PDF Format:

CC01252016.pdfCC01252016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
January 25, 2016
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember MeyerPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember Sandifer Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember KenigParks and Recreation Director Holman
Public Works Director Whitacre
IT Director Bunting
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Communications Manager Ferguson
Business Liaison Holtwick Police
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Police Captain Larson
Police Captain Brunner
Sr. Development Review Manager Hooper
(City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silent your electronic devices at this time. I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting. I will do a roll call at this time. Councilmember Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: We have Boy Scouts in the audience with us tonight. So, if they would like to come forward and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence. And then I will have you introduce yourselves and tell us what troop you’re with.

(Pledge of Allegiance a Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. So, if you’d like to tell us your name and the troop you’re with.

(Boy Scouts introduced themselves)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you so much.

(Applause)

MAYOR DISTLER: Before we begin our agenda I’d like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item.

With the remodeled room we are trying some new ways of timing speakers, so tonight the five-minute timer will be displayed up on the screen. After you have finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. I would also like to remind Councilmembers to wait to be recognized before speaking. This new audio system will broadcast our meetings online and archive a copy for the minutes. It will also amplify the sound in the room. When you are recognized, press the button and the red light around the mouthpiece will come on. Please turn the microphone off when you are done speaking.
In addition, while we don’t a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in minority so our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

C. CONSENT AGENDA

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2016.
2. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2016.
3. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2016.
4. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED MAIN SEWER DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE EASTERLY FIVE ACRES OF THE PROPERTY AT 5740 LACKMAN ROAD. [Resolution No. 1769 was assigned.]
5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED MAIN SEWER DISTRICT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY AT 10405 WEST 49TH STREET. [Resolution No. 1770 was assigned.]
6. CONSIDER A CONDUIT EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LENEXA.
7. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR NIEMAN ROAD CORRIDOR SOUTH STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3400, SMAC TC -021-072.
8. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 52ND CIRCLE AND 53RD STREET, EAST OF NIEMAN STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3402, SMAC TC -021-071.
9. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 2015 MILL AND OVERLAY PROGRAM.
10. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND FINAL FOR STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, 59TH TERRACE - FLINT STREET TO KING STREET, P.N. 3392, SMAC TC-21-069.
11. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 AND FINAL FOR ERFURT PARK, P.N. 3382.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does the Council have any items they would like to remove? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]

D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Mayor’s Items. I do not have anything this evening.

E. APPOINTMENTS

1. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE SHAWNEE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next is Appointments. Item Number 1 is to Consider Appointment to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership. The Shawnee Downtown Partnership is recommending the appointment of Christine Alexander with a term expiring January 25, 2019.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0) Is Christine in the audience tonight? Thank you so much for your service.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to appoint Christine Alexander to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership with a term expiring January 25, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE VISIT SHAWNEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Appointments to the Visit Shawnee Advisory Committee. I am recommending appointments to the Visit Shawnee Advisory Committee. There are three actions.

a) Consider appointing JoLynn Brosnen, Robin Frazee, Dave MacKay, Cathy Marks, Roxane Hill and Ruben Luna with a term expiring on January 31, 2017.

The first action is to consider appointing JoLynn Brosnen, Robin Frazee, Dave MacKay, Cathy Marks, Roxane Hill and Ruben Luna with a term expiring on January 31, 2017.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to appoint JoLynn Brosnen, Robin Frazee, Dave MacKay, Cathy Marks, Roxane Hill and Ruben Luna to the Visit Shawnee Advisory Committee with a term expiring January 31, 2017. The motion passed 8-0.]
MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider appointing Stacy Bienhoff, Randy Bull, Mark Hembrey, Lauren Taylor, Robin Heath and Neal Sawyer with a term expiring on January 31, 2018.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to appoint Stacy Bienhoff, Randy Bull, Mark Hembrey, Lauren Taylor, Robin Heath and Neal Sawyer to the Visit Shawnee Advisory Committee with a term expiring January 31, 2018. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0) MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider appointing Councilmembers Mickey Sandifer and Jim Neighbor with a term expiring on January 31, 2018.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to appoint Councilmembers Mickey Sandifer and Jim Neighbor to the Visit Shawnee Advisory Committee with a term expiring January 31, 2018. The motion passed 8-0.]

If any of these folks are in the audience tonight, please stand and be recognized. Thank you so much for your service to the City.

F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Okay.

G. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR JACOB KAHLE ROAD (59TH STREET), BETWEEN WOODLAND DRIVE AND BARKER ROAD (SAV-15-003).

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Next item is Public Items. Item Number 1 is to conduct a Public Hearing on the Vacation of Public Street Right-of-Way for Jacob Kahle Road (59th Street), Between Woodland Drive and Barker Road (SAV-15-003). On December 14, 2015, the Governing Body authorized staff to schedule a public hearing and notify adjoining property owners and utility companies of the City's intent to vacate the public right-of-way for Kahle Road effective March 1, 2016. An ordinance is required.

There are three actions required for this item. The first is conduct a public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Move to conduct the public hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to conduct a public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. This public hearing will begin with a presentation by Ron Hooper, Senior Development Review Manager. After Mr. Hooper's presentation, I will ask Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there are any comments from the public.

If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand and I will recognize you to come forward. Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, we will have the Council discussion, followed by a motion.

Mr. Hooper, go ahead, please.

MR. HOOPER: Thank you and good evening. This road, we commonly refer to it now as 59th Street. It was established in about 1900. By 1941, it only provided access to the farm fields between what is now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks and Mill Creek. Even though it has not really been used other than for minor access purposes, it still is a public right-of-way. It doesn’t become abandoned by itself.

The Council has, indicated last December as part of the train horn quiet zone proposal, directed staff to set up this public hearing. Property owners, all adjoining property owners have been notified as have all utility companies. No property owners have objected to the vacation, nor have any of the utility companies requested that we retain easements so that they can maintain their facilities. We now own the property immediately east of the railroad tracks and we have access by way of Vista Drive to the south across other private property. As such, we do not require access via 59th Street.

We’re in the process of blocking off, barricading if you will, the crossing at the tracks. And the property owners on the west side have requested us to retain, leave the road trail, if you will, in its condition, or in its existing condition and that they will soon be putting a gate across that close to Woodland.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Okay. Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. MAYOR DISTLER: So, the second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to close the public hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to conclude the public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]
MAYOR DISTLER: The third action is to consider passing an Ordinance ordering the vacation of Jacob Kahle Road.

Is there any discussion from the Council? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to pass an Ordinance ordering the vacation of Jacob Kahle Road. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3147 was assigned.]

2. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2, is to Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the 2015 Community Development Block Grant Funds. The Community Development Block Grant program requires a public hearing be held to provide the opportunity for citizen participation. Staff will forward the report on to HUD after the public hearing.

MAYOR DISTLER: There are three actions required for this item.
MAYOR DISTLER: The first is to conduct a public hearing. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to conduct a public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Planning Director Paul Chaffee. After Mr. Chaffee's presentation, I will ask Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there are any comments from the public.

If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand and I will recognize you to come forward. Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, we will have Council discussion, followed by a motion.

Mr. Chaffee, please go ahead.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. The purpose of the hearing is to review progress made in the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Funds and the anticipated completion of activities that were ongoing through December 31, 2015. Upon completion of the public hearing, staff will forward the report to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, addressing any comments.

During 2015, reimbursements to human service providers totaled $35,678.63. YMCA of Greater Kansas City expended all their funds, and the Johnson County Park and Recreation District expended their remaining 2014 funds and all of their 2015 funds. Combined, these agencies provided subsidized child care scholarships to 24 low income Shawnee families. The Salvation Army spent their funds from their 2015 allocation. Their funds were used to make subsistence payments to 69 low and moderate income Shawnee residents. And Catholic Charities of Northeast Johnson County expended all their funds and provided emergency assistance to 62 low and moderate income residents.

The 2014 CDBG infrastructure project funds in the amount of $165,234 were expended in 2015. These funds were used for the installation of storm sewers, curb and gutter, street lighting and sidewalk improvements along 59th Terrace between King and Flint. This project included 455 feet of storm sewers, five drainage structures, 280 feet of curb and gutter, and associated street lights and a sidewalk. This project served approximately 373 low and moderate income residents that live in the area.

The 2015 CDBG infrastructure project is Phase II of a stormwater project located between 59th Street and 59th Terrace, and Barton and King. Staff is working on preparation of contracts for this project, with bidding expected to occur in the summer of 2016.

Johnson County Housing Services utilized their entire $25,000 allocation of 2014 CDBG funds in 2015 for the Minor Home Repair and Revitalization programs. These funds were expended on eight homes. No funds from the 2015 year have been spent, although staff has prepared Environmental Review documents for several additional properties, and three properties are pending completion.

That concludes staff’s report.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to conclude the public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The third action is to consider accepting the 2015 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to accept the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the 2015 Community Development Blog Grant Funds. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS FOR PINEGATE WEST APARTMENTS, SERIES 2008A, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REFINANCING OF THE PROJECT AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE BONDS. MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider a Resolution Related to the Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds for Pinegate West Apartments, Series 2008A, to Provide for the Refinancing of the Project and Transfer of Ownership of the Bonds.

In 2008, the City issued $14,375,000 of Multi-family Housing Revenue Bonds for the Pinegate West Apartments located at 6530 Barton Circle. The owner intends to refinance the project.

The recommended action is to consider adopting the Resolution and approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the City Documents, subject to the conditions set forth therein and final approval of Bond Counsel and the City Attorney.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to adopt a Resolution related to the Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds for Pinegate West Apartments, Series 2008A, to provide for the Refinancing of the Project and Transfer of Ownership of the Bonds and approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the City documents, subject to the conditions set forth therein and final approval of Bond Counsel and the City Attorney.
The motion passed 8-0. Resolution No. 1771 was assigned.]
4. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHAWNEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR CONVENTION AND TOURISM SERVICES.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider an Agreement with the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce for Convention and Tourism Services. On November 9, 2015, the Governing Body approved a new Charter Ordinance related to convention and tourism of the City. The Chamber of Commerce oversees these services and the City has been working with Chamber staff on an updated agreement. The recommended action is consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the new agreement.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce for Convention and Tourism services. The motion passed 8-0.]

H. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

1. CONSIDER PUD-01-15-11, A REZONING FROM PUDMR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED RESIDENTIAL) AND PUDMX (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE) TO PUDMR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED RESIDENTIAL) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR VANTAGE AT SHAWNEE, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 6100 BLOCK OF PFLUMM ROAD.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting on January 4, 2016. Item Number 1 is to Consider PUD-01-15-11, a Rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and Preliminary Development Plan Approval for Vantage at Shawnee, Generally Located in the 6100 Block of Pflumm Road.

The Planning Commission recommended 8-2 at their November 2nd meeting that the Governing Body approve PUD-01-15-11 for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6100 block of Pflumm Road. The item was tabled at the November 23, 2015 City Council Meeting and then remanded back to the Planning Commission on December 14, 2015, to further consider traffic generated from the site.

The Planning Commission considered this remand at their January 4, 2016 meeting. Discussion at the meeting was limited to the traffic issue as identified by the Governing Body, and after due consideration of the traffic impact, the Planning Commission recommended 9-2 to return the original recommendation to the Governing Body.

There will be one presentation tonight. Mr. Chaffee will review the discussion by the Planning Commission regarding traffic as requested by the Governing Body, and he will explain the options for action that the Governing Body may take.

I was made aware at the December 14th City Council meeting that there were individuals in the audience who wanted to speak, but were unable to because of the room constraints. Following Mr. Chaffee's presentation, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who did not get to speak at the last meeting, and would like to speak tonight.

Following comments from individuals who did not speak at the last meeting, I will ask if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak regarding the issue of traffic for this development. For other than those that didn't get to speak at the December meeting, that is the scope of the input for this meeting tonight.

Following public input, the Council will discuss amongst themselves.

I would remind the audience that this is a public meeting and is designed to hear all different opinions. The Councilmembers and I respect every person who comes forward to speak, and I would ask those in the audience to do the same.

Please no applause, and no speaking out, making other noises that are not conducive to an orderly meeting, and that might preclude the Council and the audience from fully hearing the speaker.

Mr. Chaffee, please go ahead.

MR. CHAFFEE: The Governing Body at their December 14, 2015 meeting considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve this rezoning request. After several motions were made regarding acceptance of the recommendation, an override of the recommendation and remanding the item back to the Planning Commission, a motion was adopted to remand the item back to the Planning Commission to further consider traffic generated from the site.

The Planning Commission considered this remand from the Governing Body at their January 4, 2016 meeting. Discussion at the meeting was limited to the traffic issue as identified by the Governing Body. Planning Commissioners received copies of the Governing Body minutes from the December 14, 2015 meeting, the traffic study prepared for the Cobblestone Court project from June 2014, the response to the City by the applicant’s engineer reviewing the June 2014 traffic study and their updated peak morning and evening traffic volumes based on the Vantage at Shawnee proposal, and a listing of the previously approved conditions of approval.

It was noted that Pflumm Road was designed and constructed as a four lane arterial between 63rd Street and Johnson Drive in the early 1990s. The street was sized to handle traffic from a fully developed area. Arterial streets are meant to handle large volumes of traffic. The staff report noted the average daily traffic for this section of Pflumm Road is about 11,000 cars per day. The four lane arterial can handle 20,000 cars per day before it experiences very low levels of service. City Engineer/Development Services Director Wesselschmidt noted that based on the traffic study, the addendum prepared for the Vantage project, and his own experience, additional traffic signalization or turn lanes were not warranted.

Planning Commissioners discussed the provision of two public entrances to the project, one along 62nd Street and another along Pflumm Road. It was noted that there were two driveways provided where the duplex units along Pflumm are located that would provide access to apartment units that were part of a former proposal. Traffic counts provided in the 2014 study indicated there would be a higher volume of morning and afternoon peak traffic than the Vantage plan. It was also noted the access driveway into the apartment development was approximately 500 feet in length before the access gates, or before the street, too, and this would provide adequate stacking for cars entering and exiting the Pflumm Road entrance. Commission members also discussed the difference between levels of service and what effect it had on traffic flow and wait times.

A discussion was held on the potential impact for large amounts of traffic to use the 62nd Street access rather than Pflumm Road to cut through the Hy-Vee parking lot to get to the 62nd Terrace and Pflumm Road traffic signal, as well as to use that access point to cut through the neighborhoods to access Broken Arrow school, Johnson Drive and I-435.

It was mentioned that one item that could be considered would be to require the developer to escrow a certain percentage of the cost of any future signalization project, if one were needed to be undertaken, for a period of three to five years.

The Recommendation: After due consideration of the traffic impact by the Vantage project, including the indication that traffic volumes would be less than those for a previously approved plan, adequate on-site stacking would be provided and Pflumm Road had the capacity to handle any additional traffic generated from this development, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 9-2, returned the recommendation to the Governing Body to approve PUD-01-15-11, rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit
Development Mixed Residential) Zoning District and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) Zoning District to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) zoning district and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6000-6100 Blocks of Pflumm Road, subject to the original thirty-three (33) conditions that were listed in the staff report.

Since this is the second consideration of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, state statute (K.S.A. 12-757) provides the Governing Body with three options as follows:

1. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation;
2. Adopt a revised or amended recommendation; or
3. Take no further action.

Zoning statutory provisions (K.S.A. 12-104) define the Governing Body to include the Mayor and Council, and the provisions provide the Governing Body is authorized to take those actions. As a result, the Mayor may, but is not required to vote on any motion or item related to the consideration of a zoning application, regardless of whether the vote is tied or one less than needed.

Although not an option specifically listed in the state statutes, staff notes that on occasion it has been the practice in other cities to make additional remands to the Planning Commission to consider additional items or proposed modifications to a particular rezoning request that had been undertaken by the applicant that have been suggested by the Governing Body. A majority of the Governing Body may request an additional remand for consideration of specific issues.

Due to the existence of a valid protest petition, the adoption of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the rezoning requires a vote of three-quarters of all the members of the Governing Body, or seven votes.

The adoption of a revised or amended recommendation, including a denial of the rezoning application, requires a simple majority vote of all the members of the Governing Body, or five votes.

And the failure to take any action operates as the failure to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. In short, if there is no motion, or no successful motion, there is no action.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. So, now I will if there’s anyone from the audience who was at the December 14th meeting and did not get to speak at that meeting and would like to speak at this time? Please come forward.

MR. STEWART: Where is the time at, Madam Mayor?

MAYOR DISTLER: It should be coming up here on the screen.

MR. STEWART: I’d like to request seven minutes, but if it’s five.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I guess you could get started while you’re waiting for them to get started. Take advantage of it.

MR. STEWART: Okay. Madam Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Shawn Stewart. My wife Julie and I along with our four children live at (Address Omitted) in Saddlebrook right here in Shawnee. I stand before you tonight as a resident of Shawnee and as an attorney that has handled hundreds of zoning matters in the Kansas City area, to testify in opposition to the applicant’s request which proposes to squeeze, cram, and shoehorn as many units on as many floors in as many buildings as they can possibly can on a piece of property that is overwhelmingly surrounded by single family residential homes.

The density and size of the development is so far out of character from the surrounding neighborhoods. The 14 apartment buildings are between 42 and 46 feet in height and range in size from 18,000 to 27,000 square feet in area. All of those buildings together calculate 338,000 square feet. That density calculation is 10.89 units per acre. 10.01 is high density. It’s not only high density in every sense of those words, but it’s high density as defined and set forth in the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan. That, as you know, is the City’s guide to develop for Shawnee. And the Land Use Guide classifies residential property into categories, medium density being 5.01 to 10 units per gross acre of a development. The Comprehensive Plan provides on page 5-2, “The Land Use Guide delineates four density levels for residential development. The number of units per acre prescribed as a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density.”

I’d like to discuss and possibly clear up some confusion on the meaning of that phrase, “should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density” means what it says. That a development is not automatically guaranteed the maximum number of units per acre set forth in the residential category. In other words, it does not allow in every case ten units per acre in a medium density development because the Council may only five, six, seven units per acre. A developer cannot say, well, the maximum is ten and that is what is allowed, so that’s what we’re entitled to. The threshold number is not ten. The number of units per acre is a range so that the Governing Body, when reviewing a plan, has the discretionary authority to make a determination based upon the plan itself, the character of the neighborhood, the zoning of the neighborhood and the other Supreme Court Golden factors as to whether the development should have five, six, or ten units. Just to remove a building to get the project even below ten does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan per se. The entire development’s plan, the use, the type of buildings, their size and location and the surrounding properties all need to be evaluated, not just a specific density number.

To give you an idea as to what medium density looks like in Shawnee you need to look no further than a block up the street to the north from the applicant’s site at Johnson Drive and Pflumm, which is the Lakeview Condominiums and Townhomes. That roughly 21-acre development is recommended medium density on the land use map just as this property is, and that project has 138 units, which on 21.25 acres is 6.5 units per acre. That development does not have 27,000 square foot buildings that are 46-feet tall like the proposed project. Rather it has 4,500 to 8,500 square foot buildings that are no more than two stories in height, between 20 and 24 feet in height. That is medium density. It is a fraction of the size of the applicant’s massive in scale proposal.

One of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods by requiring extensive buffering and screening of adjacent higher intensity developments. Two other policies set forth on page 5-2 of the Comprehensive Plan is that forested areas should be preserved, and in Paragraph 7, “Where intensive development forms are designated in an area adjacent to low density residential, site planning shall provide for a lessening of activity along these areas relative to other portions of the site, and be complemented by large setbacks and extensive screening and buffering features.” So, instead of preserving the dense forested area that’s on the west side of the property and the area that wraps around the stormwater detention pond, which consists of several acres of heavy forest, the developer proposes to remove most, if not all of those trees and replace it with grass and ten new street trees. And what are the large setbacks and extensive screening and buffering features in this proposal? The project has parking lots located within 15 feet of a single family residential property and buildings located 30 feet from property lines and streets. The natural buffers and screening that the site presently has in the form of heavy timber near the west side and around the pond, but because of the massive intensity of the development, most, if not all those trees are removed. The zoning code in connection with site plan approval provides that buildings and open spaces shall be in proportion and scale with existing structures and spaces in the surrounding areas. It also provides that a site shall not be so overcrowded as to cause unbalanced relationships of buildings to open space. Open space shall not be unduly isolated from one another by unrelated physical obstructions and paved vehicular areas, but instead shall be linked by open space corridors of reasonable width. This proposal does not comply with any of this. The buildings are not in proportion and scale with the existing structures and spaces in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. This site is overcrowded and intense and its open space is isolated from one another. The stormwater detention facility is isolated from the pipeline easement area and the developer has crammed and shoehorned all of these massive buildings into this property because of these -- partially because of those reasons. The project does not provide for a lessening of activity near the adjacent --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Stewart, we’re having a little trouble with our technology tonight, but your five minutes is up, so if you just want to finish up.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could I make motion --

MR. STEWART: I have two --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- to give him an additional five minutes?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: We have a motion and a second to extend Mr. Stewart’s time five minutes. All in favor signify by saying aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). You have five additional minutes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to extend Mr. Stewart’s time by five minutes. The motion passed 8-0.]

