are
making them satisfy them again. I am not in favor of the pedestrian access or
increase landscape requirements.

Commissioner Tauer made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review for a Lot
1, Calvary Baptist Church Second Addition, Sedgwick County subject to Staff
comments removing the requirement for pedestrian access at this time and
removing the requirement for additional landscaping in the street yard.
Seconded by Commissioner Farber.           Vote 7 yes, 0 no, 3 absent,
Commissioner Pelly, Commissioner Lewallen, Commissioner Nun. Motion
carried.


Agenda Item #4

Re:              LOT SPLIT REQUEST for Lot 5, Block A, The Oaks Addition
                 Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas


Don Losew City Planner reviewed Staff Report for Site Plan Review Request for
The Oaks Addition for Emprise Bank.

The Following is a copy of the Staff Report prepared for this agenda item:

March 9, 2007


TO:           PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM:         PLANNING STAFF

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM # 4 March 15, 2007



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                        Page 14 of 28
RE:           SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST for Lot 5, Block A, The Oaks
              Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas.

APPLICANT:            Emprise Bank

AGENT:                Schaefer, Johnson, Cox, Frey Architecture, c/o Justin
                      Graham

LOCATION:             Southwest Corner of Rock Road and Patriot Ave. (63rd
                      S.) (see attached map)

ZONING:               “B-3” General Business District

SITE SIZE:            1.13acres

PROPOSED USE: Financial Institution

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This proposed development is located in an area (intersection of Rock Road and
Patriot Ave.) that is zoned and has been platted for major commercial
development. This site will, however, be the first portion (1.13 acres) of the
approximately 100 acres of commercially zoned property in that area. While
municipal water is available from existing water lines in the vicinity of the site,
sanitary sewer is still some distance, to the south of the site. While Patriot Ave.
Has recently been improved to an urban standard arterial, Rock Road is
scheduled for similar improvements this year (2007).

According to the architects for this project, the proposed building (Bank) will have
an interior area of 3555 sq. feet and a gross area of 3900 sq. feet. To the rear or
south of the building are drive-up teller and / or ATM facilities.

STAFF COMMENTS:

   A. Utilities and Other Required Improvements:

   Municipal water is available from an existing line adjacent to the site’s
   frontage along Patriot Avenue. The applicant should coordinate with El Paso
   Water Company for water meter locations and sizes. The El Paso Water
   Company, at the landowner’s expense, will tap the main and install the water
   meter and vault upon payment of the meter fee. Connection to the meter will
   need to be provided by the applicant (private plumber). The owner has the
   option for a separate meter for landscape irrigation. The applicant is also
   advised that a 2 inch service line As shown will typically have a meter of a
   smaller size (one or 11/2 inch).


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                        Page 15 of 28
   Although sanitary sewer is presently not directly available to this site,
   guarantees and plans have been provided to bring a public line to the site
   from the south. As indicated on sheet C2, the utility plan, a new easement
   has been granted along the eastern side of the site for that extension. That
   easement is being extended to the north line of the site so that the sewer line
   can be continued north and across Patriot Avenue to serve development in
   the Anderson Farms Commercial Addition. The applicant is advised that they
   should coordinate the location of the 4 inch riser for this site with Baughman
   Company, the firm designing the sanitary sewer main.

   Engineering has also requested that the legend on sheet C2 denote the
   removal and replacement of sidewalk involve with the storm water
   sewer construction . Also, Engineering has asked for an explanation
   concerning the statement involving “W/Sediment Barrier and Pavement
   Underdrain” at the top left corner of sheet C2 and along Rock Road.

   Major reconstruction or improvements to Rock Road are planned for this year
   (2007). Those improvements will include the provision of sidewalk adjacent to
   this site. As will be noted below, pedestrian access will need to be indicated
   from both the Patriot Avenue and Rock Road sidewalks to the bank building.
   That is, an acceptable means of pedestrian access other than just walking
   through the parking lot and circulation aisles needs to be provided.

    B. Drainage: The City Engineer has reviewed this site’s grading plan
   (sheet C1) and has provided the following comments.

