Some residents now satisfied with plans for annexed area

Overland Park drew strong opposition to its annexation move of almost two years ago, but a year-long planning process appears to have won over some of the detractors.

Shortly after the Johnson County Commission approved the 8.35-square-mile annexation in the Aubry Township, a 16-member West Aubry Task Force formed to develop a future land use plan for the area.

That panel – which included city officials, residents, business people and developers – recently completed a year of deliberations. Public hearings on the group’s plan began last week, and City Council adoption of the document is expected next month.

The plan outlines a tentative blueprint for how the area, which lies southwest of 167th Street and U.S. 69 highway, could develop. It envisions the area being dominated by lower-density residential properties and having little in the way of new office or retail projects. The plan also identifies four new parks, all connected to the city’s greenway trail system.

Except for a couple of minor points, the task force reached full agreement on the plan. Even those on the panel who began the process with concerns and reservations now say they feel reassured about the city’s goals and intentions.

“One resident over the course of the education process … ended up being one of our best advocates,” said Mary Hunter, a senior planner for the city who worked with the task force.

Hunter did not identify that member. But task force member Fred Hill was one of five Aubry area residents appointed to the panel, and he expressed satisfaction with the process and the final product.

When the annexation took place, Hunter said his concerns were much like those of his neighbors. He did not want development to become too dense, and he preferred that the county’s existing long-range plan for the area not be altered much.

“I was not anti-Overland Park, and I was even more pro-Overland Park after having gone through this process. I think the city tried to retain the country atmosphere as much as possible,” Hunter said.

There hardly is consensus throughout the community, however. Several residents filed a lawsuit in Johnson County District Court to reverse the annexation, and they are pressing on with that legal challenge. In fact, a ruling on the case is expected before the end of the year.

Norman Pishny, one of the plaintiffs, said he is no less opposed to the annexation than the day it was approved.

As for the task force, Pishny was not a member and did not attend hearings it held on the proposed plan.

“I didn’t go to any of the meetings, because I knew it would be useless,” Pishny said.

He added that other residents also stayed away because they remained convinced the city would do as it wished with the area regardless of what property owners wanted.

Hunter disagrees, and he believes participation did allay concerns.

“I think the people who really took an interest feel much better about it now.

(The city) really has given the public a chance to be a part of the plan,” Hunter said.

Dennis Eskie, another task force member and a developer in the area, agreed that progress had been made.

“I felt we met a lot of the concerns of trying to keep the area as residential as possible and keep commercial out of neighborhoods and preserve green space,” Eskie said.

Pishny believes city officials still do not understand the area and its non-urbanized culture.

“When we were still in the county, for instance, people would call the Sheriff’s Department to report that their cattle had gotten outside the fence, and they’d send somebody to help round them up. Now (city police) say, ‘What’s a cow?’ And nobody comes out.”

The Planning Commission held its final public hearing on the comprehensive plan on Nov. 23. The City Council holds hearings Dec. 7 and 21. Following the Dec. 21, hearing, the council will vote on adoption.

Contact Loren Stanton at 385-6068.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Write comment