MR. STEWART: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The project does not provide for a lessening of activity near the adjacent low density residential as required by the Comprehensive Plan, and it’s not complemented by large setbacks and extensive screening and buffering features as required by the zoning code. And most significantly, it is so far in excess of a reasonable number of units per acre. As I mentioned about Lakeview Townhomes and Condominium, 6.5 units per acre is within that range because of the size and placement of those buildings. Ten is not a maximum allowable number. You can approve a project that has five units per acre, but you also have to look at the surrounding neighborhoods. You have to look at the size and scope of the buildings, where they’re located. And before you just simply assign a certain number of units per acre to the project, and they’re not entitled to anything above ten.

These massive structures 45 feet in height on terrain that is between 30 and 80 feet higher than the property down the hill at Widmer is just unacceptable and unreasonable. The terrain at the top of this project is at an elevation of 1050. Down at Widmer it’s about 970 to 980. So, you have a grade change of 80 feet and the buildings are 46 feet in height. So, at the top at 1050, you have the top of that building that’s essentially at 1096, and the front yard of the properties along Widmer are at about 970. You’re looking more than 110 feet in grade change and separation of the Widmer properties compared to the buildings at the top of the hill. So, what you’re looking at is nothing but buildings all the way up the hill from the Widmer properties.

I’ll close with -- I will urge you to do what is right and to deny the applicant’s proposal. But I’ll also -- I’ll close with the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Golden vs. Overland Park. In Golden, the Supreme Court set forth eight factors that a zoning body should consider when making a land use decision. Those are:

1. The character of the neighborhood;
2. The zoning uses of nearby properties;
3. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it is restricted;
4. The extent to which the change will detrimentally affect nearby property;
5. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned;
6. The gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the possible diminution in value of the developer’s property as compared to the hardship and posed on the individual landowners.
7. The recommendations of a permanent or professional planning staff;
8. The conformance of the requested change to the city’s master or comprehensive plan.

Considering those factors the evidence presented is overwhelming to lawfully deny PUD-01-15-11. Number 1, the character of the neighborhood is single family residential. Number 2, none of the zoning uses of nearby properties are as dense and intense as this proposed rezoning and development plan, but rather are nearly all single family residential. Number 3, the uses to which the property is presently restricted do not warrant or necessitate a change of zone as they allow several in the variety of uses, single family, multi family, and office. (4) The change will dramatically and detrimentally affect the nearby properties. The proposal, as I’ve mentioned, is enormously dense with 14 three-story buildings adjacent to predominately single-family residential homes. The density of the project is extraordinarily high compared to the surrounding neighborhoods in the area. Most single-family subdivisions average four to six units per acre. This is 10.89. Number 5, the length of time the property has been vacant, as currently zoned, was just 2014, less than 15 months ago. That certainly does not warrant rezoning. Number 6, there is no gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the immense hardship imposed on the individual landowners. As stated before the view from the back yards of the residential homes will be 14 buildings, 45-feet in height, and then take into consideration the massive grade change because of the rolling terrain in Shawnee. With enormous amounts of impervious surface parking lots with enough space for 600 automobiles, that is a significant hardship on those adjacent property owners. And Number 8, as I’ve mentioned, the proposal does not comply with the zoning code and it does not comply with the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding density and regarding the buffering, regarding the setbacks and regarding the entire analysis of the site as it’s compared to the adjacent single-family residential. As I mentioned previously, I would urge that you would do what is right and to deny the applicant’s request. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else that was at the December 14th meeting that did not get to speak at that meeting and would like to speak at this time?

CITY ATTORNEY RAINEY: Mayor, if I might before -- Shawn, before you leave. Shawn distributed a memo to the Governing Body on January 21st, 2016, by e-mail communication. And I’ve talked with Shawn about the fact that I have an extra copy of that if he was trying to get that into the public record of this meeting.

MR. STEWART: I’d like that introduced into the record.

CITY ATTORNEY RAINEY: And didn’t bring an extra copy. I have one, but I’ll have to -- I think it’s your home phone number on here. I’ll remove that.

MR. STEWART: Okay.

MR. RAINEY: And if you’ll check it out before you give it to the City Clerk to make sure there’s nothing else in there you want removed I’d appreciate that.

MR. STEWART: Okay.

MR. RAINEY: Thank you.

MR. STEWART: Thanks, Ellis.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you for your patience. Please go ahead.

MR. ROE: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, my name is John Roe. I’m an attorney with the law firm of Roe & Epstein in Kansas City, Missouri. Our address is 920 Main Street. I represent four families who are in opposition to the zoning request, Chalk, Nachbar, Brumitt, Hirt. I understand I have five minutes, time is running, so I will confine my comments to the points in your own zoning ordinance that are to be considered in making a decision on a zoning matter to show that the requested zoning should be denied.

The previous speaker mentioned the Golden case and certain factors that should be considered. Those factors are actually codified in your own ordinance at Section 17.92-030(d) of the Zoning Rules and Regulations of the City of Shawnee 2015, as amended. It says, “…the Governing Body in its consideration and decision of a zoning matter shall, to the extent deemed relevant, consider the following factors.” So, I want to touch on the more important ones I think there. We submit to you that you start with the proposition that the underlying zoning that’s on the property is reasonable. It’s up to the applicant to show you that the underlying zoning is not reasonable and, therefore, needs to be changed. The applicant has not shown that the underlying zoning is not reasonable. The applicant just wants to change the underlying zoning and plan because that existing zoning and plan doesn’t allow it to do what it wants to do. But here is the point. Just because the underlying zoning and plan doesn’t fit what the applicant wants to do doesn’t make the underlying zoning unreasonable. That’s why you have these criteria in your ordinance. So, let’s take a look at some of them.

Number 1, the very top criteria that you list. “Existing uses and zoning classification within the general area of the property in question.” So, what do we do here? We look at the extent to which the proposed zoning district is in harmony with those zoning districts and uses. And the bottom line is it does not. Your professional staff notes that, quote, “The majority of the surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1.” The majority of the uses in the general area are single family. There are some duplex uses. So, the majority of the zoning is R-1. Let’s look at the intent of your R-1 ordinance. 17.20.010 says, “The intent of the R-1 zoning district is to provide for standard low-density residential development and other compatible uses in areas where adequate public services exist for such development and such development is appropriate given the surrounding land uses and neighborhood.” So, we’re surrounded by R-1, which is supposed to be low density. If you’ve got low density, it is incompatible and not in harmony to put a project that’s nearly 11 units to the acre right next it.

Number 2. “Suitability of the property to uses permitted under the existing zoning classification.” There has been no evidence that the property cannot be developed under its existing zoning. The applicant has not shown that the property that it wants to develop cannot be developed under the existing zoning. So, they don’t meet that criteria either.

Number 3. “The character of the neighborhood.” Let’s stop and think. What do we look at when we try to evaluate the character of the neighborhood? We look at things like land use and zoning and density, height, structural mass, siding. Well, let’s look at a couple of those things. From a land use and zoning standpoint the character of the neighborhood is predominately single-family residential homes. The application is not in keeping with that character. In terms of height, the character of the neighborhood is single story, maybe story and a half, two stories. The application is for a mass of 14 buildings, three stories in height, about 45 feet tall. That’s not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. That’s out of character of the neighborhood. I don’t see in the staff report that there was any study or analysis on the density of the existing residential. I suspect low density is going to be in the range of 3-3 units to the acre. This project is nearly 11 units to the acre. Eleven units to the acre next to three units to the acre is out of character with the neighborhood.

Number 4. “The length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned.” That’s your number four criteria in your zoning ordinance. The property was zoned to its current zoning designation on September 2014. It’s only been a year and a half and this applicant already wants to change the zoning. It hasn’t been long enough to declare that the underlying zoning needs to be changed. This criteria militates against rezoning of the property.

Number 5. “The relative gain to the public health and safety and welfare” to the community versus hardship to the owner. This applicant is a buyer under a contract that’s contingent on government approval. If they don’t get it, they get their earnest money back and go someplace else. There is no hardship to this applicant and there is quite a bit of gain to the public health, safety and welfare. And they don’t meet the other criteria either, so we would urge you to not approve this zoning application and deny it. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Could we -- because we’re getting -- this is the second one now people talking about the zoning. And could we real quick get Chaffee to come up and kind of give us a history on the zoning and what it was, what it is, how we got to this point, so -- before we get any more discussion about zoning, so we have a better understanding.

MR. CHAFFEE: Sure. Let’s see. The property was originally zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential in 1974 when we did a city-wide rezoning of the City as a whole. Then in August and September of 2014, the Governing Body approved a rezoning for PUDMR, which is Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential, and PUDMX, which is Planned Unit Development Mixed Use, with a specific plan that goes along with the rezoning request. The owner of the property has indicated that that project is not going forward in the manner that was approved. And so to get rid of the old project and present a new one to the PUDMR, a new plan has to be approved. So, planned unit zoning is a little different than a traditional zoning in that when you approve the rezoning you’re also approving a specific plan to be developed for the project. So, what the applicant is requesting is by rezoning the property, the old project goes away and the new project would be approved or considered and then that one would be constructed since the applicant has no desire to proceed with the previously approved plan.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What about the, because I know we’ve talked about the Comprehensive Plan. How does that fit into everything?

MR. CHAFFEE: The Comprehensive Plan, the current one that we have was adopted in 1987. And prior to 1987, the Comprehensive Plan just had a designation of residential and didn’t indicate low density, medium density, high density. It was just residential so to speak. In 2007, well, and then in 1987 with the adoption of that Comprehensive Plan, the property was shown as appropriate for medium density residential development. In 2007, a small corner in the southeast corner of the site was shown for office, commercial development may be appropriate, which would be the property just north of the AT&T switching station and the church property that’s located in the area in anticipation of the Cobblestone development proceeding. And then that is the current designation on the Land Use Guide today.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, since ’87, the Comprehensive Plan showed that as medium density residential since ‘87?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. And that in 2007, there was a change for that southeast corner.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mr. Chaffee, just one second. We’ve heard too that all it seems from the testimony tonight that all of the property surrounding the site in question is zoned R-1. Aren’t there duplexes in the proximity of that as well?

