ARB) of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas Met on February 20, 2018 at 3:00 P.M

MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

February 20, 2018

The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas met on February 20, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. at Mission Hills City Hall, 6300 State Line Road, Mission Hills, Kansas, for the purpose of reviewing building permit applications.

PRESIDING: Dorsey Troutman

PRESENT: Katherine DeBruce, Stacey Winfield and Tim Woofter

ABSENT: Gail Cluen

ALSO PRESENT: Todd Ault, City Architect; Courtney Christensen, City Administrator; Jill Clifton, City Planner; Anna Krstulic, City Attorney; Bill Bruning, City Council Liaison; Steve Crull, City Inspector

VISITORS: Kylie Brewer, Scovell Remodeling (for Nelson); for Kansas City Country Club ("KCCC") – Gary Mathews, 5623 Suwanee, Fairway; Loren Breedlove, KCCC; John Daniels, United States Golf Association; Nathan Stewart, KCCC; Brian Kubicki, ADK; Drew Siebert, Avant Acoustics; John Hodgson, Avant Acoustics; Grant Suderman, KCCC; Bobby Vickers, KCCC; Mark Allen, 5650 Mission Drive, Mission Hills; Bernie Shaner, Shaner Appraisals; Chuck Battey, 4505 W. 65th St, Prairie Village; Lili Shank, 5629 Suwanee, Fairway; David Battey, 5739 Windsor Drive, Fairway; Christopher Shank, 5629 Suwanee, Fairway; Terri Tansey, 5635 Suwanee, Fairway; Michael Tansey, 5635 Suwanee, Fairway; David Howard, 5609 Suwanee, Fairway; Hunter Wolbach, 5930 Mission Drive, Mission Hills; Mike McCann, 1768 W. 61st Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri; Guy Pickard, 5740 Windsor Drive, Fairway; Marilyn Battey, 4505 W. 65th St, Prairie Village; Diane Robinson, 5600 Canterbury, Fairway; Ann Simpson, 5613 Suwanee, Fairway

Mr. Troutman called the meeting to order. Ms. Winfield moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2018 ARB meeting. Mr. Woofter seconded. Approved 4-0.

Michael & Loretta Nelson Replace stone fireplace with different stone 6225 High Drive

Ms. Christensen indicated that the Nelsons are proposing to replace their existing stone fireplace with a new stone fireplace in the same location. The existing fireplace is constructed with a thin ledgestone and needs to be replaced due to damage; however, the Nelsons are unable to find ledgestone that matches the front of the house. The Nelsons are proposing to replace the ledgestone on the fireplace with ashlar stone that will match the other two

1 fireplaces on the home. The ledgestone on the front façade is not damaged and will remain. Ms. Winfield said that it will look nice to have the stone on all three fireplaces match. The ARB agreed. Ms. DeBruce moved to approve the project as presented. Ms. Winfield seconded. Approved 4-0.

Kansas City Country Club Electrical equipment and fan on 12th green 6200 Indian Lane

Ms. Christensen indicated that the KCCC is proposing to install a new fan and associated electrical equipment at the 12th green. The project was previously presented in May/June 2017 and was withdrawn by the KCCC at that time. The fan is located at the northwest edge of the 12th green at the northwest edge of the KCCC property. The associated electrical equipment will be located to the west of the green along the tree line. There are no conflicts with City ordinances or the Design Guidelines. Ms. Christensen stated that the new proposal does not change the fan location or the type of fan proposed; therefore, the entire record from the 2017 meetings was submitted to the ARB and is now part of this record as well. She said that the 2017 record includes all letters, ARB minutes, sound testing reports, and other data submitted to the ARB regarding the fan proposal. Ms. Christensen explained that the ARB also received a copy of all letters submitted for the new fan application. She stated that visitors who signed in will be given a chance to speak after the KCCC has presented their information.

Mr. Stewart introduced himself as the general manager of the KCCC and stated that the KCCC is requesting a permit to install electrical equipment on the golf course to have the ability to post a 50-inch fan on the 12th green. He said that he is aware of arguments raised by certain individuals and stated that he has invited knowledgeable individuals to address those concerns. Mr. Stewart noted that the City has indicated that the proposed equipment does not violate City ordinances or Design Guidelines. The permit is for permanent electrical service, not a permanent fan, because the proposed fan will only be placed on the green from mid-June to September each year. Permits for golf course fans have been previously approved numerous times by the ARB at the three country clubs in Mission Hills, including one at a location nearly the same distance from a Mission Hills residence that the proposed fan will be to any neighboring Fairway residences. Mr. Stewart indicated that the KCCC used a gas-powered, portable fan at the green during the last few years from sunup to sundown. The City has indicated that this use is in compliance with City ordinances. Mr. Stewart stated that the fan will only be used on days with extreme heat or moisture to cool and dry the putting green. If the request for permanent electrical service for the electric fan is not approved, the KCCC will continue to use the gas-powered, portable fan at the 12th green. Mr. Stewart commented that the gas-powered fan is louder than the proposed electric fan; however, the KCCC is willing to spend a significant amount of money to install a measurably quieter, electric fan. He said that this fact demonstrates that the KCCC is making an effort to be a good neighbor to the surrounding community while taking care of an asset that enhances the aesthetic beauty of the community as well as the value of residences surrounding it.

