PDF Format:


December 14, 2015
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember NeighborCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember JenkinsDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember KemmlingAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember VaughtCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember MeyerAssistant City Attorney Dehon
Councilmember SandiferFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember KenigCommunications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Deputy Parks and Rec. Director Lecuru
Fire Marshal Sands
Police Chief Moser
Asst. Public Works Director Gard
Dev. Services Director Wesselschmidt
Fire Chief Maddox
Planning Director Chaffee
Public Works Director Whitacre
(City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)


MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silence 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?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?




MAYOR DISTLER: Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a Moment of Silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

Thank you.

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, 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. After you are 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 won’t do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in minority so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda? Does the Council have any items they would like to remove? Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Part of Item Number 4 can be removed, Dodge City Beef, 11101 Johnson Drive.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, we will remove Item Number 4 for Dodge City Beef. Okay. So, do I have a motion to approve all but Item Number 4?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to approve.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve items 1-3 and 5-11 on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: So, then we will vote separately on Item Number 4 for Dodge City Beef. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.


MAYOR DISTLER: I have a motion and a second for Item Number Four for Dodge City Beef. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.


[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve items 4 on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Councilmember Pflumm abstaining.]

D. MAYOR'S ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items and I do not have anything this evening.



MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is F, Public Items. Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider the Creation of Clear Creek Improvement District, Setting a Public Hearing for January 11, 2016, to Establish Maximum Assessments, Designating Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a Main Traffic Way and Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Pay the Cost of Improvements.

On November 23rd, the Governing Body approved a resolution to hold a Public Hearing regarding the creation of the Clear Creek Improvement District.

a) Conduct a public hearing.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught 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. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Paul Lindstrom, Senior Project Engineer. After Mr. Lindstrom’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. Lindstrom, please go ahead.

MR. LINDSTROM: Thank you. Paul Lindstrom Development Services. Just briefly I’d like to go through a few slides just to explain the project. This is Clear Creek Parkway. This road does not exist today so it would be a new street. I’m trying with my pointer here. This is the entire stretch all the way from Clare Road on the west and K-7 on the East. We have made some improvements across K-7 up to Hedge Lane Terrace so those improvements are already done today. So this entire project would include the black line here.

The one we’re talking about today for the district is from Clare Road to future Gleason. This shows a future roundabout, so it would be up to that area. So the improvement district actually is hash-marked on this map, a little dark, but those would be all of the tracks that would be included into this district. This a list of those nine tracks as stated as on the map.

It is my understanding that Blue Valley is in the process of acquiring the tracts that are not listed as Blue Valley. So, I don’t know what the exact status of that is but I understand that’s getting pretty close to the finality.

[Improvement District Components slide]

Just a little bit about the road that we’ll be building. It will be a new collector which is a typically 44 foot back to back, back to back, back to curb, back to curb, within a 70-foot right-of-way. This particular segment is 4/10th of a mile. The entire roadway is one mile. And of course, this is a brand new street so it would be new curb, sidewalks, pavements, street lighting, and storm sewer, everything that we would put into a new collector street.

As far as the details of the assessment itself, the method of assessment is through square foot, so we would take our total project cost of that portion of the project in the improvement district and divide that into the square foot areas of those nine tracks.
So as you can see just a quick rundown of the numbers, the entire improvement for that portion is over $3 million. There’s an excise tax that was calculated for those nine tracts, it’s approximately 1.5 million. Through our tax abatement ordinance, those would be reduced by -- that was $1.6 million. So, overall, excuse me the 1.5. So, the overall improvement district would be approximately $1.6 million and that’s what the portion would be for those nine tracks.

The project would be funded by the entirety through debt payments to the City. At this time I think it’s purposed to do it through the Economic Development Fund. I mean that’s up to you, the City Council whether you want to do that though the Economic Development Fund or through Debt Service Fund.

I will say as part of this project, as we go back to the map, the intent is then to also build the City’s share or the City’s portion which would be from the segment of Gleason to the east to Hedge Lane Terrace.

With that, there’s two things that need to be done tonight to move forward with this. One was to approve the resolution to create the district. And then second, the ordinance to establish the east segment into a main traffic way. So, that’s all I have. I’ll open it up for questions.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone from the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak of this item? Please come forward.

Public Comment:

MR. BORESOW: Do you want me to sign in first or?

MAYOR DISTLER: After you speak would be fine, thanks.

MR. BORESOW: Am I supposed to hit something you said?


MR. BORESOW: Am I supposed to hit a red button?




MR. BORESOW: My name is Jerry Boresow. Just had a couple quick questions I guess for you. The thoroughfare in Clear Creek going from all the way to Clare Road, are there any intentions for Clare Road then? Are you guys planning on -- you’ve got a real nice road coming into -- Clare Road is a pretty small road. Are you guys planning on widening that or doing any kind of improvements to that road?

MR. LINDSTROM: This would definitely trigger some more discussions to improve Clare Road as development occurs out west. As a matter of fact we had discussions in January as a Council to look at some of those improvements in the future.

MR. BORESOW: The main reason why I ask is on both sides of that road, the road isn’t that wide in the first place but there are houses on both sides that are probably less than 25 feet from the road. And I just wasn’t sure if you would be taking property from that in widening that to three lanes or a good two lane. That’s why I was just curious if there was anything you were going to do.

MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. We would make the necessary improvements at Clare Road and tie this in correctly. Yes, that’s correct.

MR. BORESOW: Okay. Actually one of the reasons why we came here, I came here tonight was more so from what I read in the Dispatch, but I don’t see that much on the agenda about the -- with Prebe and the tax abatement and things like that. Is that not on the agenda? Or it still is on the agenda?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s this issue.

MR. BORESOW: Or it still on the table or is it this issue? Is it this issue that we’re talking about right now?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The issue tonight, the Clear Creek Parkway Improvement District --

MR. BORESOW: Yeah. With the tax abatement.

MAYOR DISTLER: -- that Prebe Homes is the developer on that project.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes, that’s this issue.

MR. BORESOW: Well, actually that was the first question I had for now, thank you.

MR. LINDSTROM: Sir, can you sign in?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We need your address too.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would speak to this item? Please come forward.