MR. CHAFFEE: There are duplexes in proximity as well as a switching station --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- a church.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do you know how much of it then is zoned R-1 and how much is clearly not if they’re residential duplexes?

MR. CHAFFEE: I don’t have that with me at this time.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MS. HALL: Hi. My name is Joy Hall. I live at (Address Omitted). And I did not get to speak at the last meeting, so I appreciate you allowing me to do so here. I’m going to start off by saying as a citizen I was highly offended by their attorney. I thought he spoke down to us. I thought he was very condescending as were a couple of the Councilmembers. You know, Shawnee is a small town. A lot of news gets through the grapevine. I hear stuff from all kinds of things. One of the things that I have heard recently is that the Councilmembers were told that they could not vote no for this just because the people didn’t want it. And I know that you all probably have read this, but perhaps some of the citizens haven’t. It says the role of Councilmember encompasses a broad range of activities with the level of participation being established individually by each Councilmember. Some Councilmembers view their role as that of ombudsmen. I had to look that up. And focus primarily on constituency services acting as a conduit between their constituency and the City administration. Other Councilmembers view their role as that of a community leader who promotes the welfare and development of Shawnee. The Municipal Code charges all Councilmembers with the role of policymaker. Collectively, the Council determines what the City is or wants to be and determines the direction to take to achieve a constantly redefined goal. And, you know, I guess this is up for interpretation. But I look at that -- the way I interpret is I can guarantee you that the majority of Shawnee citizens voted you people in and believed that you would be our voice. We can’t all be on the Council, so we believed that you would be our voice. Some of you weren’t voted in, some of you were appointed I believe. I also believe that when it talks about promoting the welfare, I believe I am the welfare of this City. I believe I am a part of this City. When it talks about collectively the Council determines what the City is or wants to be, I believe that part of that is what we want. We’re here. We’re living. We’re paying taxes. I believe that I fall into that category. I think that was my last final point. And I just appreciate you allowing the citizens to speak. And I’m not a lawyer, I’m not, you know, I’m not anything. I’m just a person in this city and I don’t appreciate, especially our Councilmembers, a couple of them, speaking down to us the way that they did at the last Council meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Mr. Rainey, can you explain to us again on the statements that were said to us about the way we could vote.

MR. RAINEY: Maybe. Public sentiment is not one of the Golden criteria. And if your concern is about public sentiment, you have to try -- try was not the right word. Tie that to one of the recognized Golden criteria. So, I think when some of the comments were made that you can’t deny zoning applications solely based on the expressed public sentiment, whether it be for or against a zoning application, you have to tie the sentiment to what it -- to a recognized Golden factor. And the other item that I heard was something about representation of individuals. And you are obviously elected to represent the public. That’s a given. When you are considering a rezoning application you are considering it in a quasi-judicial function. And when you do that you have to make your decisions on the community as a whole rather than representing an individual ward. That said, each of you is elected to listen to the public and hear the public sentiment and then take those factors and weigh those factors when considering the Golden criteria by which your zoning decision is to be reviewed or considered reasonable or unreasonable by a district court. Is that fair?

MAYOR DISTLER: All right. Anyone else who was not -- who was at the December 14th meeting and did not get to speak? Go ahead.

MS. CHMIELEWSKI: Hi. My name is Marci Chmielewski and I live at (Address Omitted). And I’m just here tonight again to offer a perspective, the public’s perspective on our opposition of this project. I want to make sure that you know that our neighborhood is not anti-development or anti-progress for Shawnee. In fact, we were really supportive of the Cobblestone project because it fit with the character of our neighborhood. It had appropriate density and height and the villas that were proposed were going to be owned villas, not rented. We are opposed to this particular project. I know that both of the other people tonight have already talked about the fact that it exceeds established density guidelines. We also have questions about the long term intentions of the developer based on the research of their track record in other cities. Mr. Petersen has asked us to believe these negative reports are connected to a different division of their company, but that seems questionable. It makes us wonder about the due diligence that has been done. I know we’ve been accused of setting out the false alarm that this could turn into Section 8 housing, yet the description of these units have already been downgraded from luxury to Class A. And interestingly, units with similar renderings are called workforce housing in other cities. And at the last meeting Mr. Petersen cited the masonry veneer on several sides of the buildings were quality, yet this material wouldn’t be approved in our neighborhood. In our neighborhood we have to have brick and stone. We can’t have veneer type things. At the last meeting also we discussed the research from the Kansas City Business Journal that said that quality businesses come to an area not just by the number of rooftops, but on the total affluent scale. And these things were based on things like home ownership, white collar jobs and education levels. And we’re frustrated that Shawnee is not even on the top ten list in our metro for affluence. I think development for development’s sake should not be the goal here. A big apartment complex does not fit in the landlocked single-family neighborhoods. And I know there’s some duplexes which the lawyers mentioned, too. But for the most part we’re a single dwelling neighborhood and I’d just like you to keep that same character for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Please come forward.

MR. ROLAND: Good evening. My name is Robert Roland. I was at the previous meeting. I thanked some of you in an e-mail afterwards for staying up past my bedtime, definitely past it. I tried to get a grasp of the size of the facility in mind. It’s 300 and some thousand feet. (Address Omitted). I work for a hospital in Kansas City. I’m not speaking for them, but it gives me a rough guess of some square footage. We’ve recently gone through some construction. I’ve been there approximately ten years. It’s around in the Westport area. It’s kind of associated with a basketball team in other city to the west. One of my tasks there is to wander through that. A little Fitbit sometimes tells me in the course of a day that I spend about 10,000 steps. I’m not sure, but about 10,000 steps. This facility that’s envisioned is approximately half of the size in square footage of the facility, the health -- the hospital that I work at. It’s twice the stores, 600 and some thousand square. A lot of that is interstitial space. But for me in the course of a day, having been there ten years, I get lost. I truly do. We have maps. We have floor plans. We have numbering schemes to try to identify the floors and the spaces. I like new development as well. My house was at one time new. It just seems that, you know, whether or not this is the size of a Lawrence football field or a Mizzou sized football field where I grew up, the overall girth and size of it, whether or not it’s 43, 46, 12.3 meters, a hectare, whatever, it’s just a large whopper. And it’s an inappropriate space and development. I wish there was a place for it. You know, if I were 20 or 30 years younger. This isn’t it and it’s not now. Thank you very much.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Anyone else that did not get to speak at the last meeting that would like to speak?

MS. SOUTHERLAND: Good evening.

MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening.

MS. SOUTHERLAND: My name is Lana Southerland. And I wish I could say that I was here for or against or anything like that. I’m really not. I am just here as a renter. And so I think I just want to say about maybe what a renter could look like. Whether or not that fits on this particular property or not, okay. My husband and I moved here a year ago and we lived in Del Rio, Texas for 34 years. We had a life there and we’re professionals. I was a real estate broker. Had a construction company to build homes. He was a policeman. And we were involved in our community. All of our money went to our kids’ college, so we’re staring a life all over again. And so we received a job opportunity here in Shawnee. And so 13 months ago I’m looking for an apartment to live in. And I told my husband, honey, we’re going to the back woods. I said we’re not in Texas anymore. And I think I felt that way because when I went online to look for apartments in Shawnee I was a little disappointed. Because we moved in from Austin. We were there for 2 years. And I had a gated community and I had an indoor laundry room in my apartment. I thought that was pretty cool. And, you know, pool and kind of neat amenities. And so when I was looking here I was finding those kind of apartments, but I was finding them in Overland Park and I was finding them in Lenexa. And so we finally moved to Merriam. I’m at (Address Omitted) in Merriam because it has an indoor laundry room. And I was excited about. I didn’t have to go down to the basement. So, I really just want to bring up the fact that renters are -- there’s a lot of renters like me in my demographic who are starting life over again. I’m amazed at how many people I’m finding who are in the 50s and 60s doing that. And it would be nice to have an apartment complex, again, whether it be this site or someplace else that had some neat things. And they are called luxury apartments. They’re marketed as luxury apartments without granite. I realize that sometimes you think, well, a luxury apartment has to have granite in there. It doesn’t. I mean, it can have Formica. But as a marketer of real estate that’s what we called it, you know. Anyway, just as a consideration if you would consider. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you so much. Is there anyone else that was at the December 14th meeting that did not get to speak that would like to? Okay. So, now if there’s anyone else in the audience who would like to speak specifically to the traffic issues related to this item, please come forward. Go ahead.
MR. BRUNING: Ken Bruning, (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. If I may very quickly welcome to our new neighbor, glad to have you. Since I had kind of a prepared statement this evening, but since I’m limited to traffic and I’m not a traffic engineer, I’m going to keep it short and sweet. I want to look at each and every one of you on this City Council. You all recognize that this development will bring a minimum, they tell us, what, 300 cars? I think if I say a minimum of 300 cars I’m being very generous here. Since we’re looking at supposedly professional millennials we could probably figure two cars per unit for the vast majority of them. But I’ll keep it at just 300 automobiles in this unit. And then I’d look at each and every one of you and ask you to consider that if 300 automobiles were added to the nearest artery in your subdivision would it truly have a negligible impact in your traffic? I very much fear that while the traffic engineer has put together some very nice numbers, it’s going to be difficult to get onto Johnson Drive from Pflumm Woods during the rush hour. And I think other people in my area are having the same concerns. And I think it’s appropriate for each of you to judge the same facet in your neighborhood. As I ask you if you suddenly added at least 300 cars to the nearest artery where you commute on a daily basis would you really believe that it would have a negligible impact. I hope you’ll take that seriously to heart and vote accordingly. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

MR. BRUMITT: All right. My name is Mark Brumitt. I own the properties at 6030 and 6032 Pflumm Road in Shawnee, Kansas. Good evening, Councilmembers, Mayor, staff and citizens. You know, we prepared a little different, you know, we were going to talk to some other areas, but we’ll talk to traffic. I live in that area. We attended the last planning, the redirect, remand back to planning and zoning regarding the traffic. And we did learn from Schlagel and Associates that most intersections around that area are currently an F-rated status, which is the worst for -- you’re making a turn, especially a left turn out of there. It was surprising that during that discussion that nothing was really mentioned. There was really no action plan coming out of that meeting. I find it hard to believe that it was remanded back to planning and zoning, but yet there was no action taken, it was just kind of rubber-stamped and moved back up. Six hundred vehicles, you know, 600 parking spots, you know, equate to 600 vehicles. Currently right now a lot of those intersections are in bad status. We just don’t understand how, you know, that’s even comparable to the proposed retirement village that was there with a lot less density, a lot less different people leaving at different times in the day. This is all going to be peak traffic. I did, I’m not sure why it won’t display up there. Is there a button you got to push up here to get this to display or –

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have the clock set up.