       -Storm water detention is provided downstream as a part of the overall
       Oaks Drainage Plan and no on-site detention is required.

       -Connections can be made to 63rd (Patriot Ave.) and Rock Road storm
       water sewers. The City will only inspect the connections.

       -The culvert under the Rock Road driveway can be revised to use a less
       expensive pipe (this pipe will be removed as part of the Rock Road
       improvement project scheduled to begin this year)

       -There is a possible conflict with the Rock Road culvert and an existing fire
       hydrant.

   C. Layout:      The bank building, ATM and drive-up facilities are all located
   clear of any easement or setback requirements, including the easement for
   the proposed sanitary sewer line just east of the building. The proposed
   monument sign at the site’s NE corner is also clear of any existing or
   proposed easements and vision triangle.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                        Page 16 of 28
   D. Access, Circulation and Parking:       Access to the site is being
   provided by joint access openings to both Patriot Avenue and Rock Road.
   Those openings were established during the platting of the Oaks Addition and
   joint access easements or agreements were also provided at the time of the
   site’s platting. The applicant is advised that           with the planned
   reconstruction of Rock Road, City Engineering should be contacted to
   discuss if and how a temporary opening, including related drainage
   facilities may be provided , prior to permanent improvements being
   installed.

   Revised drawings shall be submitted indicating the square footage of
   the building. Based on information obtained from the architect, the
   building will have an interior area of 3,555 square feet and a gross area
   of 3,900 square feet.. Parking standards for a financial institution requires
   one parking space per 300 square feet of building area (gross area). This site
   would therefore require (3,900/300=13) 13 parking spaces. As shown by the
   plan, 20 parking spaces are being provided. Based on the typical parking stall
   drawing on sheet C3, all parking stall spaces meet or exceed required
   dimensions.

   Given the number of parking spaces, one handicap parking space is required
   and has been indicated on the plan. This space will, however, need to be
   signed as van accessible and the striped area increased to 8 feet. Some
   of the additional width for the striped area can be provided by reducing
   the handicap stall width to 9 feet. While no actual change in areas
   would result, the wider stripped area prevents a car in the adjacent stall
   parking so close to a van in the handicap space, that access to the van
   by wheelchair equipment could be hindered.

   All two-way circulation aisles meet or exceed the required 24-foot width. Staff
   does have a concern on how traffic entering at the Rock Road entrance
   is expected to circulate through the site. That is, could vehicles drive
   directly west, past the drive-up facilities and / or to an ATM? Or is all
   such traffic to be directed north, around the building and then either to
   the planned parking areas and/or around the west and south side of the
   building so as to enter all of the drive-up facilities from the west?

   For a drive-up bank teller facility, four (4) stacking spaces (each 20 feet
   long) are required. For a drive-up ATM, three (3) stacking spaces are
   required. If all of the facilities south of the building are to be entered
   from the west, sufficient stacking space will exist. If, however, any of
   these facilities were to be entered from the east, insufficient stacking
   space would be available, resulting in potential access in and out of the
   Rock Road driveway entrance.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                       Page 17 of 28
   The applicant’s agent should be prepared to more fully discuss the
   circulation pattern planned or expected around the bank building and
   for use of the drive-up facilities. In particular, what directional signage,
   ground graphics etc. are planned to clearly establish proper and safe
   circulation in this site.

   Site plans are also required to address (provide) for a reasonable means
   of pedestrian access for the site. Given the existing and planned
   sidewalks (and bike path) along Patriot Avenue and Rock Road, staff
   recommends that the Commission require that sections of sidewalk be
   provided which connect the sidewalks along the adjacent streets,
   through the landscaped street yard and in a generally direct path to the
   Bank’s front entrance. For example, a section of sidewalk from Patriot
   should be provided which lines up more or less directly with the bank’s
   entrance on the north side of the building, with the sidewalk from Rock
   Road lining up with the sidewalk along the front of the building. The
   intent of such access for pedestrians is to provide a safer route to the
   bank rather than having to walk through longer sections of parking lot
   and vehicle circulation aisles.