MR. OSTERHOLM: All right. My name is Mike Osterholm. I am a resident on Belmont, (Address Omitted). I don’t know how many questions I can ask but we got several people from the street down here. We didn’t get a chance to see the slides so I’m kind of going off the map that was in the paperwork here. And you know if we go back many years before Belmont Elementary was built, there was the idea that this property was going to be developed. The original developer was turned down access off K-7. And at that time the only access to the properties would have been off Clare because Belmont Elementary wasn’t built. And that is one concern right now or one question that as you extend Belmont Elementary or Belmont Drive, I can only see a small line here, so I don’t know what the plan is to continue to continue Belmont Drive to tie into Clear Creek Parkway. But our concern is the major amount of traffic that is going to go down Belmont because without access off 7, it’s like the path of least resistance is to go right through the roundabouts, right down Johnson Drive to Belmont into those properties. So has that issue been addressed about access off K-7?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: This would connect to the bridge that goes across K-7, so that the construction of this road would run all the way from Clare to K-7.

MR. OSTERHOLM: But would you be able to access Clear Creek Parkway off of Clare at K-7?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. It would be over the bridge or take Hedge Lane Terrace, the frontage road up to K-7.

MR. OSTERHOLM: So with the majority of properties being the zones around the school, which I see are, you know, one, two, three, and five, those major properties, the people that would be, or whatever is developed in those areas, and I’m assuming that’s going to be the single family homes. I know there’s mention of villas which is another question, but most of those people that would live in that area, is there going to be a road from Gleason from 63rd, the corner of 63rd, which is the yellow line I believe. It’s the yellow line it would be from West 63rd and Gleason, the corner over to the roundabout in the center of Clear Creek Parkway there. The black roundabout, is that going to be extended through? Is there going to be a road there?

MR. LINDSTROM: I think you’re referring to this segment here?


MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. That is a future project.

MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. And since you’re, where your mouse is, I see I can use this.

MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. Go ahead.

MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. So I think the question is, all the development around this area, around the school so if you were going to have a home in this area and you were going to access this area until this is completed, you’re going to exit off Johnson Drive and 55th and you’re going to be coming through this roundabout. You have an alternative of either going through the roundabout and taking Hedge Lane Terrace down this way and up or coming all the way to Clare and coming back in the properties here or right up to Belmont Drive and into the properties here. So the concern is that most of the traffic is going to come right down Belmont Drive. All the families here who have young children that are going to attend Belmont Elementary, which is the other half of the population of the school, is going to access their properties on Belmont because it’s going to be easier to just go down here and drop your kids off and Belmont becomes the major in and out flow just like it is now for Belmont Elementary. And so I think that’s a major concern because it’s already a speedway through there with the parents dropping off traffic. There’s a lot of heavy flow on Belmont Elementary and then when you add the new townhomes down on the corner on 55th and K-7, that’s going got add more population to the school, more traffic. And I guess a question is when you extend Belmont Drive, the yellow line here, wherever the mouse is, when you extend Belmont Drive, as this area is developed are there going to be access roads, residential roads tying into Belmont Drive?

MAYOR DISTLER: Unfortunately tonight we’ve got to stick pretty strict to the five- minute rule because we have so many people that want to speak because otherwise I usually try to be flexible with it.


MAYOR DISTLER: But we have so many that we really have to stick tight with the five-minute rule tonight.



MR. LINDSTROM: To quickly answer your question though that would be based on a development that comes in. We would review that as a City-wide, and so at this time we couldn’t answer that because we don’t have a development that has come in with any kind of plan.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But when that development would come in there would opportunities for public input and review at the planning level.

MR. OSTERHOLM: Again in the future.


MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. Because that is -- I think that’s the major concern is the heavy traffic down Belmont Drive and that, you know. All right. That’s all I got I guess. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward. And please state your name and address for the record.

MR. COYLE: Mike Coyle. (Address Omitted). I’ve got two questions. One is if there is there is improvement to Clare Road who pays for that? Is it the land owners that are on it, or --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: As Mr. Lindstrom said it isn’t currently on our CIP, but certainly as development -- we have more development out there, it would increase in prioritization. Normally those larger -- is that a collector, Paul, a major collector our City-at-large? But again as development moves forward that would be something to discuss in the future.

MR. COYLE: And so when you say a collector does that mean the property owner pays for it or --


MR. COYLE: Or it’s state funded or --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, the City-at-large.

MR. COYLE: City-funded. Okay. Great.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Generally. But again, as development moved forward that would be something that we would discuss at a future meeting.

MR. COYLE: Right. My other question is about the duplexes that you’re talking about putting in. Is it zoned for duplexes? I think when we moved in there over ten years ago it was single resident –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: This property is zoned AG currently, or I’m sorry, Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: Residential Suburban.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Residential Suburban and R-1. But at this time that was a prior development that didn’t go through.

MR. COYLE: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So at the time that Mr. Prebe brings his development in then that would be all reconsidered through the Planning Commission, a brand new plan, so it would be --

MR. COYLE: So, it would have to be rezoned to multi-family housing correct?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If the changes warranted that correct.

MR. COYLE: Okay.


MR. COYLE: Because that’s what the first news release in the Dispatch was that they were going to come with duplexes and single family homes. So, we were curious again as to whether it’s even zoned correctly for that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Not at this time. And like I said, that plan hasn’t come in yet from Mr. Prebe. It’s just conceptual at this point so we’ll be working forward.

MR. COYLE: And so if that in case is what happens, then will landowners then be notified?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Notified? Absolutely.

MR. COYLE: How far in advance?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Notified within 200 feet, 20 days in advance.

MR. COYLE: Twenty days? Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But there will be other coverage. Pay attention to our web page and look and as that moves forward you’ll probably see other things about it also.

MR. COYLE: Okay. Good. Super. Any idea what those duplexes, what the value is?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, not at this time.

MR. COYLE: Prebe hasn’t -- okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s very preliminary.

MR. COYLE: Okay. Great. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward.