MR. BRUMITT: Okay. Could I get a [inaudible] to display?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Stephen can make that.

MR. BRUMMIT: Sure.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Can you?

CITY CLERK POWELL: This is bad. Not bad. Could we take like a 60-second break so I can reset our touch panel because it froze up on me and I can’t switch between the two.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, so that was why it --

CITY CLERK POWELL: So, I’d like to do a recess so I can kill the audio and then bring it back up real quick.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. Go ahead.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Okay. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: While we’re waiting for him to reset --

MR. BRUMMIT: Yes, ma’am.

MAYOR DISTLER: Could you -- I didn’t catch, who did you say the F-rating on the intersection -- where did that come from?

MR. BRUMMIT: Schlagel, during the planning and zoning meeting, I think several of us were there, they posted up their F-rating. I believe it’s a wait time of 80 seconds. I mean, I’m not a traffic engineer, so I don’t really know. But I will say they showed the intersections and several of them around this property were currently an F status especially for left turns.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

MR. BRUMMIT: As this property is set up, for those of you that have driven by it, we live by it, the entrance as a left turn moving north on Pflumm, and your main artery is Shawnee Mission Parkway, so it’s going to be a left turn there. There’s also a left turn out of 61st Street. And I think the Widmer down near Cottonwood is an issue as well. So, and a lot of fear for the folks that live in the community to the west is that they’re going to re-route through the, you know, through their actual subdivision, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you for clarifying that.

MR. BRUMMIT: No problem. I guess what I can do while we’re waiting on that, I don’t necessarily need the overhead right now. I know we did --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Can I have just a minute? Stephen, are we broadcasting at all right now?

CITY CLERK POWELL: We are still broadcasting and this is just about done resetting, so.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay.

CITY ATTORNEY RAINEY: Are we recording?

CITY CLERK POWELL: I believe we are. But I would recommend just taking a quick recess so we can make sure that we get the full record recorded.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Yeah. I want to make sure your comments --

MR. BRUMMIT: Thank you.
(Off the Record from 8:36 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.)

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. You may continue.

MR. BRUMMIT: Are we ready?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah.

MR. BRUMMIT: All right. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

MR. BRUMMIT: Thank you very much.

MAYOR DISTLER: Sorry about that.

MR. BRUMMIT: Hey, no problem. Technology, good stuff.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’re still learning.

MR. BRUMMIT: Yeah. Looks good. Thank you. One of the things we did request from our local police department was some safety statistics on traffic and crime. And we think, you know, our guys in blue here do a great job and we appreciate everything they do for the community. They did generate a report; however, that report was missing some information on it year to year. And I believe that same report was submitted to City Council. One of the things that we found very interesting upon further investigation is the DDACTS study, and basically it’s ongoing, regarding DDACTS zones. For those who are not familiar with a DDACTS zone, it’s Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety. And I’ll quote from a Kansas City Star article on October 7, 2014. “The idea behind DDACTS is simple. Compile and analyze the data about where and when crime against persons and traffic crashes occur the most and then increase police officers’ presence in those areas at those times. The approach has resulted in such a deterrent effect in Shawnee on and near 75th Street between Switzer to the east and Quivira on the west according to a recent study.” This area is a high density area of apartments. And if you look on the representative photo, the hot spot, the red spot down there is 75th Street cutting across. I know you can’t really read the streets, but I think everybody understands, you know, the big feeder through there is Shawnee Mission Parkway. What you’ll notice is there is blue circles. And right now sitting currently there’s a blue circle at the intersection of Pflumm and Shawnee Mission Parkway as a DDACTS zone. Traffic safety, there’s currently one other apartment complex there. You know, the conclusion being drawn there is that’s a focus area just like 75th Street was. It was interesting, a very good program, you know, hats off to the Shawnee Police Department. It did show that, you know, they reduced crime in that area. And I think the fear that, you know, a lot of the residents are expressing is with added traffic and residents we’re going to see a spike in traffic, you know, incidences, crashes, safety in general for the public welfare, and that type of thing. I’ll lay on here, this is an overlay. This actually 75th Street. This is looking east on 75th Street. These are the apartment complexes that are there. I believe that’s Carlisle. And you’ll notice that they’re not near as tall first of all. Across the street from this is actually a retail section that unfortunately is in a blight zone. The traffic coming out of there is not generated by this retail section. It’s generated a lot by people cutting across 75th Street as a main feeder. Another concern is I know Pflumm Road, living on there, it’s an emergency access. A lot of the fire trucks come up and down there as far as -- and the EMTs come up and down that road. So, certainly we don’t want any extra incidences happening out on Pflumm that would prevent other parts of the City being serviced. So, I just basically, you know, am going to close with a couple things just saying, you know, the other note to take away out of here is that if we believe that apartments truly drive the commercial business of our community, all you go to do is look across the street from six apartment complexes. That’s, you know, that’s driving retail business there at all. Okay. So, what does that mean? Probably there needs to be other solutions here to attract, you know, bigger commercial folks, you know, something, you know, higher quality. And we’re not anti-apartment at all. In fact, you know, this project, you know, looks like it might have some merit somewhere else that would fit into the character of the area. In closing, the 1,200 citizens who signed the petition are not anti-apartments where they’re properly zoned, fit the character of the area, are suitable and will not detrimentally affect the nearby properties. City Council and staff, you were voted by the citizen and we, you know, we also have the taxpayer money to represent the best interest of the residents who are asking you to deny the zoning request and apartments on this property that will affect a greater area of Shawnee. It’s not just an isolated problem. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak to traffic issues related to this item? I think she’s coming, then we’ll get you.

MS. UTECH: Hello. My name is Christina Utech. I live at (Address Omitted) and I actually have nothing prepared because I didn’t think I was going to come up here. But something that came to the top of my head as I was listening to the traffic study is that this study was done in June. Well, Pflumm Road is a main thoroughfare to Shawnee Mission Northwest. And having a 16-year-old daughter, if you’ve ever been up to that high school and you’ve been on Pflumm Road in the morning, I will tell you that young drivers are scary enough by themselves. It is a very big concern for my husband and I that any increased traffic on Pflumm Road is definitely going to have an effect. If you are there in the morning in June, it is significantly different than if you are on Pflumm Road in the morning in August or in December. And that is the main thoroughfare. Any kids that live north of the school and live north of Johnson Drive, whether it’s Saddlebrook, it’s Lake Quivira, it’s Widmer Woods, they’re all coming down Pflumm Road to get to Shawnee Mission Northwest. So, the traffic study that you have I would actually put in front of you is maybe not exactly accurate for your consideration. So, I would encourage you to consider the safety of our young people as well as everyone else who is traveling on that road when you take that into consideration. Thank you so much.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Good evening. My name is James Kelly. I live at (Address Omitted). My property backs up to Pflumm Road two houses north of Johnson Drive. Seven or eight years ago there was a fatality accident right behind my house because somebody ran into the back of a minivan that was making a left turn into the Lakewood Estates condos. I’m not sure what the name of the condos are there. I’ve still got a cross behind my house. I’m assuming that we’re going to have similar issues up that hill. There’s a lot of traffic that goes up and down that hill. And when I come home anytime there’s snow or ice on the road it is a very dangerous intersection coming down to Johnson Drive or going north on Pflumm towards Johnson Drive from the 63rd Street area. And I would just recommend that all of you consider that this traffic is not going to be as light as you think it will be. I think there will be a lot of young people that are living in those apartments and there will be a lot of traffic coming out there. Thank you very much.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

MR. ROY: Good evening. My name is Ron Roy. I live at (Address Omitted). And the traffic has been a concern of mine when I heard about this development. And the thing that I find interesting and confusing is that when Cobblestone approached the Planning Commission, they had done a traffic study. And as the lady two before me had indicated that it was done in June of 2014 when Shawnee Mission Northwest was not in school. And certainly it is a different situation on Pflumm when Shawnee Mission Northwest is in session. And Cobblestone did a traffic study and that was for their proposed use, which if I remember correctly there were three entrances into that development off of Pflumm. And then Vantage, there is only one entrance off of Pflumm and then one the south. And Vantage was never charged with doing a traffic study, but they took the Cobblestone study of 2014 and massaged the numbers and for a higher density of population and the 600 parking spaces, they actually show a less number of vehicles entering Pflumm from that area. So again, I’m confused why Cobblestone traffic study was done and used, not done, but was done for that purpose and that proposed use, but then when the use was changed for Vantage, they were not charged or required to do another traffic survey, but simply took the Cobblestone and revised the numbers to their advantage. Thank you. And I hope that you take that into consideration with your vote.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much.

MR. GRIMM: While we’re on the subject of traffic I’d like to say a word. My name is Brandon Grimm and I rent from a property owner who was here today at (Address Omitted). I’d just like to say that since the last Council meeting that I attended I have seen personally two more accidents on Pflumm Road. Now if you remember I’m the one that brought the pictures of the last one that we unfortunately couldn’t see very well, although I wish we could have, but two more accidents when I had already seen five. That’s more than I have ever seen at any point on Pflumm, and I’ve lived there almost my entire 30 years on this planet. And a few months ago, I’ll share this story very quickly. I was talking to my neighbors one day and all of a sudden somebody got pulled over on Pflumm Road. And that’s the first time I’ve seen that in a long time and I see plenty of people speeding their vehicles down the road. And I looked at my neighbor and I said, oh, that’s the rarest site in Shawnee right there is somebody getting a ticket. Then somebody else walking down the other side of the road yelled across the road, I kid you not, they go, well, that’s the rarest site in Shawnee. Thank you for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in regards to traffic? Okay. Oh, sorry.