Mr. Stewart indicated that there have been several arguments raised which, without context or facts, may sound compelling. He said that he has asked three individuals to address the arguments and show that they fall into one of three categories: 1) technically true but lacking

2 proper context, 2) demonstrably false, or 3) subjective and hyperbolic. The first speaker will be John Daniels, a USGA Agronomist, who serves the central region of the United States and has served as a consultant at the KCCC and other clubs in the area. He will speak about the necessity for using fans on putting greens. The second speaker will be Loren Breedlove who has served as the Golf Course Superintendent for the KCCC for nearly 35 years. He will address the need for a fan at the 12th green and will explain why the KCCC has not, until recently, attempted to install a fan on the 12th green. The third speaker will be Drew Siebert, President of Avant Acoustics, who was hired by the City to provide objective sound level measurements of the golf course fans.

Mr. Daniels indicated that he is an agronomist for the USGA based in Dallas. He is responsible for consulting with private and public golf facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri. He said that he visits hundreds of golf courses and gives advice on how to improve course conditions and how to reduce the amount of chemicals used to maintain courses. Mr. Daniels indicated that Kansas City is in the transition zone which experiences extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures. Putting greens are sensitive to summer stress, high temperatures, and disease-related problems. Mr. Daniels stated that the use of fans objectively improves course conditions, which has been proven by independent university testing and many years of field experience. The KCCC has used fans on greens based on USGA recommendations and the greens have benefited. Mr. Daniels submitted USGA information recommending the use of golf course fans as a best management practice to improve turf rooting and health, decrease soil temperature and reduce the amount of fungicides needed to combat diseases. He stated that there is a lack of air movement during July and August on the 12th green which is when turf grass is routinely stressed. A fan would improve the course conditions to meet the expectations of golfers. Mr. Daniels indicated that without the fan, the green will have more disease-related issues and require more fertilizers and fungicides or sod replacement.

Mr. Troutman asked if Mr. Daniels had visited the 12th green. Mr. Daniels answered yes. Mr. Troutman asked if the green is different from other greens on other courses. Mr. Daniels replied that the 12th green is unique in that it does not receive air movement because it is in a low-lying area with trees and other physical structures that hinder air movement. He said that the green is one which experiences stagnant conditions that can be detrimental during the summer. Mr. Troutman asked if other golf courses had heard concerns from neighboring properties regarding fan noise. Mr. Daniels answered that he has heard noise concerns in other areas which have been caused by a misunderstanding of the ultimate goal of the fans and how they are used. He said that the use of fans is part of an integrated pest management program that decreases the need for chemicals.

Mr. Breedlove stated that he has worked for the KCCC for nearly 40 years and has been the Golf Course Superintendent for the past 34 years. He said that neighbors opposing the fan on the 12th green have commented that the fan is not needed because the green has never shown signs of stress. He said that he wishes that were true, but it is not. Mr. Breedlove stated that it is challenging to maintain the greens during the long summers in Kansas City because the heat and humidity damage and kill turf grass. Large amounts of rainfall and flooding can be catastrophic to a green. He presented photos of the 9th, 10th, and 12th greens that showed

3 patches of brown turf. Mr. Troutman asked if the KCCC was using the portable fan when these photos were taken. Mr. Breedlove replied no, the photos were taken around 2011. Mr. Troutman asked why the KCCC was not using the portable fan then. Mr. Breedlove replied that the KCCC did not have portable fans then and just used normal box fans that are much smaller. The KCCC asked for assistance from the USGA regarding the poor condition of the greens and the USGA suggested using the 50-inch fans which has greatly improved the greens. Mr. Breedlove noted that turf damage can take months to heal and if it is bad enough, the KCCC has to replace the sod which is time consuming and expensive. He presented a photo of a green with a box fan and explained that the photo shows that the part of the green that is not reached by the box fan is not as green as the part that is reached by the fan.

Mr. Breedlove indicated that purchasing and installing a permanent fan is costly which is why it has not been proposed for the 12th green until last year. The heavy rocky terrain on this hole makes it more difficult to bore through the earth to run an electrical line which makes it more expensive. The KCCC purchased a mobile, gas-powered fan in 2012 but they have to rotate it to different places on the course. Other greens have been rebuilt so the mobile fan is now used on the 12th green. Mr. Breedlove said that technological advancement in fans has turned their worst greens into some of their best greens. He stated that the fan will not be a permanent structure since it will only be on the green during the summer months. The base is installed in the ground and the fan is brought out in mid-June and bolted to the base during the summer. It is removed by Labor Day weekend and stored off-site. Ms. Christensen noted that the electric fan is considered a structure because it is attached to the ground when it is installed during the summer. Ms. Winfield asked if there was an alternative solution to combat heat and humidity other than using a fan. Mr. Breedlove replied that cooling air can be pumped into the ground to cool the green, which is very expensive because a cooling exchange has to be installed below the turf. This sub-air system cannot be installed on the 12th green because the green does not have positive drainage. Mr. Troutman asked how expensive the sub-air system is. Mr. Breedlove replied that it is 5-10 times more costly than using a fan. Mr. Troutman asked how many times the portable fan was used on the 12th green in 2017. Mr. Breedlove replied that it was on the green for 40-45 days last year. He said that the fan was removed for a few days to be serviced and there were a few days with rain that it was not turned on. Mr. Troutman asked if the 12th green floods often. Mr. Breedlove replied that water was partially over the 12th green during two of the floods in 2017 and other greens were totally submerged.