   E. Signs:         The site plan is indicating the use of one freestanding,
   monument type sign at the NE corner of the site (Rock and Patriot
   intersection). This indicated location is both clear of any easements and is
   also outside of the vision triangle area. The site plan has included two sign
   drawings, one however, is for a ground type sign, while the other is for a wall
   sign. Given this area’s zoning, a ground sign can be as high as 25 feet, with a
   width of 15 feet. By definition a monument sign is intended to have a height of
   six (6) feet.

   In the past staff and the Commission have encouraged the use of
   monument or lower profile type signs. In cases where a height greater
   than six feet is involved, such signs are simply considered a ground
   sign, albeit such signs are still less than the maximum for height. As
   indicated by the applicant’s drawing, the proposed sign is just under 25
   feet tall or is in essence a ground not a monument sign. Also,
   monument type signs typically involve a base constructed of stone,
   brick or other masonry type materials. The applicant should be prepared
   to indicate if a monument or ground sign is to planned and as
   necessary revise the site plan. The Commission also needs to indicate
   the type of sign they feel is appropriate at this location. The indicated
   wall signage is well within permitted dimensions.

   The applicant is advised that electrical changeable copy signs, including the
   new LED forms, are not permitted outright. If such a sign is not requested and
   approved at the time of site plan review, any future such signage, (whole sign,


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                       Page 18 of 28
   portion of a sign, wall sign, etc.) will require approval of such a sign by the
   Board of Zoning Appeals as a conditional use sign.

   F. Landscaping and Screening: Given the zoning adjacent to this site
   and the layout of the building, this site’s primary landscape requirements are
   the provision of a landscaped street yard along both Patriot Avenue and Rock
   Road and screening in the Patriot Avenue street yard of the parking area
   along the north side of the building. The applicant is advised that the
   required street yard landscaping (street trees and parking lot screening
   (shrubs)) are expected to be located in the street yard areas. Given the
   depth of the lot, that street yard is required to be at least 10 feet wide
   along both adjacent streets. In some cases, trees just outside of the
   street yard have been accepted by the Commission as meeting the
   intent of required trees.

   Along Patriot Avenue, this site has a lot frontage of 249 feet or a street yard
   area of 2490 square feet. Along Rock Road with a frontage of 211 feet, but
   allowing for the overlapping area for Patriot Ave., a street yard area of 2010
   square feet is involved. Within those street yards, 5 shade trees ( 1 shade
   tree per 500 sq. ft. of yard) is required along Patriot and 4 shade trees
   are required along Rock. As indicated by sheet L1, only 3 shade trees
   are located in Patriot’s landscaped street yard and only 2 shade trees
   are in Rock Road’s required street yard. Given that shrubs (10) can be
   substituted for some of the required shade trees, some of the shrubs
   along Patriot and including the plantings around the base of the sign
   could be accepted as the equivalent of one shade tree. Other trees in
   the parking lot areas or near the building are somewhat too removed
   from the street yards to be counted. Overall, therefore staff
   recommends that at least one more shade tree (or ornamentals with 2
   required for a shade tree) be required within Patriot’s street yard and
   two shade trees (or an equivalent number (4) ornamentals) be required
   within Rock’s street yard.

   The site plan also indicates an outside trash (dumpster) storage area,
   adjacent to an electric transformer, with both items being appropriately
   screened.     Also as required, the landscape plan indicates that the
   landscaping will be watered by use of an automatic irrigation system. The
   applicant is advised that the plan may or should indicate that for the
   irrigation system a separate meter may be provided.

   It does not appear that any roof top equipment is planned but the
   applicant is advised that any roof top equipment must also be
   adequately screened and / or located the required distances from
   adjacent building wall edges (5 feet from a wall edge for each foot of
   height). Given the design of this building (pitched roof), screening of


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                       Page 19 of 28
   any roof top equipment would be needed rather than the distance
   standards.

   Given the adjacent zoning, screening and buffering along side and rear lot
   lines is not required.