MS. KELLY: Hi. My name is Mary Kelly and I live at (Address Omitted). And we’ve lived there 26 years this year. And it’s very interesting to try and get out of our seven house cul-de-sac one house length away from Pflumm to get onto Johnson Drive, either going west or east. And we did experience one motorcycle death in back of our property on Pflumm Road. And then there was another serious motorcycle accident just about three or four months ago where somebody was dragged down Pflumm Road between Johnson and Shawnee Mission right about where they want to build the subdivision. It’s extremely hilly there. Everybody has to realize when you go up and down those hills you’re going to gain speed and you’re going to not usually slow down. The last snowstorm we just had, I can look at my kitchen window on Pflumm Road and looking at the Civic Centre and the park there and I can see how slippery that road is and how traffic goes to a crawl if it goes at all in that area. And people going west or east on Johnson Drive, it’s very hazardous them coming down that hill heading north on Pflumm Road. Another point I’d like to bring up is looking at the documentation that we had today for this meeting. And Vantage, they said they had 312 units. It’s all in the paperwork, 312 units. They said there is 171 trips in the morning and 202 trips in the afternoon for 312 units. Now, Cobblestone had 234 units and they had 213 trips in the morning and 365 at night. Now, how come you can go from 312 units from 234 to 312 and drop your number of trips in the a.m. and the p.m.? And you’re talking one, two, and three bedroom homes -- apartments that are going to be there. You going to get all kinds of different ages going through there. It’s not going to be just senior citizens 55 and older. People coming over that hill going south on Pflumm you’re going to have a real problem with them going over, cresting over that hill or turning left coming onto Pflumm. You’re going to have a real problem with that. That’s basically what I’m trying to get at is that’s a very dangerous area. I see it all the time for 26 years. And if you allow them to build that complex there you will have a serious traffic and health issue, and I would very seriously consider that. Thank you very much for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else from the audience who would like to speak on the traffic issues related to this item? Okay.

MR. PETERSON: Good evening, Mayor. Curt Petersen here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Dominic Vaccaro, the vice president of the petitioning entity. Dan Foster from Schlagel and Associates, our civil engineer, and then Janelle Clayton with GBA, our traffic engineer. We were sent back down to the Planning Commission to discuss traffic as Paul framed up for the record, and the subject matter was limited to that. The Planning Commission re-investigated traffic issues and did, as Paul said, we recommend the project to the City Council by a vote of 9 to 2. The discussion of the Planning Commission really I’d say the only hanging chad at the end was it would be sure nice to hear from the original traffic study engineer back with the Cobblestone project that predated this project in 2014, not just your traffic engineer that landed on top. That’s why Janelle Clayton is here tonight in case you have any questions were her being part of the original traffic study. She also put in the record, that I hope was distributed to you, a traffic update memo as they call them where she looked at everything that Schlagel and Associates did as traffic engineer and used her knowledge and expertise in GBA’s as a collective body to come to some findings. I won’t read that to you, I won’t even try to summarize it because I know you can do that and it’s in the record. I will bring one point out from it because it’s just, for us we really believe it’s a highly important issue when it comes to traffic, and the Planning Commission agreed. We heard before that compared to what you all approved in 2014, this particular plan would have 20 and 50 percent less intensity volume a.m. and p.m. car usage. GBA, with their expertise, actually came in and said that’s actually understating the reduction. The reduction would actually be more in the 6 to 9 percent more than that with the basic point being there is a major -- this project was good enough to approve from a traffic perspective from this Governing Body two years ago. And I would suggest based on the City’s expert Mr. Wesselschmidt, Schlagel and Associates, and now GBA who is very well known to the city, and their expertise, is saying there is simply not traffic concerns. All the experts agree on this, every single one of them. You don’t have to listen to me, Mayor. The experts are aligned. So, if the question is are we concerned that there will be more cars and there is now with the green field, the question is absolutely there is going to be more cars. But if the question is can this project be responsibly built, especially as compared to what was approved before two years ago by the City, absolutely it can. And again, all the experts agree. With that, even though the experts agree that there is not going to be a traffic problem, this particular developer has over the last few weeks crunched the numbers and has agreed to take the unit count down to the very bottom, you know, a unit count that can financially work for this project taking the total units from 312 to 288. Now, this will substantially reduce traffic even more, another seven percent in the morning and seven percent in the afternoon according to GBA studies. This will also, and if we can go to the slides if I’m able to do that, by taking the unit count down what you see on the screen is the plan that’s been before you and is currently pending. As you click on the next slide you’ll see some arrows that show what, eventually will see it.

MR. PETERSON: What’s before you, Councilmembers, is the plan that you’ve seen before and that Planning Commission has seen. And when I click you’ll see some arrows. What that’s showing is the -- on the west side the whole project has moved significantly inward away from the single-family housing. You see in the bottom left that that unit has been moved up next to the pond and you see that a unit has been deleted, has been removed down on 62nd St. And then everything is moved up. What you get is a new plan that has significant buffer. A really big buffer. But when it comes back up, on the west side the point has been to have the tree preservation, lots of trees that were going to have to be taken down due to grading will be preserved along the west side of the project. So, you’ll have native tree preservation on top of the landscaping we’ll put in. You also have a very large buffer going from what was 0.92 acres to a full three -- over three acres of green space up against the properties on the west side, which is a 235 percent increase. You also -- your closest building used to be 56 feet to the property line on the west side, it will now be at 200 feet, which is a 250 percent increase in separation. On the south side the closest building we have to the property line was 0.3 acres, it’s now over an acre at 1.18, a 210 percent increase. So again, when you see the slide come back on the screen you’ll see on the south and the west where we have neighbors, there is a massive amount of green space, a huge separation. And again, one less building leading to 24 less units, leaving overall to a density, Mayor, going from 10.8 down to the 10 units per acre. So, the developer has done everything they can to listen, to respond to the traffic concerns, bring down traffic even more with these collateral benefits of separation, setback, increase buffer, and landscaping. And we hope you see the benefits of this plan. Now, Mayor that is what I had prepared to discuss because that was what we understood mostly would be talked about tonight. I would ask for a one-time five-minute extension to address the legal arguments that from two lawyers brought up at the beginning that, you know, weren’t available for us to discuss at the first meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: We would need a motion for that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to extend five minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: We have a motion and the second to extend Mr. Peterson’s time. All in favor signify by saying aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0).
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to extend Mr. Peterson’s time by five minutes. The motion passed 8-0.]

MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Mayor. Going to Mr. Stewart mainly and Mr. Roe’s comments near the beginning of the evening, just wanted to address each one of those because they are -- one thing I agree with them on I will say is that they’re important issues to discuss, and so that’s what I’ll spend the next four minutes and change highlighting. The one issue, is this project too dense. And we will say, and I think staff will, I mean no staff will support this. This is one the least dense apartment projects and the entire city. This is not an overly dense project. I can point to reference projects in the city, but I keep hearing on the other side just the argument this is really dense. We have to point to again what’s here, this is not objectively a dense apartment project. For example, if I can switch over to a projector if it’s convenient. Nearly everybody I’ve ever talked to at the city and in the city talk about the Tuckaway project. And we all feel like, I have not found one person that didn’t think that was a strong project. And as you see the project up on the screen, if you’re looking at the screen on your left you see Tuckaway, and tell me that does not appear more dense than what we’re offering. It is a dense, dense project, but it’s a great project. We’ve all agreed on that. And look to the east over across the road, all that single-family residential. I did not look at the appraised value of every house today, but I did click around and you have high 200s to low $300,000 houses. Very nice. And again, this was informal, but it’s my understanding from many of you, I’ve heard that staff at one point did canvass that to see if before the apartments were built and after didn’t have any reduction in house values for the homes across the street, the nice homes, and the answer was no. So, the point is we can just generally say this is dense, but we got a drill down. Dense, what is that really mean? How is that affecting people? It’s not affecting property values, certainly what will be the nicest apartment project in all of Shawnee hands-down. So, in looking to what end is density, one factor we look at his setbacks and open space. So again, either in your mind or we can switch back, you can see the big open spaces that are now on three acres of green space on the left side of the screen when it comes up next to our neighbors. And then again, over an acre on the small southern portion that faces our neighbors. Moreover, we have open spaces. We have, as we all know at the gas line area there in the middle right of the screen, an active open space for apartment dwellers to recreate. You have the open space around the pond which will be a great item to be able to enjoy for apartment renters as is something that is a wet detention, so it’s a pond feature. You also have all the open space again in the southwest corner and up the west setback, so you have massive open spaces. One comment that was brought up I think by Mr. Roe was that the master plan talks about being -- you need to make sure it’s separated. Well, that is distributed. I don’t know how more you can distribute that much open space, again what is approximately 60 percent of the project 65 percent being open. I don’t know how you can distribute it more, so we’re actually proud to point to the open spaces in this project. Another point brought up was that the medium density has to be, you know, 10 units per acre or less. I would just disagree with the interpretation of the master plan, and I think staff what is well, but we don’t have to because we’ve now brought the plan down to 10 units per acre which we listened. We really, really tried to listen and do everything we can to respond to the comments from the last hearing. Also on just the buildings being too tall, you know I would just throw out there that the plan that this is replacing had a four-story independent living facility. It had several 3 story apartment buildings and also had a three-story retail office residential building. So, just objectively again, this is nothing real new, we’ve known this site would be a site that could take some height. But again also not to be confused, I sat down with my colleague from Schlagel and we went through just informally tonight and counted up the number of projects in all the cities we know about in the metro area, and having a multi-family of this height, three-story, notice garden apartments, next to single-family, or in this case also municipal uses to the north, duplexes on many sides, Southwestern Bell directly adjacent, a church directly adjacent, apartments to the southwest, as well as townhomes to the southwest just 1 to 1 blocks over, this is what we do. This is normal. It’s all about how you do it. And when you pull up elevations and you look at the quality of this project being the nicest and Shawnee, you know, we do it right. We do it with setbacks and open spaces. So again, to say that the buildings are too tall I don’t think does justice to the way we collectively as a Metro to good planning by putting multi-family next to single-family. It’s what we do and it’s done well here I think. So with that, Mayor, I think the last point -- I think I just concluded this then. How about that, to stick to our time constraints. This would be the nicest project in Shawnee. We want to build it. We’re ready to build it. It would have great open spaces and setbacks. It would meet the master plan. And when it comes to zoning, staff is supported it and so has the Planning Commission. Mayor, thank you for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Yes, sir.

MR. BRUNING: Again, I’m Ken Bruning, (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. Excuse me, Mayor, I’m a little bit upset. I can understand the project development wanting to go forward; however, we were all told as public this evening that we were limited to discussion about traffic, and we just got to sit through another sales pitch from the developer, and I think that was out of order. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. The recommended action from the Planning Commission is to Consider an Ordinance rezoning PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6100 block of Pflumm Road subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, including Condition #33 regarding the installation of fencing along the west property line north of the fire access gate.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Seeing none, I will accept a motion. Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Will you accept a motion?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move that we approve the rezoning based on the plan that was presented tonight subject to final review and approval by staff.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Well, let’s do a -- we’ll do a roll call vote. Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The motion fails. (Motion fails 5-3 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling and Sandifer voting nay.)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve the rezoning based on the plan that was presented tonight subject to final review and approval by staff. After a roll call vote the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling and Sandifer voting nay.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other motions? Okay. So, this item took seven votes to pass, five votes to deny, five votes to remand to the Planning Commission. And if none of these happened, there are no more motions and the project does not move forward.