MR. BRADY: My name is Chris Brady. I live on Belmont Street as well, (Address Omitted). Several years ago I was part of a group of residents and we met with some of you regarding the building of the Belmont Elementary and some traffic concerns that we had back then on road usage, especially, I think its Woodlawn on the other side and why we could not use that to alleviate traffic. I won’t go into all that but we did hear a lot of let’s look in the future and let’s see what happens. I’m hearing some of that now and it’s a little concerning. I’m not going to rehash everything Mark talked about because he spoke about most of our concerns, but my first concern I guess would be I’m not for duplexes of any kind. You can pitch it how you want. They’re going to start out being 1400, $1500 a month villas, but in reality ten years from now they’re not single-family homes and they go down, they degrade. I’ve lived in a lot of different places, I’ve heard the same thing, so I’m against it in any way, shape or form.

Belmont Drive, I have, just real quickly. That is the only street that I see right now. I would have the same concerns why nothing else is coming off Clare. Belmont Drive already is the main artery through there. It’s two feet wider than the next street over and that’s why they won’t open up that street. We went through this several years ago. I see nothing but trouble with more and more traffic, I understand we need to grow, I understand these family and single family homes are going to be nice homes, I don’t have an issue with that. What I have an issue with is I still have not seen anything in five years done to alleviate the issues we have on Belmont Drive and the street is getting more and more use. I haven’t seen anything proposed to repave our street or anything. And I’d just like to see something down the road and I know this is in the future, but I’d like to see it addressed sooner. That’s all I have.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item? Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you.

MR. JONES: My name is Jeff Jones. I live at (Address Omitted). I’m one of the neighbors on the street again. Yeah. I was outside, so I didn’t get to see a lot but I’m kind of going to give you my feelings. My wife and I own our own business, we keep our City licenses, we pay our taxes. And it’s a daycare business and my wife is very good at what she does. I actually see some of her former customers here in the audience. But the traffic issue with Belmont, the speed with which cars go up and down Belmont Street and the volume of traffic that goes up and down Belmont Street has hit the point where right now I think the numbers are about 1200-1300 passes by a day in front of my house. What I have witnessed for my wife’s customers is the inability to get out of my driveway for up to ten minutes in the mornings and afternoons at high drive times for pickup, drop off at the school. I personally have waited almost that long. I have, with children at my side to cross the street, have had to stand and keep them back in order to get traffic to stop to cross over to my neighbor’s driveway just so the children can get down the street to school. The speeds with which the people come up and down the street, our speed limit is completely ignored on the street. We as neighbors do, I’ll be honest with you, friendly reminders out loud to people as they drive by too fast to please slow down. I don’t want a kid to get hit. There’s a bunch of kids going up and down that street every day. So as a resident there, as a business owner, if -- I’m all for change, and I’m all for progress. It’s a field. It’s Johnson County. It’s going to develop. I understand that. But I sure would ask the Council to consider the safety of the kids and the volume of traffic on that street as we look at everything. And if you’re going got build a bunch of homes there and not do anything to alleviate the traffic, I’m fearful of the children that walk up and down the street and we’re only going to increase that number. I don’t have any questions I just want to voice my concern, not as a resident only but as a business owner that I see these things and that I’ve experienced it and I watch my wife’s clients experience this on a regular basis, thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please state your name and address for the record.

MR. ZAMORA: Good evening. I’m Mike Zamora. I live at (Address Omitted), which is the property directly adjacent to the open field right across from Belmont Elementary. So as many have already spoken about the traffic concerns and traffic control, I wanted to ask a couple of fairly direct questions as it relates to this plan that’s being proposed. And first what considerations to construction traffic throughout this project have been considered that would potentially congest the roundabouts coming in or the bridge area around where Clear Creek crosses K-7, so just general speaking points on the construction traffic plan as it relates to this proposal that’s being considered.

MR. LINDSTROM: Specifics I cannot give tonight. It would be hard to come up with a plan when we haven’t even hired an engineer to do the design yet. So we do take those considerations when we do a project to not go through residential areas even if we have to create temporary entrances off of a major street. So at this time we do not have any kind of plan though.

MR. ZAMORA: And next question is around kind of the future state of development also along the lines of traffic, but what considerations have been made towards emergency services, fire, EMS, police response with Belmont Drive being the only way to get into that development absent of as we’ve talked about crossing over K-7 or coming in from Clare. So what considerations have been given to that emergency services angle?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Clear Creek Parkway is a major road, major connector between K-7 as we’ve said. The plan for the development is very conceptual and all those things will be part of what our staff team will work with a developer on as we move through developing a more specific plan to -- that will surround that area up at Clear Creek Parkway.

MR. ZAMORA: Okay. And finally just to finish the point of just traffic control and development, I think you’ve heard from all of us up and down the street and as we are the last house across from the elementary school I see every morning and every afternoon that we’re the only cross walk for all those kids coming through. So as that continues to be the plan until there is another one, I just ask that we consider and involve the school and Principal Hargove or the staff there about the safety and traffic control. Because if our voice to get the plan changed goes unheard, hopefully our voice to make the best of this plan is heard so that we protect these kids. I think we can all agree to that. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. And before I ask for any more public comments on this item, I want to make sure that we’re specific, that we’re only talking about Clear Creek Parkway tonight. We’re not talking about the development. We’re not talking about any of the other roads at this time. So that will be great input and we will need that for the future discussions but what I will ask for is if there is anyone else from the audience that wants to speak on this particular agenda item, specifically Clear Creek Parkway. Please come forward.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, that affect this. Belmont Drive is the only road from Clear Creek Parkway, so I think it’s very important to talk about that this evening.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you.