   G. Lighting:     Based on the lighting plan for this site, spillover lighting of
   over one foot candle is shown along sections of both Patriot and Rock rights-
   of-way. While Derby does not have a specific standard, a level in excess of
   one foot candle has been considered too high. The applicant shall adjust
   the lighting from the light poles along the two adjacent streets such that
   spillover lighting doesn’t exceed one foot candle as measure at the
   site’s property line (Patriot and Rock right-of-way lines).

   H. Miscellaneous:         In summary the primary issues noted by staff involve
   the following; 1. the provision of sanitary sewer, 2. the size of the building, 3.
   the proper provision of the handicap parking area, 4. the expected circulation
   from Rock’s entrance and access to the drive-up facilities, 5. pedestrian
   access into the site, 6. the type of sign at the NE corner of the site, 7.the
   additional of several trees in the landscaped street yards, and 8. reducing
   spillover lighting onto street rights-of-way.



RECOMMENDATION:

       STAFF RECOMMENDS that the Planning Commission approve this Site Plan
       Review Request subject to three copies of revised site plan drawings being
       submitted which account for all of the above-identified required changes and any
       additional conditions as determined by the Planning Commission.




Commissioner Gould asked Don what his concerns were about the drive-up
circulation.

Don Losew stated the possibility 2 or 3 vehicles without some kind of signage,
might go the wrong direction.

Commissioner Volz asked Don if the pedestrian access on one side or the
other, or both is required.

Don Losew stated it would be beneficial for both directions at this site.



DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES     March 15, 2007                          Page 20 of 28
Commissioner Volz stated he did not agree with that. They do have an access
to come into the front door. From the other side they have only to walk a couple
hundred more feet to get to it.

Don Losew stated if you are coming up that sidewalk, you would have to across
that landscaping.

Commissioner Volz stated I don’t know if a seconded access is required, but, I
do understand what you are saying.

Justin Graham MKEC along with Randy Davis agent for Emprise Bank stated
Don did a fine job of explaining this project. The bank is ready to agree with the
few modest adjustments recommended by Staff. Regarding circulation we do
have ground pavement markings on this site. Access is intended to be from the
west, we certainly can compliment that with some small directional signs,
showing exit only at this location. Regarding the pedestrian access, we would
like to defer that to a later time, with more development in this area. We did label
these signs at the northeast corner of the property as a monument sign. It is
intended to be a ground sign meeting the dimensions, and layout package. That
is a standard ground sign. We feel it is in line with the anticipated signage of
properties along Rock Road.

Randy Davis stated they were planning to comply with the request of Staff. We
will add three more shade trees. The confusion on the shortage came with the
belief that trees between the front line of the building and streets would be
counted.

Don Losew stated Derby requires that the trees be in the street yard itself.

Randy Davis stated we have added the sidewalk to the existing Patriot Ave.
sidewalk. We have made an opening in the screening shrubs to allow that. That
goes pretty much directly toward the front door of the bank. That is a longer
segment of sidewalk. If the bikeway, which is proposed along Rock Road, is at
the right-of-way line, this would be a very short sixteen foot or long segment. It
would be off set slightly from this walk to the east, but think it is pretty well in line,
and could address anybody coming to the front door to the south.

Chairman Pulley stated he would recommend they do that when the hike and
bike path is put in and not now.

Don Losew replied that with all the construction along Rock Road, we would not
expect it.

Randy Davis stated as far as circulation, as Justin commented we can add more
surface arrows on the pavement to reinforce the desired traffic direction. The
only time that we foresee a vehicle going the wrong way thru here is in the very

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES      March 15, 2007                           Page 21 of 28
early hours of the morning, a trash pickup would come in and go the wrong way
thru here to access the dumpster. We have added extra room in the pass thru
isle to allow that to happen.

Commissioner Farber made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review
Request for Lot 5, Block A, The Oaks Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas
subject to Staff comments with the note of requiring one pedestrian access
versus two at this time. Seconded by Commissioner Tauer. Vote 7 yes, 0 no, 3
absent Commissioner Pelley, Commissioner Lewallen, Commissioner Nun.
Motion carried.