Mr. Siebert indicated that he is President of Avant Acoustics and was present to explain the acoustical testing that took place at the KCCC golf course in 2017. He said that John Hodgson, Technical Operations Manager, was also present from Avant Acoustics. Mr. Siebert explained that sound level measurements of a gas-powered fan were taken at the 10th and 12th greens. The 10th green is relatively flat, but the 12th green has unique topography. He said that he understands that part of the reason for the testing was to determine if there was a sound- focusing effect at the 12th green as a result of the topography. He noted that some have referred to it as an “amphitheater” effect that would cause the sound to be louder for the neighbors than it would be at a different green. Mr. Siebert said that under City ordinances, green cooling fans are treated as lawn maintenance equipment, and were tested for the possibility of there being a sound-focusing effect at the 12th green which would be evidenced by a measurable increase in noise reflecting from an opposite surface. He said that an

4 amphitheater does not amplify the overall sound energy from a given source, but rather focuses the sound in a particular direction. An amphitheater focuses sound by providing reflective surfaces that are shaped in such a way as to focus the sound energy in the desired location.

Mr. Siebert indicated that the fan noise measurements showed a nearly 1 dBA increase at the 12th green over the 10th green. He presented photos of the 10th and 12th greens and said that the fan was placed at its proposed location on the 12th green and measurements were taken at neighboring property lines and at each neighbor’s nearest outdoor living area which was a patio or a deck. At the 10th green, measurements were taken in a straight line at the same distance from the fan as was measured at each location (property line and outdoor living area) at the 12th green. Mr. Siebert commented that there is nothing around where the measurements were taken on the 10th green that would reflect back sound. However, at the 12th green, roughly half of the measurements were taken up against homes which act as acoustical reflectors bouncing a large percentage of sound back at the equipment, which is no different than an echo effect. He said that they could not hear the echo because the fan was continuously running. Mr. Siebert stated that he expects that this effect would be present at any course hole. He said that to properly evaluate the data, the measurements taken at nearby houses should be ignored. Only the measurements that were taken away from houses, which were the ones taken at the property line, should be considered. Mr. Siebert said that if the measurements taken at the property line were averaged, there would be no increase in the sound level at the 12th green over the 10th green. He referred to the graph titled “Average Measured Sound Pressure Levels” and said that the left graph shows a 1 dBA increase at the 12th green when all measurements (outdoor living area and property line) were averaged. He said that the graph on the right shows a 0.3 dBA decrease at the 12th green when the outdoor living area measurements were removed. He said that the 0.3 dBA decrease at the 12th green could have been a result of foliage or the margin of error allowed for the measuring device. Mr. Siebert indicated that the sound level measurements do not support the argument that there is an amphitheater effect at the 12th green. He explained that there was the ability to place an electric fan at the 10th green so they measured both a gas-powered fan and an electric fan at that green to compare the difference in sound levels. The gas-powered fan measured 7 dBA higher than the electric fan. Mr. Siebert commented that Mr. Kubicki from ADK also measured the electric fan as being quieter. He said that Avant Acoustics measurement of a 7 dBA decrease for the electric fan is more reliable based on testing methods they used. Avant Acoustics used a Class 1 microphone with a windscreen. The microphone was mounted on a tripod and the individuals stood several feet away to avoid any interference. Mr. Siebert indicated that the wind generated by the fan was measured at 7 mph at 30 feet.

Mr. Troutman asked when the measurements were taken. Mr. Siebert answered May 22, 2017. He referred to the last page of his report which showed the dBA value at each location at each green. Ms. Winfield asked what is the margin of error for these measurements. Mr. Siebert replied that the Class 1 microphone would have acceptable levels of margin of error which would be +/- 0.5 dBA. Ms. Winfield asked if that was the average margin of error for the measurements. Mr. Siebert said that the margin of error level of +/- 0.5 dBA is the average for any device, but because they used the same device for all measurements, the margin of error is most likely less than +/- 0.5 dBA. Ms. Christensen commented that the