MS. JONES: Hello. I’m Jennifer Jones, (Address Omitted). My husband just spoke previously. I am specifically here for the Clear Creek Parkway extension. There is only one access point for all of those homes, north-south of Johnson Drive, period, from K-7 corridor. For emergency, if anything that would occur on 55th, Johnson Drive, whatever you want to refer to it as, it’s going to take longer to go around through the corridor off of Shawnee Mission Parkway to get around. There needs to be consideration of accessing K-7 with that beautiful bridge. There, I mean that’s absolute for the safety of your patrons of the City, not just children, your adults. Everyone on that side of K-7 you’re looking at Johnson Drive, 55th as the access point for all of those homes, the existing and the potential new homes. Again, I can’t stress it enough, that has to be considered. This beautiful bridge was built, you took the access away. There has to be some consideration of some exits on off of K-7 with that beautiful bridge at Clear Creek Parkway. That has to be considered.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, the second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a -- oh, I’m sorry Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I would like to make a comment on the construction of this. We will never shut off a road to the point that we cannot get our emergency vehicles to somebody’s house to help them out. So if that’s a concern to people they need to probably get past that one because we won’t do that. MAYOR DISTLER: Any other? Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just wanted to -- is it possible, staff has probably already looked at the traffic along Belmont, but if we could relook at that as far as the speed limit as far as controlling the traffic, I don’t know if we have any crossings on there. Have we thought about using those flags that we have on Johnson Drive right by Broken Arrow School? But if you could just look into some of those things that would kind of cover some of their concerns it would be great.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I sat through the meeting with the last one we had with the Belmont residents and the school and I just think everybody needs some background. Number one you got to understand that when kind of everything came together with that school and those residents, and those neighborhoods building out a lot and we were in a pretty hot real estate market, so as things develop you have an expectation that over a short period of time, roads are going to be completed and done. And then, of course, as we know the bottom fell out. We’re not able to control where school districts build schools, I mean you know if somebody decided they wanted to build a school and they did and unfortunately everybody needs to understand when that happens, we as a City are kind of put in a position where you know we can’t afford to spend millions of dollars to build roads to access the school that they decide to build. But it’s there and I know that we’re trying to do what we can to try to alleviate the problem. And when I sat in the meeting with you guys, it was an issue. And since then, I mean any opportunity that I’ve seen that we could try to figure out how to get these roads connected, I support it and I think this is a step in the right direction. Obviously the money’s not there to go and build all these roads at once. If it was, I’d vote for it in a heartbeat. It’s just not possible but I think there is a plan in place that we’re going to get there. I don’t know, I mean I know myself I’ve driven that enough I would probably come off of come down Hedge Lane and shoot up Clear Creek before I’d go down Belmont if I was going to access into what’s going to be the new development but we don’t see how that lays out yet. But doing nothing doesn’t get us there. As far as the access through Clear Creek off of K-7 that’s not even, I mean that’s not even, I mean that’s a state issue I believe, isn’t it? That would be KDOT. And I think KDOT in their master plan they’ve pretty much said there’s no dice. We’re not going to get an exit off of Clear Creek and I don’t think anything we did is going to convince them otherwise. They kind of look at distance from intersection to intersection. It’s just too close to Johnson Drive if I’m not mistaken. So that’s not us, that’s KDOT and we can’t fight that fight. But we are, we’re trying to do what we can to alleviate that and you know I said there’s probably going to be some issues in between where there’s going to be some periods where it’s not where everybody wants it but this definitely a step in the right direction. And the goal is to get that connection from Clear Creek all the way to Clare so at least we have that, and then when Belmont connects through, it creates some other avenues other than one way into that school and one way out. And from what I understand, that’s always been an issue, so I’m not really sure how else we solve that problem other than getting these roads connected and built. So, I mean I think we’re headed in the right direction.


b) Close public hearing.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. The second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to close the public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Consider approving a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016 to establish maximum assessments.

The third action is to consider approving a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016, to establish maximum assessments. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to adopt a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016 to establish maximum assessments. The motion passed 8-0. Resolution No. 1767 was assigned.]

d) Consider adopting an ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements. If approved, an Ordinance Number will be assigned.

The last action is to consider adopting an ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3139 was assigned.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Authorizing Notice of Public Hearing and Other Actions Related to the Vacation of the Public Street Right-of-Way for Kahle Road (59th Street), between Woodland Drive and Barker Road.

Kansas statutes provide that a governing body may vacate a right-of-way. 59th Street, between Woodland Drive and Barker Road is public right-of-way. Vacating the right-of-way is a step toward being able to close the public railroad crossing at this location. Notice and a public hearing is required. 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: Monition to approve.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to authorize staff to schedule a time and place for the Governing Body to conduct a public hearing and to give proper notice on the proposed vacation of Kahle Road The motion passed 8-0.]


MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds for WestLink, (Airtex, Building 2 Project) in the principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000.

Resolution No. 1753, adopted by the Governing Body on February 9, 2015, expressed the intent of the City to issue federally taxable private activity revenue bonds to finance the cost of acquiring and constructing one or more commercial facilities in the WestLink Business Center located at 43rd Street and Powell Drive. Property acquired with the proceeds will be exempted from ad valorem taxes for ten years; however, the Company will enter into a Payment in Lieu of Tax Agreement providing for payment in years seven through ten. The Ordinance authorizes the issuance of bonds and authorizes and approves the execution by the City of certain documents related to the issuance of the bonds.

The recommended action is to consider passing the ordinance. 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.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to pass an Ordinance authorizing the City to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Westlink, (Airtex, Building 2 Project) in the principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3140 was assigned.]


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Items from the Planning Commission. Item Number 1 is to Consider Z-03-15-11, a Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 Acre Parcel of Land, Located in the 23600 Block of West 69th Terrace for Meadows of Chapel Creek.

At the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2015, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 10-0, recommended the Governing Body approve Z-03-15-11, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 acre parcel of land, located in the 23600 block of West 69th Terrace, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. An ordinance is required.

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.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to pass an Ordinance rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 acre parcel of land, located in the 23600 block of West 69th Terrace, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3141 was assigned.]


MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 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. This Item Was Tabled at the November 23, City Council Meeting. At the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended 8-2 that the Governing Body approve 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 recommended action is to consider passing 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.

There will be two presentations tonight. First, Planning Director Chaffee will make a staff presentation. And after Mr. Chaffee's presentation Curt Peterson will make a presentation representing the developer. Following those presentations I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this item. The Council has had the benefit of reading the Planning Commission Public Hearing meetings and is familiar with the issues. I would ask speakers to focus on any new information that was not part of the previous public hearing during the Planning Commission meeting. So, Mr. Chaffee.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director.

The applicant requests approval of PUD-01-15-11, 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, an apartment complex, located approximately in the 6100 Block of Pflumm Road.