So, this one is done for this evening. But I did want to share a few things just because unfortunately misinformation and stuff can spread badly like a cancer, and whether it applies to this project or other projects in the future, this site or any site in Shawnee, I had read and researched every single e-mail that the residents sent to me because several things that were said to me were very concerning. So, when I hear these things I want to research and I went to find out the real numbers and the facts and all this. I actually had a lot of this available with me last time that I was going to bring forward, but I apologize. I had just had surgery two days before and the night got very long and I was having a very hard time managing my pain at that point, so I didn’t.

While you’re here, because we had received a lot of concern about the attendance at the pool. And so I just wanted to let everybody know that it was actually the pool attendance was actually higher in 2005 than it is now. It has dropped every single year since 2005, and I don’t know why that is. Just guessing off the top of my head I’m thinking because so many of the newer subdivisions, especially out west, they’re building their own neighborhood pools. Like I said, there’s no data behind that that’s just a guess. The only facts we have is that the attendance, you know, in 2005, was almost 101,000 visits, and in 2015 was 70,112 visits. So, it’s down 30,000 visits in the past 11 years.

And then we heard from a lot of you guys the impact on Broken Arrow, said Dr. Hinson and Dr. Southwick let us know that that school has four empty classrooms and their attendance is down 178.

And on the property values, because I know that was huge concern and, you know, it would make sense you would think that apartments would go in that they could impact your property values. And of course, this is the largest investment you’ve probably made in your life and I know you want to protect that, so we looked at the property values for Tuckaway apartments. And so 1998, so what the values were prior to Tuckaway being built and then what the values were in 2015 and the average property increase was 54 percent with the highest property increasing 90.46 percent in value and the least property increase was 16.69 percent increase in value. But every property surrounding Tuckaway has increased, same with Prairie Lakes. There was one property decreased in Prairie Lakes and that particular property had gone into foreclosure.

We heard from a lot of view on the library. And so we contacted Johnson County Library. And this actually concerned me a little bit because we had heard how busy the library was, and it said that Shawnee’s visits are actually down 6 percent and Shawnee’s user visits total about 6 percent of the total visitors in the system and that the other branches have more than double what Shawnee does. And so where I find this a little bit concerning, and it’s not saying so I think we need to put apartments there, so please understand I’m just sticking with the numbers, sticking with the facts, but what I find concerning about this is when I hear these things is if they were to come to a point financially when they had to make cuts I would hate to see us lose this amenity because it’s not getting enough usage. Because I know several people had said the library is too busy. So hopefully, you guys will go out and visit the library more. I mean concerned because I wouldn’t want us to lose that amenity in Shawnee.

So, and then Chief Moser at the Police Department, he pulled so much data for me because I know there was so much concern about accidents and crime and the accidents were very comparable with like Quivira and Nieman. They were less than Nieman, but comparable for these arterial type roads.

I had received some e-mails that all of our homicides in Shawnee happen in apartments. And so we looked. Over the past 15 years and 11 -- there have been 11 homicides in the past 15 years. Eight, actually nine of those were not in apartments. Four of the bodies were found in apartments, but only three of them were murdered in the apartment because the one at Cottonwood, which was a huge concern of many people, was actually murdered in Grandview and his vehicle and body were driven and left at the Cottonwood Apartments.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don’t want that.

MAYOR DISTLER: And then two, only two of the murders in Shawnee have been stranger crime where the victim did not know their murderer. And that’s the She’s a Pistol and the Mr. G. All the other victims knew their murderers. And, you know, so the rest of them were in single-family residences, businesses and roadway. So, lots of concern.

And, you know, you would think, like I said when I would see these e-mails, it was like, well, that could make sense. And then when we actually pulled the data because all this in the computers, I was taken aback by this, so that’s why I want to make sure that I share it with you so that you know and hopefully you get some more comfort from this as far as feeling safe in Shawnee.

So, last year there were 35,138 total calls for services. And only ten percent of those were to apartment complexes. And most of those were for, you know, noise, disturbing the peace, you know, your neighbors being too loud, and we had lots of vehicles break-ins. Because just like with our Planet Fitness and type stuff, when you get a lot of cars in a place and they know nobody is going to be around them for a while that’s where they look for the opportunity. And unfortunately a lot of people will leave their iPads and their phones and their purses right there on the seat so people see them and decide to take them.

And they looked at the crime of the -- in the subdivisions after the different apartment complexes were built. So, our crime analyst pulled all this data and stuff for us. And like with Prairie Lakes, their crime reports taken in Prairie Lakes in 2002 was 12. Prairie Lakes opened in 2003. And last year their crime was eight. So, their crime has gone down. But I mean we’re looking at 12 incidents in 2002 and 8 in 2014. So, this isn’t an everyday, and they said they found the crime in the apartments where there was more was due to environmental design flaws like poor lighting, poor management practices, built in areas where there was already high crime. And so the data that they pulled showed that the apartments did not lead to an increase in crime in the surrounding neighborhoods.

As far as, you know, there was some accusations about Shawnee is already a high crime city. Our core comparison cities here in the county we are below them and we’re much lower than some of the northeastern cities. Statewide we have been recognized as one of the safest cities.

There were some particular incidents that were brought up in the neighborhood there surrounding the proposed Vantage. One report in 2010, someone had damaged someone’s sprinkler system. They suspected a neighbor who they had an ongoing HOA dispute with. The same person was named as a potential suspect in other cases, does not appear to be a stranger crime. There was a report in 2009 dispatched as an armed robbery. Investigation revealed the resident of the home had actually interrupted the burglary. There was a strange car at the house. Two men came out and left when the resident got home. The suspects never threatened the resident. There was no forced entry into the house and they determined entry was gained by a garage door opener which had been taken from the resident’s unlocked car the week before. The report in 2006, damage reported to the front door of the residence. Officer reported seeing a couple of light scuff marks at the bottom of the door. Resident said he was planning to paint the door anyway, so he didn’t want to prosecute. He just wanted to have an information report taken. The Hy-Vee robbery, that’s been brought up by several people. Those two suspects that were arrested, one did reside in Cottonwood complex, the other was from Olathe. The recent auto thefts in the area, the most recent truck stolen was in 2012 and it was left unlocked and running. And those two suspects were from Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. There was a yellow Jeep that was stolen from an open garage as part of last year’s summer series. Both of those suspects were arrested and were from Kansas City, Kansas. The other series, I’m sure that you guys probably had heard about where they were using hangers and opening garage doors and all of that, all of those suspects arrested and both of those groups lived in single-family homes. And he provided me a map that showed the burglaries over the past two years and eight of those were to open garage doors and the others were to sheds and cars, which was that same two groups that were arrested that all live in single-family dwellings.

We received several e-mails about wanting quality retailers and stuff. And again, all of the information provided to us on this through the Economic Development Council is that quality retailers look for populations of 75,000-100,000. So, those like the Hobby Lobby’s and the Old Navy’s and the Title Loan is when you have the lesser populations.