5 graph on the right was the average sound levels for the gas-powered fan. Mr. Siebert agreed. Ms. Christensen said that if levels on the right were decreased by 7 dBA, then that figure would theoretically reflect the average sound level for the electric fan. Mr. Siebert said that should be true, but ambient noises will affect the results more for dBAs that are closer to 51. He noted that the ambient noise at the 12th green was measured a 43 dBA so it would have some effect. Mr. Troutman asked if Mr. Siebert had taken sound level measurements at golf courses before. Mr. Siebert said that he has taken many outdoor measurements and had measured sound levels at the Indian Hills Country Club golf course in Mission Hills. Ms. Christensen said that the Centers for Disease Control’s website states that 60 dBA is the sound level for a person talking. Mr. Siebert said that 60 dBA is the level of a normal conversation between two men, but at 60 feet away the level would not be 60 dBA. He said that he put a couple of relative examples in his report. First, lawn mower noise is 86 dBA at 5 feet. Second, he analyzed data from three different brands of newer-model 4-ton residential split A/C units and the average sound level was 62 dBA at 3 feet.

Mr. Woofter asked if Mr. Siebert could explain the measurement data for the 12th green that was submitted to the ARB after the testing. Mr. Siebert replied that the shaded column for the 12th green lists the sound levels measured at the different locations as indicated under the Property Owner column. The distances from the fan to the measurement locations (both property line and nearest outdoor living area) are listed in the column labeled “Hole 12 Location (Distance from Fan in feet)”. The measurements that were not included in the right graph were the nearest outdoor living area measurements as well as the property line measurement at 5600 Canterbury because that point was very close to the house which reflects sound. Mr. Woofter commented that the temporary, gas-powered fan measured 69-70 dBA at 5613 Suwanee Road and 5623 Suwanee Road. Mr. Siebert agreed that is correct. He stated that there were three measurements taken with the oscillating fan to see if there was a difference in sound levels when the fan was oscillating or when the fan was directed straight at the measuring equipment which is shown in the far right column. Mr. Woofter asked what the range of rotation will be on the permanent fan. Mr. Breedlove replied that it will be 90% because they are trying to cover as much of the green as possible. Ms. Christensen stated that during the testing, the fan was pointed directly at the specific house and measured from there because they wanted to create the loudest circumstance possible for that property owner. Mr. Troutman asked if the test fan oscillated. Mr. Siebert replied no, the fan was aimed directly at the house. Mr. Woofter asked if the KCCC had researched golf course fans to find the highest performing unit with the lowest dBA. He asked if there was a comparable fan that is 10 dBA quieter. Mr. Breedlove replied that he had just attended a golf course industry show and the two largest manufacturers made fans with identical dBA. He explained that if the KCCC would switch to a smaller fan, the dBA would be higher because the small fan has to spin faster to throw the air.

Mr. Troutman said that the ARB would now hear testimony from others in the audience. He indicated that the ARB had read all letters and information submitted so there is no need to repeat comments made in the letters. He asked that individuals present new information and limit their testimony to five minutes per person. Ms. Christensen stated that Michael Tamburini and David and Mindi Beahm had submitted letters but were not present at the meeting.

Mr. Mathews indicated that he lives adjacent to the 12th green. He said that Mission Hills Code Section 4-116 states that in regulating soliciting, “the public health and welfare and the good order of the community require that members of the community enjoy in their home a feeling of well being, tranquility and privacy.” He read from a noise ordinance recently proposed to the Mission Hills City Council which stated the following: “1) Excessive sound is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare and safety, and quality of life, 2) a substantial body of science and technology exists by which excessive sound may be substantially abated, and 3) the citizens of the City have a right to and should be ensured an environment free from excessive sound that may jeopardize their health, welfare or safety, or degrade their quality of life.” Mr. Mathews indicated that the City passed a quality of life ordinance years ago that addressed issues such as parking, noise, and large piles of dirt related to construction of homes. He said that every time a golf course fan has been proposed to the ARB, there are many people who complain about the noise. David Battey, a member of the KCCC, lives on the 11th green of the KCCC and has complained. Fred Coulson, a member of the KCCC, lives on the 16th green and wrote a letter to the ARB stating how the noise is like living next to an airport. Ned Riss, a member of the KCCC, has also complained about the noise. Mr. Mathews agreed that the gas-powered fan is louder at 75.3 dBA. He noted that the City has a policy of only allowing noise at 70 dBA. Mr. Mathews indicated that residents have continued to testify to the ARB that the fans ruin the tranquility of their homes, yet the City continues to approve the fans. When the ARB approved the fan at the Indian Hills Country Club in 2016, it agreed to five factors and the second factor was that the proposed project would not adversely affect property values and the health and welfare of the neighbors. Mr. Mathews stated that he has filed a lawsuit against the KCCC for its use of the gas-powered fan. He hired a real estate appraiser who calculated the diminution of his property value (because of the fan) to be $135,000. He indicated that there are close to 10 homes adjacent to the 12th green which would equal over $1 million in diminution value of those properties as a result of the fan; however, the KCCC says that it is too expensive to install an underground cooling system. Ms. Christensen clarified that the City’s policy for generators is that they should be no louder than 70 dBA at 30 feet; however, there is no such policy or regulation regarding other mechanical equipment in Mission Hills. She said that the City Council did not pass the proposed noise ordinance that Mr. Mathews referred to.