The Planning Commission considered this rezoning request and the preliminary development plan for Vantage at Shawnee at their November 2, 2015 meeting. The applicant requests rezoning and preliminary development plan approval for a 312 unit multi-family residential development.

The property is currently unplatted land. The property is generally located west of Pflumm Road and north of 62nd Street. Rezoning to the PUDMR zoning district was requested to allow construction of a multi-family residential development. A previously approved plan for Cobblestone Village that included patio homes, a senior living facility, apartments and office/retail space is no longer being pursued by the owner of the property. A rezoning is necessary to abandon the previously approved plan and approve a new preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan proposes construction of 312 market rate multi-family residential units in 14 buildings.

The majority of the surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential and DU - Duplex). Property to the north is zoned R-1 and was developed as the City's Civic Centre Campus that includes Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park, the Civic Centre, Soetaert Aquatic Center, and the Veterans' Tribute and Johnson County Library. All of these were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Properties between Pflumm Road and the proposed development are zoned PUDMX and contain duplexes and a single family home, while properties east of Pflumm Road are developed with residential duplexes on property zoned DU. Property to the southeast is zoned R-1 and developed with a church and the AT&T transmission facility. 62nd Street is adjacent to the south, with properties south of 62nd Street zoned R-1 and DU and developed with single family homes and residential duplexes. A Hy-Vee grocery constructed in 1995 is located south of 62nd Street beyond the AT&T facility. With the exception of a single 1.1 acre parcel that is zoned AG, property to the west is zoned R-1 and contains homes in the Widmer Woods subdivision, two single family homes, a vacant tract of land and right-of-way for Widmer Road. Further to the southeast is Mill Creek Shopping Center which was developed in 1987.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for a combination of medium density residential (MDR) uses and office/commercial uses to reflect the previously approved Cobblestone plan. Approximately 26.02 acres of the site are designated for medium density residential, while the remaining 2.64 acres are shown for office/commercial. Analyzing the density further, and based on the submitted plan layout, 264 units of the development are within the medium density residential area. This yields a net density of slightly above ten (10.1) dwelling units per acre in the medium density area. While this results in a density above the 10 dwelling unit per acre threshold suggested within the comprehensive plan, the comp plan does indicate that "apartments and condominiums will likely appear in conjunction with large scale mixed residential planned unit developments." The remaining 48 dwelling units are proposed to be located within the office/commercial area, and are at a density that would be expected given the anticipated intensity of an office/commercial development. In both the areas anticipated for medium density residential development and office/service development, the density is 10.89 dwelling units per acre. The comprehensive plan further suggests that the number of units per acre is a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density.

Public access to the development will be from one gated entrance off Pflumm Road and one gated entrance off 62nd Street. The applicant will be responsible for improving the north half of 62nd Street adjacent to the site. The applicant and City staff have had discussions concerning the creation of a benefit district for the construction of both sides of 62nd Street between Pflumm Road and Widmer Road where ditch section remains, with the developer paying their share of the costs and the remainder coming from the Economic Development Fund and potential participation from AT&T. A fire access lane is provided at the northwest corner of the site exclusively for emergency access, as was the case with the previously approved Cobblestone Village plan. Fire access to Widmer Woods, as required with the previously approved plan, will be provided through a gated, private fire lane that will be maintained by the development. This maintenance will include snow and ice removal from the fire lane.

A traffic study of the Cobblestone development was prepared by a professional engineer. The study indicated that traffic did not warrant a signal at Pflumm Road. City staff requested the applicant's engineer review the Cobblestone study and analyze the new proposal in terms of trips generated to and from the site based on the residential density depicted on the plan. This analysis indicated that less trips to and from the site will be generated from the proposed apartment development, including peak travel times. Thus a traffic signal is not warranted or proposed on Pflumm Road as a result of the proposed development plan. Pflumm Road is designated and was constructed as a four lane collector road in the early 1990s. Access is adequate for circulation and public safety purposes.

The project has gated, restricted access and the residential units are surrounded by a decorative metal fence. Because of detention requirements, approximately 6 acres in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Widmer Woods will be devoid of structures. The PUDMR zoning district also requires a peripheral boundary building setback of at least 30 feet from all property lines. Landscaping shown on the preliminary development plan provides a significant tree buffer along the west and south property lines in this peripheral setback area.

As was the case with previous plans approved for the site, Widmer Road will continue to terminate in a cul-de-sac at Widmer Woods subdivision. Limits of no access are provided along Pflumm Road and 62nd Street, except at the locations of the driveways.

Staff had been requested to review rezoning submittals over the past 10-12 years to see if any hearings had been held on this property. Staff found the only request that had a rezoning hearing was the Cobblestone Village request in 2014.

Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. This development proposal does not utilize Tax Increment Finance incentives, and provides a market-rate apartment housing option for new and existing residents of Shawnee on an infill piece of ground. Upon completion, the project will include Class A units and other improvements that will immediately be placed on the property tax roll. Also, the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent recreational uses that are within walking distance to the north including the City's Civic
Centre, aquatic center and park land, and the public library.

The apartment buildings will be privately owned and leased to the tenants. Buildings are three story in design, and include a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units. To provide architectural variety within the development, four different types of buildings have been developed. Each apartment unit includes a reinforced interior closet so that residents will have shelter from severe weather. The apartments do not provide elevators, and are not required by code. Handicapped accessible units are to be provided on the first floor. There are three apartment complexes that do have elevators in the City of Shawnee. These are complexes that cater to an elderly population. And those are Bluejacket Lodge, Wyndham Place, and Shawnee Hills.

All buildings will be constructed of durable building materials, including stone veneer cement lap siding, and cementous plaster stucco. Building materials exceed the Multi-Family Design Standards by placing significant amounts of masonry on all four sides of every structure (rather than simply on the front wall as mandated by policy). The apartments will use the stone veneer on thirty to fifty percent of all walls. The applicant has provided four separate building styles with differing floor plates, roof gables and balcony configurations. To further enhance the variety, two color schemes have also been developed. This allows for a greater variety of architecture throughout the development and the two color schemes are proposed to add additional variety: one in earth-tone colors and the other in tan earth colors.