And I’ve got some more, but I just wanted to make sure that we addressed some of that because somehow, you know, there is information getting out there. And please feel free anytime that you have a question or you want to know what’s going on, especially with -- if you hear about a crime in your neighborhood or an accident, you know, a few of the accidents that were mentioned, unfortunately the one with the motorcycle, you know, that was a DUI accident that unfortunately could have happened anywhere in this city. There was another particular case number that was provided to us in an e-mail and we looked it up. The person in that accident was making an illegal left turn at the time of the accident. So anytime that, you know, you hear things, please -- we’ve got staff. We’ve got all this data. You know, every time you go to the pool, every time you go to the library, every time -- all of this is -- anytime there is a crime report, an accident, we have all this data. So, I just don’t want to get caught up in misinformation and have people thinking that, you know, Shawnee is a bad, scary place to live because that’s not what the numbers are showing us. So, I just wanted to make sure I got that out there. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Ms. Mayor?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I kind of have a concern on, maybe not necessarily on this particular project, but actually happened here on this project also. If we receive information from, you know, from our staff and from our Council, you know, I am looking for more information of here is the pros and cons and this is what it takes to, you know, approve the project and this is what it takes to not approve the project. And I don’t believe that I really got that on this project. And then, you know, a gentleman that lives down the street, Mr. Stewart, happens to be a lawyer, presented a lot more information with the Golden rule that our Council presented, but it was a lot more clear and, you know, I don’t know that this project would have ever went back to the Planning Commission if we’d have had that information to start with. So, I’m just requesting in the future that we get more information. And I know we got great Council and everything, but we need our staff to direct them to give us both sides of the issues and not necessarily just the one that they’re interested in.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. In regards to the project, you know, I voted against the project because I sided with the people and what they wanted. I think it’s a good project. I think it’s a quality project. I don’t believe the density was too far -- too far out of line. I live two blocks away from Prairie Pines Apartments which has voucher systems. And I sat in a group of two or three times this amount of people several times, and they were bickering and fighting. They had very good representation. The developer brought crews out to work with the people. They had concessions both ways. They worked it out to make sure that they could make the project work. It was a very tough piece of ground to work on. We heard about the traffic issues, the legalities. We heard about everything. You know, the legality part of it that’s like reading a bible, everybody has their own interpretation. You know, you could sell it all different ways. The Prairie Pines project ended not being anywhere near what everybody had already envisioned. It was already planned out of what it was going to be like. Now, it had its ups and downs, still does probably. As of traffic there wasn’t -- that’s what everybody -- one of the big concerns. It wasn’t bad. There’s a street cutting right though a very nice neighborhood. They don’t use very much of it. I’m sure some of them do, but you see very little of the traffic going through there. They all want out quick, you know, get up on Lackman and get on 67th Street. But I think this project was represented poorly up front. And not to say anything bad about the developer, I actually would thank the developer for trying to bring something to our city like this. Because I’ve been on boards and committees for eight years trying to put together this type of project in our city so our kids can live in the same cities they grew up in because they can’t afford to put down payments down on houses and buy houses anymore. You know, so it’s hard to go against something that I was on committees trying to push through the county and you see them very successfully happening in Lenexa, in Overland Park and Roeland Park and different areas and they’re very successful and they’re filling up as fast as you can get them. We need them in Shawnee. Whether in that’s particular location or not who’s to say. You know, I voted with the people on this one. I think it’s a good project. That’s where I stand on it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: As long as we’re all jumping in after the fact. You know, I just want my fellow Councilmembers to think about something. So, what we heard from everybody is that they really liked Cobblestone because it fit the character of the neighborhood and they were against this one because it doesn’t. I think Mr. Petersen pointed out, and I think it’s very important to emphasize that it was a four-story building. It had 70-some thousand square feet of retail and that’s why the traffic counts were higher because retail generates far more traffic than residential. 77,000 square feet of commercial, four-story building. The other three-story or 3 story apartments and then the 30 townhomes that were over the commercial. And I said those were 12-unit apartments up on Pflumm and there was no presentation on quality on whether they were luxury, they could have been anything. And everybody is sitting here saying that’s what we wanted, that’s what we wanted. Well, we have a developer here -- and it was done with incentives. It was done with $12 million of incentives. Shawnee would have not received any money off that project other than sales tax if some retail actually went into the commercial, which is very unlikely, it would have been office. It would have been 20 years before we saw revenue off that. And that’s what everybody says they want. And yet when we do go elsewhere and we’ve tried to pass incentivized projects we get a line of people that beat us up saying, my, god, how dare you pass these incentivized projects, I can’t believe you’re doing that. So, here is the reality of where we are with this property now, and everybody needs to think about this. To pass a TIF it must pass the but-for test. Will it develop, but for incentives. So, we have just turned down a $35 million project. Well, we haven’t turned it down, we didn’t take action. A $35 million un-incentivized projected. Now, everybody wants Cobblestone. The only way you’re going to build another Cobblestone is with incentives. We can’t pass incentives on this anymore. I won’t vote for them because we just proved that we don’t to incentivize to develop the project. So, now you have the landowner who bought that property in good faith. It’s property rights. It’s the core of conservatism. He bought that property in good faith based on our master plan or our comprehensive plan to do a project. And he got ill and he couldn’t complete his project. But when he bought it he bought it in good faith that the comprehensive plan says I can do certain things with this property. And at the core of conservative property rights he should have the right to do that or the person buying it. And what everybody out here is saying is I don’t care about this person’s property rights, I don’t want it. I understand that. And sometimes we get in those positions where we just don’t like something. I get it. It’s not me against you. I’m not up here being the bad guy. I’m looking at this from a total legality and conservative perspective. It’s property rights. He does have that right to develop that based -- as long as it fits within our comprehensive plan. The argument here is does it or does it not. I think it does. And nine out of -- 9 to 2 vote from the Planning Commission said it does. Those are the directions I got to go with. And that’s why the Planning Commission is appointed and not elected, so political pressure can’t influence them. They have to look at the plan. They have to look at what our guidelines are. And they have to determine does this fit. 9 to 2 they determined it fits. But we have a piece of property now that I want everybody on this Council to really think hard about what we’re going -- what’s going to happen with it because you’re not going to do -- other than a project like this, you can’t make the numbers work. You can’t build single family on it because that’s about $35,000 an acre, and I promise this sold or it under contract for far more than $35,000 an acre. And we have an owner that bought it for far more than $35,000 an acre and he’s not going to lose a million dollars on his property just because neighbors say, well, we don’t want that. It’s not as simple as everybody thinks. We don’t just kill it and go on with our lives. This is going to open up a can of worms. This is going to be a problem. And I’m warning everybody now, and I said in the last meeting we need to really think hard about what we’re doing. It’s very passionate. I get it. I hear you. But that property, incentives aren’t going to happen. Because I guarantee if you pass incentives on it somebody out there that’s getting incentives is going to sue or go after us because, well, wait a second. This could develop without incentives. We’ve proved it. So, and you’re not going to look at a field forever I promise you. Sooner or later a judge is going to tell us this is what’s going to happen and we’re going to have to go with it because that’s kind of the point we’re getting to. This is a great project. The developer came back. He moved the buildings away. You have this massive green space. You have this massive setback. The density is lower than, I mean, if you look at the aerial next to Tuckaway, far less density, less traffic. I mean, he’s doing what he can to make this work. This ain’t about, oh, you know, this project -- it’s anti-apartments. And I sat in a meeting way early in this with a couple people that were against this. And when I said something about it, I mean, the person literally looked and said I don’t care what it is, I don’t want apartments. That’s what this is. But unfortunately we’ve set the bar now that this project, this property can develop without them. So, anything else that everybody has in mind that we want a Cobblestone, we want this, it ain’t going to happen because at the value of that property and what it takes to develop that you can’t make it work financially. That’s why we had to give 12 million in incentives on the last one. I would much rather have it putting money into the coffers day one, if it can, then incentivize it and not see any money for 20 years. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

I. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 05, 2016, CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATED TO POOL ENCLOSURES AND SAFETY DEVICE REGULATIONS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The next items is Items from the Council Committee Meeting of January 05, 2016, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer. Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. We have two items tonight. The first is to Consider Amendments to the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Residential Code Related to Pool Enclosures and Safety Device Regulations. The Council Committee recommended 7-1 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration an amendment to the Building Codes to remove the exception alternatives for pool covers and change the fence requirement in the Building Code to a six foot height. If the option is adopted, staff also recommends the Zoning Regulations be amended to refer to the fencing and gate requirements found in the Building Code, or to remove the fencing requirement from the Zoning Regulations.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. There has been considerable information come forward on this. The one thing, there are insurance companies that will take -- if you’ve got the covers and don’t have the barrier. I would like to move to table this and go back and, you know, we got distance. You need a barrier of some sort. There’s conflict with different HOAs and the heights of the barrier fence. If somebody has a pool in the middle of ten acres, do they even need a barrier. I think there are a number of things here that we could talk out in committee and have a little better idea than have a rehash here. It would be a more effective use for our time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’ll second that motion.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Any other discussion from the Council? We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to table the item to a future committee meeting for further discussion. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER THE 2016 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. The second item is to Consider the 2016 Street Maintenance Program. On January 5, 2015, the Council Committee recommended 8-0 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration the proposed 2016 Street Maintenance Program with the intent of soliciting bids for the 2016 Mill and Overlay, Sidewalk and Curb Replacement contract and the other various contracts provided for in the program.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from -- any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the 2016 Street Maintenance Program. The motion passed 8-0.]

J. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER OMNIBUS ORDINANCE TO TERMINATE COBBLESTONE VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT RELATED PLANS AND AGREEMENTS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next item is Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider Omnibus Ordinance to Terminate Cobblestone Village Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Related Plans and Agreements. This item was tabled from the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting. In 2008, the Governing Body approved an ordinance establishing the Cobblestone TIF District.

If the Governing Body approves the Planned Unit Development for Vantage Apartments (PUD-01-15-10) earlier on this agenda, staff recommends an omnibus ordinance terminating the Cobblestone TIF District and all Plans and Agreements related to the Cobblestone Village project.

If PUD-01-15-10 is not approved, staff recommends a motion be made to take no action. Is there any discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes, Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m going to go to where my statements are. I don’t know why we would leave a TIF on there because I don’t see how we’re going to pass one. It will not pass the but-for test and we would probably be liable or have a position of getting sued. We cannot pass a TIF on something unless we can prove it will not development but for the use of incentives.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just recommend we do what staff says and take no action at this time because we don’t know what’s going to happen with that property. And why would we, you know, get rid of this TIF that’s on there that someone may decide to use. I don’t, you know, that’s not up to you to decide.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Actually it is up for me to decide.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I guess the question is -- I’m sorry.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I agree with Jeff and his reasoning, I think we should terminate it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with Mr. Kemmling and Mr. Vaught.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think we need to give it six months and let’s see what happens with it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll make a motion that we take no action for six months.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Roll call, please.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, motion fails. (Motion fails 4-4 with Councilmembers Kemmling, Vaught, Meyer and Kenig voting nay.) I’ll accept another motion.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to take no action for six months. After a roll call vote the motion failed 4-4 with Councilmembers Kemmling, Vaught, Meyer and Kenig voting nay.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would make a motion that we -- let me see, what is the motion I’m making. A motion to terminate the Cobblestone TIF District and all Plans and Agreements related to the Cobblestone Village project.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion and a second to terminate the TIF agreement. Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Let me think this. No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion fails. (Motion fails 4-4 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins and Sandifer voting nay.)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to pass an omnibus Ordinance terminating the Cobblestone TIF District and all Plans and Agreements related to the Cobblestone Village Project. After a roll call vote the motion failed 4-0 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins and Sandifer voting nay.]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If there’s no action taken [inaudible].
[Therefore, no further action was taken on this item.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

2. CONSIDER INITIATING REZONING FOR DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE 5900-6000 BLOCKS OF PFLUMM ROAD.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Initiating Rezoning for Duplexes and Single Family Residences in the 5900-6000 Blocks of Pflumm Road. This item was tabled from the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting. If the Governing Body approves the Planned Unit Development for Vantage Apartments (PUD-01-15-10) earlier on this agenda, seven properties will become legal non-conforming uses. Kansas State Statute allows the Governing Body to initiate a rezoning.

If PUD-01-15-10 is approved, staff recommends that the Governing Body initiate rezoning for the seven properties in order to eliminate the non-conforming status.

If PUD-01-15-10 is not approved, staff recommends that a motion be made to take no action.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Hearing no comments I would move for no action.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: You’re moving for what?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would make a motion to take no action as recommended by staff.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to take no action. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER THE PURCHASE VEHICLES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM SHAWNEE MISSION FORD.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider the Purchase Vehicles for the Fire Department from Shawnee Mission Ford. Bids were taken by the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing (MACPP) for the 2016 vehicle bid. The 2016 Budget includes $90,000 for Fire Department vehicle replacements. The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of a 2016 Ford Expedition and a 2016 Ford Explorer from Shawnee Mission Ford for the Fire Department in the amount of $66,270.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the purchase of a 2016 Ford Expedition and a 2016 Ford Explorer from Shawnee Mission Ford for the Fire Department in the amount of $66,270. The motion passed 8-0.]

K. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JANUARY 25, 2016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,754,794.96.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next item is Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for January 25, 2016, in the Amount of $1,754,794.96.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to ratify the semi-monthly claim for January 25, 2016 in the amount of $1,754,794.96. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have any item they would like to discuss?

L. ADJOURNMENT

MAYOR DISTLER: Seeing none, if there are no other items I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]

(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:38 p.m.)

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/das February 2, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC01252016.docx