Agenda Item # 5

RE:                   FINAL PLAT OF THE QUAIL-RUN ADDITION

Don Losew reviewed Staff Report for the Final Plat of the Quail-Run Addition.

The Following is a copy of the Staff Report prepared for this agenda item:

March 9, 2007




TO:           PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM:         PLANNING STAFF

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM # 5 MARCH 15, 2007

RE:                          FINAL PLAT OF THE QUAIL RUN ADDITION

APPLICANT:                   J. R. Russell (now shown as RMR Development ,
                             LLC)

AGENT/SURVEYOR:              Baughman Co.

LOCATION:                    South side of Madison (79th Street South), and
                             east of Webb Road.

SITE SIZE:                   153.19 acres

PROPOSED USE:                379 single-family residential lots.


BACKGROUND:

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                     Page 22 of 28
This site has had a number of sketch and preliminary plats submitted the last
few years. The primary reason for this has been the applicant’s attempts to
create a sufficient number of lots so as to spread the expected special
assessments over a large number of lots and thereby keep individual lot costs to
an acceptable level. To allow for more lots than could be platted under Derby’s
typical “R-1” single-family zoning, the applicant requested a zone change to a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification. That zoning was approved
subject to platting. Under the PUD, lot widths and in some cases lot sizes are
less than could be platted if the site was zoned “R-1”.

The Preliminary Plat, approved by the Commission November 2, 2006, that has
preceded this Final Plat was a revision of several other previous plats. The
number of lots has varied with the previous plats from 325 to 345 to 381 and now
to 379 on this Final Plat.
.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The following comments have been revised from those provided for the
Preliminary Plat. If properly addressed by the current Final Plat, certain
Preliminary Plat comments have been deleted. Based on a review of the Final
Plat, other comments have been revised and as necessary new comments
included.

A.     The applicant has been advised that this plat will not be released for
       recording until the site has been annexed to the City of Derby. With the
       Final Plat Tracing the applicant shall submit a request for
       annexation. That request will be submitted to the City Council for
       acceptance at the time of its review of the Final Plat Tracing. Since
       this annexation will be an “island” annexation, County Commission
       approval will also be required. Staff will process this annexation
       request through the County.

B.     Draft petitions have been submitted for required improvements.
       Engineering has reviewed the petitions. Some minor adjustments to costs
       may be needed prior to submittal of the plat to the City Council. Several
       other minor items in the petitions will also require changes. Engineering
       should be contacted in regard to these issues. Signed petitions shall
       be submitted with the Final Plat Tracing. Following are the required
       improvements for which petitions shall be provided:

       -Sanitary Sewer Improvements, phase 1 & 2
       -Water Line Improvements, phase 1 & 2
       -Street Improvements, phase 1 & 2
       -Sidewalk Improvements, phase 1 & 2
       -Storm Water Sewer, phase 1 & 2
       -Storm Water Drain / Box / Mass Grading

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                     Page 23 of 28
       -Accel / Decel Lane Improvements for Webb Road
       -Permanent Accel / Decel Lane Improvements for Madison
       -Water Main Improvements in Madison
       -Water Main Improvements in Webb Road
       -Sidewalk Improvements in Madison
       -Sidewalk Improvements in Webb Road
       -Pump Station and Force Main Improvements


C.     A draft Certificate of Petitions has also been submitted. That Certificate
       shall be revised to also note the petitions submitted for sidewalks
       (phase 1 & 2) required along the Addition’s internal streets. A signed
       copy of the Certificate of Petitions shall be submitted with the Final Plat
       Tracing.

D.     City Engineering has reviewed and approved the drainage plan for this
       site. The required storm water detention is being provided on-site via 5
       detention ponds.

E.     City Engineering has reviewed the utility layout plan for this site and
       requests the following:
       1. Provide a sanitary sewer stub along west line of Lot 21, Block E to
       south line of the plat.
       2. Check sanitary sewer sizes on those lines that will provide future
       service to the east and southeast (at Lot 4, Block A and Lot 1, Block J).
       3. Show a 16 inch water line along Madison to the east line of the plat.
       4. Show a 16 inch water line along Webb Road.
       5. Staff has reviewed the street light layout provided by Westar and has
       requested additional lights at the ends of certain cul-de-sacs.