The amenity package provided includes a gated secure entrance, a clubhouse/recreation facility that will include an exercise room, a swimming pool, a connecting walking trail, a small and large breed dog park, picnic and barbecue areas located at various places within the development, and concierge trash pick up to a central compacting facility on site. Also included are a combination of open air, carport and garage parking areas.

The applicant is proposing the use of an existing on-site pond as the main source of stormwater treatment. The pond will be retrofitted as needed to meet the requirements of a wet detention basin as required by the APWA BMP Manual. In addition to the pond, native grasses will be planted and/or restored, and a large proprietary unit will be installed to pre-treat the run-off before it enters the pond. The applicant will be allowed to receive stormwater treatment credit for creating an off-site runoff that will be routed through the pond. The off-site runoff will be generated by the Shawnee Civic Campus.

The applicant will also use the on-site pond for stormwater detention purposes. The channel located downstream of the proposed detention basin appears to be undersized based on the field survey information obtained by the engineer of record. As part of the final design, the applicant will be required to address these downstream inadequacies. The applicant is proposing the installation of an enclosed system to adequately route the controlled released runoff from the detention basin. This will involve off-site improvements at the rear of five lots located downstream. The proposed system is sufficient for the review of these preliminary plans; however, as part of the final plan preparation revisions might be required.

Numerous persons spoke at the public hearing. Topics of discussion focused on the
increased traffic this development would create along both Pflumm Road and 62nd Street, the density of development, the potential of Section 8 housing, and individuals that currently walk across the property to get to the Civic Centre, library and the pool.

In response to the concerns expressed that persons who did not reside in the development would cross the property in the area of the detention pond, the Planning Commission added Condition Number 33 to state that the metal fencing used for the development would extend from the north gate of the fire lane along the west property line to the north property line of the site.

The applicant provided additional pictures of interior and exterior units which are attached.

A valid protest petition was received. The owners of 26.6% of the property within the 200 foot buffer area, excluding the right-of-way, signed the petitions. Twenty percent is required to require a super-majority vote for acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendation. As a result, the Governing Body may choose one of the following actions:

Terms from the Recommendation. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-2, recommended the Governing Body 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 Block of Pflumm Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report including Condition Number 33 regarding the installation of fencing along the west property line north of the fire access gate.

That concludes staff's presentation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Peterson.

MR. PETERSON: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. Curt Peterson, (Address Omitted), Overland Park, Kansas, here on behalf of the applicant, America First Real Estate Group. With me is a vice president of America First, Dominic Vaccaro. And while I don't typically do this, because the specific issues tonight are so important and the deliberation that will take place by this Council on the screen before you we've really lined out in listening, reading online, trying to pull together all of the comments from the public that have really been put forth about this project. We tried to come up with an exhaustive list of the items that really are relevant and to be spoken to tonight. So, again, nobody likes somebody to stand up before them and have no idea when they're going to end and what they're going to talk about. So, hopefully the other purpose this serves is that you know when this will be over when we get through the nine points.

So with that, let's go the first which is Quality. It's first for a reason. Because quality is really just arguably one of the most important items about this project and about what we've heard comments from the public pertain to. And when I think quality the thing I start with with the building is the outside. And I will say some of the items that I'll go over today will be duplicative of what staff brought up, and Mr. Chaffee did a great job of doing that, but it's for a purpose. Because much of it will be elaborating further into the details and some of it will be for emphasis because of how important the facts are in this particular zoning matter. So with that, as I speak about the outside you can see an engineer rendering of two of the buildings that will be near our pool area and clubhouse up on the screen.

One, you look at the outside of these buildings and you see, as Mr. Chaffee said, that they exceed what the City requires. From the get-go the developer came in and said I want to build this beyond expectations by City code. And so you have four-sided architecture, which all of you know means you don't make one prettier side and then make the others less pretty. You treat them all the same. And specifically, as Mr. Chaffee said, each of the sides has between 30 and 50 percent, a combination of stone and stucco, which again is a sign of a quality project. Also sticking with the exterior we have four different building types which vary both color, size and architecture which are done for a reason, so you don't get a monolithic or a monotonous looking project, but you get one that's interesting that is broken up with the eye and doesn't look like a large project, but looks broken down. So, all of that goes into a sharp project which hopefully no one can disagree with on the screen there that's a sharp project.

And the next place you move after exterior obviously is you walk in the door and you make sure that you have a nice project inside. Now, it's interesting, and having the privilege of being a part of many developers' projects, whether it be multi-family or commercial or what have you, we rarely in a zoning matter talk about inside the walls. And we're not afraid to do that. Actually we're excited to have the excuse to do it. But I'll just tell you, this is going to our desire to emphasize that these are quality Class A apartments that we're excited and that this City will be proud of. So, that's why we're going inside the walls. So, here we go. You'll see some shots. These are photographs from this exact product built in other locations. Interior, this is not an exhaustive list, but some of the highlights. Nine-foot ceilings in these units. Walk-in closets. The walk-in closets also serve, as you heard Mr. Chaffee say, as a protective areas for storms which is important for those seeking apartments in this area, in this region. Also full-sized washers and dryers in every unit. Custom cabinets. Not your pick-em-up at the big box store, but custom-made by cabinetry makers for this project in this area with brushed nickel pulls. Glass tile backsplash to pop in the kitchen.

You move outside to the community amenities. This is a fully gated community, as you heard, with a decorative metal fencing. There's an Internet café and coffee bar within the clubhouse. There's a business center that importantly in this day and age offers Mac and PC. The idea is quality here. A pool with a cabana, outdoor fireplace and a grilling area, dog park, storage areas that are available, garages with individual clickers and openers are available, and a nice fitness center.
So with that, you look at the outside, inside the walls and at the common amenities. And I would look at you all directly and say there is no one that can say that this project, as built elsewhere, as we've shown in photographs or in the renderings for the specific outsides of these buildings at this project that it's not a Class A multi-family project that people can be proud of.