Mr. Kubicki, indicated that he is president of ADK and had presented an acoustical report to the ARB during their 2017 meetings. He explained that Avant Acoustics had provided A- scale data which is like a brake light coming on in your car. It contains one number which indicates the noise level. He said that his full spectrum analysis breaks down the noise into different levels which helps determine if the noise is a nuisance or not. Mr. Kubicki said that he “rolled off” the low frequencies because humans are not sensitive to low frequencies. He referred to his chart and pointed out the lines measuring the electric fan and the gas-powered fan. He commented that golf course fans are noisy, whether they are electric or gas-powered. Mr. Kubicki said that Avant Acoustics went to considerable effort to determine if there was an amphitheater effect at the 12th green. He said that the 12th green is like a microphone which itself does not make the noise excessive. He stated that the 10th green is flatter but the fan noise levels are still higher than ambient noise which is 43 dBA. Mr. Kubicki stated that each time you add 10 dBA the sound is twice as loud. He noted that he used a Type 2 microphone

7 and a microphone stand for his testing. He said that even on flat terrain, the golf course fans are louder than ambient noise. Mr. Kubicki stated that the fan noise is a nuisance and should be regulated by the City.

Mr. Allen indicated that he is a resident of Mission Hills and Chairman of the KCCC Greens Committee. He said that there are no ordinance or Design Guideline conflicts with the proposed fan. The KCCC is trying to provide a quieter solution than the gas-powered fan and have it be in line with best practices for turf management. He said that he lives along the golf course and he wants it to be maintained at the highest level possible so that his property values do not decrease. Mr. Allen stated that if the golf course is in good condition, people want to play there and be members, which causes the surrounding property values to remain high.

Mr. Shaner handed out copies of an appraisal he did for Mr. Mathews’ property at 5623 Suwanee in Fairway. He said that he was hired by Mr. Mathews to estimate the diminution in value resulting from excessive noise from the gas-powered fan placed at the 12th green. He indicated that his qualifications were on page 32 of his report. Mr. Shaner explained that he had been an appraiser for 45 years and has worked for almost every city in Johnson County, including Mission Hills. He said that his method was to first appraise the property as if there was not a fan and then to reappraise the property with the fan. The difference is considered a diminution of value. Mr. Shaner explained that he used comparable sales in the Fieldstone and Fieldstone Hills areas in Fairway to partly determine the value for Mr. Mathews’ property. Because Fieldstone and Fieldstone Hills do not have properties with a golf course frontage, he used property sales in Prairie Village along 71st Street to determine that $300,000 should be added to the value of Mr. Mathews’ property because it abuts a golf course bringing it to a total appraised value of $880,000 without the fan noise. He indicated that the process for determining the $300,000 adjustment is outlined on page 20 of his report. Mr. Troutman asked about the time that passed between sales of the homes in Prairie Village. Mr. Shaner indicated that the houses in the first pairing were both sold in 2005. In the second pairing, one house sold in March 2009 and the other in February 2010. In the third pairing, one house sold in February 2008 and the other in August 2009. Ms. Christensen commented that the housing recession hit in 2009 which most likely affected the house prices on the third pairing.

Mr. Shaner said that he considered Mr. Kubicki’s acoustical report which included the 1991 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control analysis which indicated 60-64 dBA is the equivalent of average levels for residential areas with traffic or industrial backgrounds. He referred to page 22 in his report and stated that a 2007 study by Jon Nelson (listed on page 23 of the Shaner report) was done which compared studies of noise levels. The 2007 study indicated that as noise levels increase into the 60-70 dBA range, property values are negatively impacted. The 2007 study also measured the effect of traffic noise on property values which was estimated to cause a 0.54% decrease per decibel. Mr. Shaner explained that if the normal sound level at Mr. Mathews’ property is 45 dBA and is increased to 60 dBA by the gas-powered fan, the net increase in dBA would be 15 which would equal a 7.5% diminution for the value of a typical residential property. He said that he believes that the percentage of diminution should be greater for a golf course frontage property because a person is paying for the view, privacy, and tranquility of the site. He said that he has determined that a golf course view is made up of 50-65% for the view, 10-15% for privacy,

8 and 25-35% for the tranquility of the site. Mr. Shaner said that he has determined that the percentage of diminution that should be attributed to the additional $300,000 value for a golf course view is 30%. Based on his determinations and adjustments, the diminution of value for Mr. Mathews’ property is $135,000 (see page 24 of Mr. Shaner’s report).