F.     As requested during review of the Preliminary Plat, the applicant has
       submitted a draft of a restrictive covenant concerning the ownership and
       maintenance of Reserves. A signed copy of that covenant shall be
       submitted with the Final Plat Tracing. However, in order to preclude
       garages being oriented toward Kay Street in the area with the strip
       Reserves (H, I, J, & K) and driveways possibly less than 20 feet being
       provided for access across those Reserves, the covenant and plattor’s
       text shall note that such driveways may not be placed within (across etc.)
       those Reserves. Alternatively, the applicant may also either plat complete
       access controls between the Reserves and street or plat setbacks (20 feet
       or more) that assure a garage is at least 20 feet from the side property
       line. Staff, however, assumes that the 10-foot wide Reserves are not
       intended to become parking areas for the adjacent homes.

G.     As noted during review of the Preliminary Plat, this Final Plat is indicating
       the requested / required access controls. That access control includes;

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                        Page 24 of 28
       complete access control to Madison, complete access control to Webb
       (except for one opening for Lot 63, Block C and complete access control
       for corner lots platting a 15-foot setback. As noted above, complete
       access control from the strip Reserves along Kay Street may also
       need to be provided.

       In order to provide access to the pump station being located in
       Reserve A, both for maintenance and in an emergency, a temporary
       “maintenance / emergency” access opening from Madison needs to
       be provided. Both the face of the plat and the plattor’s text shall
       indicate such access. The plattor’s text shall also indicate that this
       access will terminate upon the discontinued use of the pump station.

H.     In regard to the pipeline easement, the following condition shall apply:

       1.     The cost of any lowering. relocation or reconstruction of the pipeline
              shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant and shall not be a
              cost to the City or any utility company.

       2.     If lots are encumbered by a building setback from the pipeline
              easement, the Final Plat shall provide as necessary adequate
              dimensions to locate the pipeline setback from lot corners or lot
              lines.

I.     For any lots requiring the establishment of minimum building pad
       elevations, such requirements shall be noted in the plattor’s text and a
       table listing such requirements placed on the face of the plat. Such
       information has been shown on the Final Plat.

J.     As requested during review of the Preliminary Plat, several street names
       have been changed. In particular, the Final Plat is now showing Kay Street
       as the collector street entering the site from Webb Road, Cross Creek, a
       street in the Oaks golf course site, has been renamed Fallbrook, Pheasant
       Run has been renamed Covey and Jonah is used for the entire length of
       that loop street, including for the cul-de-sac sections coming off of that
       street.

K.     As agreed to by the Planning Commission, the only area adjacent to an
       arterial (or mile line road) requiring to be screened, is along the rear of the
       lots abutting Madison. In addition to that wall indicated for screening,
       the applicant shall submit with the Final Plat Tracing a landscape
       plan for that section of screening wall.

L.     Westar has indicated a request for several easements not shown on the
       present plat. In particular, 10-foot easements have been indicated


DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                          Page 25 of 28
       between lots 2 and 3 and lots 4 and 5 of Block B. Staff believes those
       easements are necessary.

       Easements have also been requested between lots 50 and 51 and lots 29
       and 30 of Block F. Given easements on adjacent lots it is not clear,
       however, that these easements are still necessary. The applicant shall
       verify with Westar if any of these indicated easements are needed
       and if requested, shall indicate these easements on the Final Plat
       Tracing.

M.     A review of the platting binder indicates that certain property taxes from
       2003 are apparently still outstanding on this property. Prior to this plat
       being recorded by staff, proof shall be provided by the applicant that
       all applicable property taxes have been paid.