Now, many of you probably saw this, and I only hold this up. It's duplicative in the way of pictures, but most of you probably saw the Dispatch on Wednesday, hopefully and saw this full page. I will tell you again doing, having the privilege of working with developers for a living, I have never been a part of taking out a full page, it's not really an ad, but you know what I mean, a publicity notice in a newspaper. And the reason it was done, and this is why I bring it up, is because from the beginning, at least in my involvement with this project, something became very clear to me. For whatever reason, and we can speculate at what those reasons are, early on in this project all of these quality items that I just laid out, and that you heard Mr. Chaffee emphasize, somehow got missed. And I think there were many people in the public that unintentionally were going with facts that simply weren't true. So, our intent in spending the money to put that in the Dispatch was to try to get out there the objective facts, photographs from this exact project built elsewhere, renderings and a list, not even exhaustive, but at least a lot of the amenities inside, outside, et cetera. So, hopefully you saw that and you hopefully you saw our sincere desire to get the facts out to the community so people can at least form their opinions about the quality of this project based on the facts.

There's one other item still within quality that we in the development community, and I think you intuitively probably look to, what does it cost to rent these, right? I mean, generally there's a relationship with the quality of a project, whether it be multi-family or what have you, a commercial space, and what it costs to rent the project. So, first of all I'd say it's good to know the context that it's approximately a $35 million project. And now working backwards as to the rents that come back you have four unit types in the project. You have a smaller one bedroom and a larger one bedroom, then you have two and three bedrooms. So, four different types. And speaking of rents I want to start and then go back and end on the smaller one bedroom because there's a great dynamic and story behind why those are specifically included. So, the larger one bedroom, the anticipated rent, and as you know this is a starting, it can go up from there if it's a corner unit, what have you. Starting rent would be $965. And those make up -- these one bedrooms, of all the one bedrooms make up about 58 percent, 60 percent of the one bedroom units. Then you have your two bedrooms at 1100 and your three bedrooms at approximately 1275. So, those three price points for those units as you go across and you can look at, and I don't want to spend too much time. Our intent isn't to focus on any other given project in Shawnee. But whether you take Tuckaway or Hampton Woods or the Greens over at K-7, or projects of that sort of quality you will find that all of these rents are above the rents at those projects, at the average rents of those projects.

So, now let's go to the smaller one bedroom because there was some attention paid to that I believe at the neighborhood meeting and different feedback that we were hearing. It's so important that everybody understand why these are in the project. They make up about, as you can see here, this column is the percentage of that unit type of overall units. So, about 23 percent of the overall units, or about 40 percent of our one bedrooms, are these smaller 600 square foot units that rent for about 775. I'll talk about it a little more. I won't repeat myself again and again about young professionals, but I will introduce the concept now and bring it up again because they're -- again, quality is big, but young professionals may be the other biggest item in this whole discussion, the biggest fact, the biggest intent, the biggest motivator by this particular developer. So, in short, many of you that read ULI articles or follow the demographics and the demands in the multi-fam industry know that the young professionals, which right now are made of largely Generation Y, also known as the millennials, the 20 to, it depends who you look at -- 38 year olds, are oftentimes, not always, which is why it's only part of our -- 23 percent of our units, but oftentimes are looking for the minimalist approach. They want nice, but they don't need a big expansive area. And we have found, again from industry experience, from lots of experience that this is a very important product to have in your tool kit if you're trying to attract young professionals. So, very intentional there. A piece of the bigger pie here of this quality project. So, with that, moving on from quality, hopefully again from the architecture to the amenities to the pricing, there is really cannot be a debate even on this particular issue. This is a class A, quality, multi-family project.

The second of our topics is Density, and it's also strategically located here in the presentation. And Mr. Chaffee, I'm glad he went into detail in going through the staff report because this is another area that if I could humbly submit has been misunderstood in the community. Based on what I have read, because I've tried to read all the social media feedback and all that.

So, the first thing to focus on, and there wasn't a visual, I don't think that was as clear as this, but Mr. Chaffee said it with his words, and here is what he was saying. So, the sight -- you can obviously tell the contours of the site here. And of the whole site the medium -- the master plan medium density, medium density meaning ten units per acre, is the entire site, except for this several acre spot right here which is commercial office/retail. And ten units per acre, when you layer in you can see our site plan underneath here. When you put all the units together that are in that area and you divide it by the acreage in the medium density area you come out to 10.1 units per acre. Now, also as Mr. Chaffee said this is one of those repetitive but worth mentioning on the next slide is straight from the Land Use Guide. And it says when talking about this very issue the number of units per acre prescribed is a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density. And so then you come back and say, okay, first of all how much above is that 10.1. If we're doing our math, I used my calculator, don't worry. It's one percent above something that already is not meant to be a maximum. So, again, respectfully I would say when we're showing 10.1 units per acre on a master plan medium density, ten units per acre area we got it. That's what the City had in mind when they gave the indication to property owners what's a valid use, what's the proper use, the desirable use and density on the site. We nailed it.

With respect to -- going back a slide. With respect to this area, this area was meant to be much more intense. This is actually -- you could, not really. I guess you could almost call it a down zone if you will because before it was even more intense than it is now because it was commercial office/retail and we're taking it down to effectively the same thing, medium density. And again, a point of confusion if I can at least be clear, when you add the units here to all of the units and do the full 28 acres that comes out to, you've heard this number talked about, 10.8 units per acre, but not to be confused one more time breaking down in two sentences. This is medium-density. We're at one percent above something that was not even supposed to be a maximum, so we nailed it and we've actually brought the density down in this area significantly.

But second on density because this has been talked about so much. Going to the next slide. We, really what I just said can stand on its own because that's how you tell property owners what they can do with their land. You indicate that with a comp plan and that's exactly what this property owner, this contract property owner is trying to do. But just to show -- try to round out, to get everything on the table, let's look at other apartment projects in the City and see what kind of density they have. What you'll see is, and I've picked what I, a little arbitrarily, apartment projects that I've heard around town that people speak well of, intentionally gone to those. This being in Lenexa by the way, don't be confused at the end. But these four. That would be the one that's proposed today. And as you can see, and I use the overall density, right, as we just talked about, not to be confusing, the overall site, and compare it to Hampton Woods. And it's above Hampton Woods. But Tuckaway, it's below, and it's well below Greens at Shawnee. And then this was only thrown in there just as a reference point. That a Lenexa project on 435 is significantly higher units per acre. Again, just for food for thought and a reference. All going back to, again this is reasonable, fits within the master plan and certainly fits within what we've seen with some of our better apartment projects in the City of Shawnee.