Ms. Shank indicated that she has lived at 5629 Suwanee for 28 years and has been a member of the KCCC for many years. She said that last year, the ARB members were invited to Mr. Coulson’s home along the 16th green to listen to the sound of an electric fan. The KCCC withdrew their application for a fan before the ARB could listen to the fan. Ms. Shank said that the loud noise needs to be experienced firsthand. She said that Mr. Coulson testified to the ARB last year that the fan was extremely disruptive while inside and outside of his home and that it impairs the use of his property. Ms. Shank explained that the 12th green is in a unique location – it is the closest green to homes anywhere on the course and is surrounded by more homes than at any other location. The topography creates an amphitheater effect which is evidenced by the fact that she can hear conversations on the green while she is inside her home. Ms. Shank said that the ARB minutes from last year stated that she played the 12th green every day which is not correct, but she does walk it almost every day. She stated that the 12th green has never had a turf problem. Ms. Shank submitted photos to the ARB and indicated that they were taken on July 5, 2017 showing the green in more recent years as opposed to the photos presented by Mr. Breedlove from 2011. She said that her photos show that the green is in excellent condition. She commented that a few of the photos Mr. Breedlove submitted were of the apron to the 12th green which might not receive air from a golf course fan in any circumstance. Mr. Breedlove pointed out the photo he submitted that was entirely of the green surface which showed areas of brown turf. Ms. Shank said that the fan is disruptive and is being used to combat a possible problem in the future, but creates current problems for neighbors. She said that the fan disrupts their homes, lives, and property values.

Mr. Battey said that he had been asked to testify for the neighbors who live along the 12th green because he has lived next to a fan on the 11th green for the last five summers. The fan is placed 88 yards from his outdoor pavilion which is farther than 10 of the 15 Fairway homes that are affected by the fan on the 12th green. He said that the substantial noise from the fan has adversely affected his enjoyment of his back yard and he can hear the fan inside his house. He said that the noise disrupts his sleep and interferes with him working at home. Mr. Battey stated that the fan noise is more than a nuisance in that it has caused emotional distress and irritability. He said that he did not receive notice from Mission Hills in 2013 when the fan was proposed on the 11th green. He said that the ability to appeal an ARB decision ends after 30 days following the ARB's decision and four days after that deadline, the electric oscillating fan began running behind his house. Mr. Battey said that the KCCC used a box fan at the green for 15 years and he never complained, but the new electric fan is four times louder. Mr. Battey said that the ARB would have approved the fan on the 12th green if he had not received notice of the application. He asked how Mission Hills could rely on precedent when no notice had been given to Fairway residents. Mr. Battey indicated that he has been a member of the KCCC since 1990, his father is a past president of the KCCC, his mother has three holes-in one, and he has many friends who are members. If he had one last round of golf to play in his life, he would play it at the KCCC. He said that the topic is so important to him that he flew

9 back from his family vacation in Florida to testify at this meeting. Mr. Battey said that the KCCC is wrong in using the fans because whatever small benefit can be achieved, it is negated by the ugliness and industrial noise. He said that he has golfed at 90 of the top 100 golf courses in the world according to the latest Golf Magazine ranking, and played more than 650 rounds at the KCCC. He said that the 12th green is world class and has never had a fan on it until last summer. Mr. Battey noted that he talked to Mark Bado who said that the 12th green did not need a fan because of the breeze coming down the 13th fairway, but the desire by some members to have a faster green is what is driving the application. He said that the golf course is a beautiful natural setting and the fan noise detracts from the game. The electric fans are causing real estate values to decline, and he would not buy his own home today because of the fan noise. Mr. Battey stated that the fan runs from 7:00 a.m. to 8:20 p.m. from June 15th to September 15th. The bowl shape at the 12th green nearly doubles the sound level. He said that the ARB should deny the KCCC’s application because one of the ARB’s required findings is that the structure “will not adversely affect the values of surrounding properties and will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City.” Mr. Battey stated that the ARB should do the right thing and deny the fan.

[The ARB took a 5-minute break.]

Mr. Troutman stated that several speakers had taken longer than the requested five minutes and asked that the remaining speakers keep their comments to less than five minutes.

Mr. Troutman asked if Mission Hills has an agreement with surrounding cities to provide each other’s residents notice of certain things. Ms. Christensen said that when the Mission Hills Country Club proposed a fan years ago, some residents of Mission Woods wanted to receive notice so the City of Mission Woods provided those addresses to Mission Hills. She said that, at that time, she contacted the other surrounding cities to see if others would like to provide addresses to Mission Hills as well. The City of Fairway indicated that they did not wish to provide the appropriate addresses as it was not Mission Hills’ obligation to notice Fairway residents and Fairway was not going to notice adjacent Mission Hills’ residents of building projects. Ms. Christensen said that she had been in contact recently with the City of Fairway about noticing the adjacent neighbors and the City of Fairway just sent (the day before) the addresses of those they wished to be noticed in the future.