N.     Staff has reviewed the draft Developer’s and Notice of Planned Unit
       Development. The PUD Notice is acceptable. In regard to the
       Developer’s Agreement either in that document or some other
       document, conditions shall be stated that prevents Reserves and
       portions of Reserves from being sold or otherwise transferred to
       adjacent property owners. That is, Reserves as platted, need to be
       maintained in a unified ownership and for the purpose for which they
       are being platted. Signed copies of the PUD Notice and Developer’s
       Agreement shall be submitted with the Final Plat Tracing,


RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

Approve the Final Plat subject to the above noted conditions and authorize the
preparation of a Final Plat Tracing.

Don Losew stated this site is in the county and this site does need to be
annexed into the city. The City Council would have to make a resolution,
ordinance, and send it on to the County Commission to be accepted.

Phil Meyer Baughman & Co. agent for the applicant. With me tonight is Chris
Rose also from Baughman & Co. Phil passed around a Landscape Plan for
along Madison. I am open to two suggestions, you are welcome to approve the
Landscape Plan as submitted, and you are also welcome to make a motion that
we get a Landscape Plan approved by Staff. We will work with Staff on any
revisions that may be necessary on that Landscape Plan. Don has not had a
chance to look at that yet. We meet with Charlie Brown last Friday to go over
several issues. We will make the necessary revisions when we turn the Final
Plat Tracing in. We have no problem adding the access controls to the Reserve.
Westar has a new set of easement requests; we received it in the mail today.
We do not comply with all their original requests, we changed some of

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                      Page 26 of 28
easements to be front loaded, and the city has also requested some additional
street lights. Westar has issued a new easement request map. We have no
problem with that. We can talk about the Reserve deeding if you like. We admit
there was a problem on that at Timber Leaf. I would like to continue to work with
City Staff on how we are going to add language to the Developers Agreement or
whatever document they would like to do it on. We addressed it on the PUD.
We would like to continue to work it out with Staff.

Commissioner Tauer asked Staff if on the petitions is requiring for water and
sanitary sewer but, not for electric and gas, is that because electric and gas
companies paid for those improvements at the time, or do the developers pay for
them.

Charlie Brown Director of Community Development stated the utilities are
considered private utilities. They are paid for by the developer. It is not a public
improvement as defined in our sub regulations, that state law allows us to
petition. We will never have petitions for electric and gas. Those are negotiated
directly by the developers with the utility company.

Commissioner Volz asked Charlie if they have to put in the lift station, will that
always be in use when we get sanitary sewer to the site. Do they go gravity at
that point?

Charlie Brown stated that is a temporary pump station, in the sense that it might
be a year, or two, or five. We do have the southeast interceptor sewer that is
being designed that goes to Rock Road at the Spring Creek bridge north and
east to High Park and over to this property. Assuming that we have the money
and the Council approves the budgets and bids, it should be built next year. If
that is the case Mr. Russell has some decisions to make on rather to get his sub-
division started, put in the pump station and allow it to be used on a tempory
basis, or rather he waits another year before he actually builds houses, so that
the gravity sewer is in. If that is the case, the pump station petition is
abandoned. It is a guarantee for us that sewer service will be there, but there are
some options to the developer based on the timing of our sewer project.

Commissioner Volz stated it can be feed by gravity and the development is not
years down the Road, relying on the lift station.

Charlie Brown stated we don’t like those stations. They are a maintenance
problem, with potential for backups and mechanical failures. We know in cases
like this, where development is heading a little quicker than our sewer systems,
we will have them on a tempory basis. We have had them in the past.

Commissioner Tauer asked about the stakes along Madison Ave.

Charlie Brown stated it is not our project. It may be another utility company.

DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES    March 15, 2007                        Page 27 of 28
Commissioner Volz made a motion to approve the Final Plat of the Quail-Run
Addition subject to Staff comments and authorize preparations for Final Plat
Tracing, to include the Landscape Plan. Seconded by Commissioner Smith.
Vote 7 yes, 0 no, 3 absent Commissioner Pelley, Commissioner Lewallen,
Commissioner Nun. Motion carried.


Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.


Judy Roberts                                         Jack Pulley
Recording Secretary                                  Chairman

Return to Homepage




DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES   March 15, 2007                  Page 28 of 28

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:79
posted:4/14/2011
language:English
pages:87