Mr. Shank indicated that the unique topography at the 12th green and the way the sound carries is one of the key reasons he is opposed to the proposed fan. He presented a site plan prepared by BHC Rhodes that plotted the distances from the fan to surrounding property lines and outdoor living areas. He said that he considers the entire back yard, and not just a patio or deck, to be an outdoor living area, and he is entitled to tranquility in his back yard. Mr. Shank presented photos that showed the distance from the houses to the 12th green. He said that the distance from the fan to the Simpsons’ back yard is the same distance as the pitcher’s mound to home plate at a Major League Baseball stadium. The 12th green is uniquely configured and is surrounded by 11 houses along Suwanee Road. Mr. Shank said that he is interested in the discussion of decibel levels, but it is largely beside the point because the Risses and the Coulsons have stated they are annoyed by the electric fan noise near their properties. He said that he can hear conversations on the 12th green from his back porch, and it is distressing as a

KCCC member to know what the fan will do to his comfort during the summer. Mr. Shank said that he did not know that the KCCC had resubmitted their application for a fan until he read it in the newspaper, and said that he was surprised that the KCCC did not notify him since he is a member. He stated that the 12th green is not in need of a fan and referred to discovery provided by the KCCC in Mr. Mathews' lawsuit which showed that no USGA report identified a problem with the 12th green. It is a credit to Mr. Breedlove that the 12th green has never needed to be replaced. Mr. Shank said that there were no visible signs of stress at the 12th green in October 2017 and the green does not even contain soil monitoring equipment that 13 other greens have. He said that the last soil testing at the 12th green indicated that the soil was in the normal range.

Mr. Shank said that he hired an independent consultant not affiliated with Kansas City or the KCCC. He retained Nick Christians who is a professor of horticulture at Iowa State University to provide an opinion on the necessity of a fan on the 12th green. Mr. Christians visited the 12th green and reviewed Mr. Breedlove’s deposition in Mr. Mathews' current court case regarding the fan. Mr. Shank presented Mr. Christians’ report, which included USGA reports and Mr. Breedlove’s deposition testimony, to the ARB. Mr. Shank indicated that Mr. Christians considered three factors in forming his opinion: 1) is the green open to prevailing winds, 2) has there been a history of problems with the green, and 3) what is the experience of golf course staff to maintain the green. Mr. Christians stated in his report that the 12th green is open to air movement and Mr. Breedlove had indicated that he was not aware of any turf problems with the green as of October 2017. The green had not been equipped with an in- ground monitor which suggests that there have not been any significant problems there. Mr. Christians’ opinion is that a fan on the 12th green is not necessary to maintain it in a reasonably satisfactory condition. Mr. Shank said that he believes the reason the KCCC wants the fan is because golfers want greens to be faster and playability standards emphasize speed and play. He said that he and the other neighbors are attending the ARB meeting because the use and enjoyment of their homes is being challenged. The fan noise is intolerable during the summer months and residents cannot use their outdoor spaces. Mr. Shank said that homes represent their principal asset and the value should not be diminished for a want as opposed to a need. He asked that the ARB decline the application and said that he believed that the green can be managed successfully without a fan. He said that the fan has an adverse effect on his health, safety, and welfare.

Ms. Tansey indicated that one of the factors the ARB must find in approving an application is that it will not be detrimental to the stability of values of surrounding properties. She said that the ARB should deny the application to protect property values and the general well-being of neighbors. Ms. Tansey said that the gas-powered fan used on the 12th green is considered temporary but it runs 14 hours at a time and is very loud. Properties in this area are no longer valuable because of the fan. She said that the KCCC has compromised her ability to use her property for normal activities. For example, she cannot sit on her deck to eat dinner during the summer because of the fan. It also impedes her ability to operate a business in her home. She said that she cannot hold conference calls on her deck during the summer because of the noise. Ms. Tansey said that someone on a conference call thought the fan was a hair dryer, and said that a hair dryer running for hours is very annoying. She said that the fan noise drowns out the

11 noise of a lawn mower across State Park Road and is very disruptive. Ms. Tansey stated that the ARB should deny the use of the electric and gas-powered fans.

Mr. Tansey thanked the City for hiring Avant Acoustics to conduct sound level testing of the fans last year. He said that part of the problem is that the fan is on all day long, 45 days of the summer when residents use their decks. He indicated that he lives around the corner so he does not hear the fan directly but the oscillation causes the sound to fade in and out which is disruptive to conversations. Mr. Tansey said that he can hear conversations on the green from his back deck so he knows there is an amphitheater effect. He asked that the ARB consider that there is no need for a fan because the green is not suffering and it puts tremendous stress on the neighbors and also makes the KCCC look bad.

Mr. Howard stated that he is the third or fourth closest property to the fan and said that the KCCC is proposing a solution in search of a problem. He said that the fan is being requested to deal with something that does not exist since there is no substantial damage to the 12th green and it appears to be in good shape. He said that the ARB needs to weigh the interest of the neighbors and the KCCC’s desire to make the green perfect even though it is already in good shape. Mr. Howard said that just because the fan use is new technology does not mean it is needed. He stated that it will cause adverse effects to the neighbors along the 12th green and asked the ARB to deny the KCCC’s request.

Mr. Wolbach indicated that he lives at 5930 Mission Drive and said that many have stated that Mr. Coulson’s property is the closest to the fan on the 16th green. He referred to a photo which showed that his outdoor living area is the closest to the fan on the 16th green. He said that when he is sitting inside his house with closed windows that were installed in 1929 which let in snow, he cannot hear the fan. Mr. Wolbach said that he can hear conversations on Mission Drive but he cannot hear the fan. He said that when he is outside, the fan is a subtle white noise and is no louder than his neighbor’s A/C unit. Mr. Wolbach said that the fan does not diminish his quality of life and he would encourage the ARB to approve the KCCC’s application.

Mr. McCann indicated that he is a member of the KCCC, and said that the arguments have been against any fan on the 12th green which is a discussion for a different forum. What is being proposed to the ARB is the placement of an electric fan which will reduce the noise level from the gas-powered fan that has been used the last two summers and does not require a permit from the City to be used. Per the City Administrator, the KCCC has the authority to run the gas-powered fan according to the time limits set by the City which is considerably louder than the electric fan that is being proposed. Mr. McCann emphasized to the ARB that the KCCC wants to reduce the noise level on the 12th green by using the electric fan.

Ms. Robinson indicated that she lives across State Park Road from the 12th green and her property had the highest decibel level reading in the Avant Acoustics results. She said that she has a Master’s degree in Geology and no one has discussed the great deal of hard landscaping around the green that includes a wall along State Park Road, the concrete liner in the creek bed, and rock cropping adjacent to Fairway. She said that these items contribute to the bowl effect and make the sound louder. Ms. Robinson said that she cannot sit and have a

12 conversation in her yard anymore. She indicated that the measurements taken by Avant Acoustics were at a point on her house, but not the corner of her house that is closest to the fan. She stated that the KCCC ran the fan for 40-45 days beginning in the middle of June and ran it for 4-5 days and then turned it off for one day. Ms. Robinson said that the KCCC did not turn off the fan exactly when they were supposed to. She said that it is impossible to live outside in her yard during those summer months. She stated that Avant Acoustics ignored the houses in the calculations stating that the homes were elevated, but her home is not elevated.

Mr. Troutman asked if the KCCC wished to respond to any of the comments. Mr. Stewart thanked everyone for their patience and stated that the KCCC is attempting to reduce the noise level by installing an electric fan. The KCCC presented qualified experts to give objective evidence that there is not an amphitheater effect at the 12th green. Mr. Stewart said that in regard to the comments about not being able to sleep with the fan on, the electric fan would run within limits required by City ordinance which would not affect normal sleeping hours. He said that they can schedule the electric fan to automatically turn on and off, but the gas- powered fan has to be manually shut off or they let the gas run out. Mr. Stewart said that there is no truth to the statement that the 12th green has never shown stress. He said that the photos presented by Ms. Shank that were taken in 2017 to prove the good condition of the green were taken after they began using the gas-powered fan on the green. Mr. Stewart said that the two men who spoke from the KCCC have 40-50 years of combined experience with that green. He said that the photos presented by Ms. Shank showing the good condition of the green in 2017 prove that the fan has worked.

Mr. Troutman said that he appreciates everyone’s time and effort in testifying. He moved that the ARB recess into deliberative session for 10 minutes to discuss the KCCC’s application with the City Attorney pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4318(g)(1). The open meeting will resume at 5:52 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ms. DeBruce seconded. Approved 4-0. The ARB resumed in open session at 5:52 p.m. Mr. Woofter stated that the ARB appreciated everyone’s interest in the matter, and said that the ARB would like to continue the project so they can review additional information. First, the ARB would like to know the exact radius of the fan's oscillation, its proposed location, and the rationale therefor. The ARB would like to know if anything can be added to the fan so that it would not need to oscillate which may be part of the nuisance. Mr. Woofter said that the ARB members also need time to review the information that had been submitted at the meeting. The ARB wants to hear a comparison of the gas- powered fan and the electric fan so that they can understand the difference in dBA. Mr. Troutman asked the KCCC if they could bring out the fans so the ARB can listen to them. Mr. Breedlove replied yes, but it would be difficult to do at the 12th green since there is no power to use for the electric fan. Mr. Woofter stated that the ARB wants to have a gas-powered unit placed by an electric unit and wants to stand at different distances and locations around the fans to understand the effect it will have on the neighbors. Ms. Shank suggested using the location at the 16th green. Mr. McCann asked the ARB if they could get back to the City on the green that would meet the conditions of the ARB and would not interfere in any green maintenance projects. Ms. Christensen said that the fan request needs to be continued to a specific ARB meeting, and asked if the KCCC would have time to set up the ARB’s site visit by March 6th. Mr. Troutman stated that the Sunken Garden site visit is prior to the March 6th ARB meeting. Mr. Stewart said that the KCCC could be ready for the March 20th ARB

13 meeting and could have the demonstration at 2:00 p.m. He said that individuals should park at the clubhouse and then they can go to the appropriate green. Ms. Krstulic agreed that would be the easiest solution. Mr. Woofter made a motion to continue the project to March 20th with a site visit to be held at 2:00 p.m. at a green chosen by the KCCC. He reiterated that the gas- powered and electric fans should be at the same location with opportunities for the ARB members to listen from different locations and distances around the fan. Mr. Troutman seconded. Continued 4-0.

Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Jill Clifton, City Planner