Lastly, going to the site plan, still on density, when you talk about density you’re really -- it’s not in a vacuum, right? It's density because you're talking about it vis-a-vis things around it. So here it's important to recognize maybe three points on the site plan above and beyond what we just talked about. One is this very, very large open area that happens to abut Widmer Woods here that provides a wonderful natural setback. This has your BMPs, your expanded -- it really becomes a water feature and provides a very nice buffer to the project let alone all the natural trees you can see great out here that aren't going anywhere. Also you have the 30-foot setback required by the Code on top of that everywhere. And finally, you have extensive perimeter landscaping, all this landscaping you can see here, and all the landscaping you can see here and around the perimeter is in addition to the existing growth of trees that you have now. So with all that together I hope the density issue is clear. This is what the City called for. This is what the City indicated to the market and the property owners that they could do with their property. We've nailed it. We hope we've been very sensitive in doing all of our setbacks and landscaping and we’re very similar, in fact, even better density-wise than other apartment projects in town.

Moving beyond density, we moved to Traffic. And this doesn't take too long to talk about. Certainly we can dig deeper if anyone on the Council would want to. But the reason it doesn't, as Mr. Chaffee introduced the concept, that there was an extensive traffic study done as is required for new developments for the mixed-use project that came through approximately two years ago, year and a half ago, the Cobblestone project. And GBA, a well-respected traffic analyst, came through, and through that thick, extensive report which was reviewed by the City's engineers in 2014 showed that there was no signal needed and that that project, that mixed-use project would work, that we've already talked about was much more intense. It had office and it had retail in addition to other residential uses. So by definition it doesn't take -- it just takes me, it doesn't take an expert to know that was much more intense, traffic standpoint, but then we go to the experts. And if you look at Cobblestone here you know how traffic analysts do it, they look mainly at the worst case scenario. So they look at a.m. peak and they look at p.m. peak. And the best thing to do, do an apples to apples is to compare this project with the project that was approved before. The project before, Cobblestone, showed an a.m. peak of 213 trips. This particular project would be a 20 percent reduction of that. Again, you don't have the office, you don't have the retail. On p.m. peak, you had 365 trips. With this particular project you're looking at 202 for a 55 percent reduction. So the reason I said that this is a relatively easy and brief topic to talk about is not because it's not important, not because I'm giving it short shrift, but because people a lot smarter than me and the City's experts and outside third-party experts, namely GBA, have looked at this and it's again not really debatable. It's the experts on both the City and a third-party agree that this is a much, much improvement on traffic which is something we can all be pleased about compared to the last plan.

The fourth topic is Stormwater. And this is one that can easily be glossed over. It doesn't take long to talk about it, but it's key because it shows not only -- we've talked about the quality of the project, but this goes to the quality of the developer. So, one, this particular detention pond, as Mr. Chaffee pointed out, is undersized now, so it will be increased and significantly enhanced to be able to take -- really act as regional detention and it will take the Civic Centre property's water, a lot of it at least, and run it through, have the proper BMPs, the water quality standards and that's a huge benefit for the City.

But back to the character of the developer. There's a problem, I think most of you have been exposed to this. Downstream, which here is upstream, downstream goes into the neighborhood as the pond drains. There's a flooding issue right now with five existing homes downstream. This issue was brought to the attention of the previous developer a year and half ago and this isn't a criticism of that developer, it's a reality, over an extensive discussion and negotiation that all of you were a part of, they couldn't find a way to make their proforma work and take care of that and some other issues. And they had to negotiate around doing anything with the downstream. This developer came in, and even though, let me be clear, the downstream problems are happening right now. There's flooding problems in people's homes with the existing conditions with no development on this site. But this developer has stepped up and has made a promise through the planning process that that they will do off-site improvements, namely six digits of improvements dollars-wise to fix, that is, enclose the stream next to the five homes so they won't have any more flooding problems. Their yards will be extended so they touch with their neighbor. They can play soccer across there, there's not a ditch any longer, and those flooding problems will be solved. So again, a quick one to hit, but something to show that's the kind of developer you have here that wants to come in and invest in the City.

The fifth is the school district. This is one that we talk about always with multi-family projects, whether it's the many incentivized public-private partnerships in the last few years in Lenexa and other cities around where they've incentivized multi-family projects or just projects that come in and don't ask for any incentives like this project. We're always talking about the school district. Why? Because the schools are so important to our neighborhoods. Nobody will disagree with that, especially in Johnson County. The three major -- a lot of the districts have such a great reputation and so we focused on this. And so let's break it down numerically so that you can see how we came to the conclusion that we will do nothing but enhance the schools here and do nothing to add to capacity problems or anything like that. So the example I want to use because it's the one that's come up the most in conversation would be the elementary school that the site would feed, which is Broken Arrow Elementary School. The elementary school, depending on which metrics you look at, and this is a longer discussion that we can have if you would like, but this is both talking to the school district and looking at third-party publications. But has somewhere right now capacity in the range of, based on square footage, 100 to 178 spaces. Or in talking to the school district as recent as today, how specifically -- where would they really -- regardless of what the square footage says how many kids are they going to have, where is their sweet spot. What would they like to have as their maximum. And as we talked to them today even that would be somewhere in the range of 50. So, if you follow my numbers their sweet spot they'd like to keep it no more than 50 or so more kids. And then from a pure building square footage, if you look at again some online metrics and things like this, it could conceivably take a hundred plus students. But the good news is we can just deal with the smaller number because in both running our own analyses and what amount of kids in this type of project with this rent schedule, with this mix of smaller, larger one bedroom, two bedrooms and three bedrooms, it's really an art to figure out exactly how many kids you'll have. But in talking with the school district we think a very safe number is -- we always set at the very maximum so that we can always be saying what the very maximum. We were somewhere more in the 40 or 50. But as recently as today we're looking at somewhere in the 20 to 35 in talking to the school district. So, that was a lot of words to explain that. And specifically, let me be clear about something so that we're only dealing with the facts here so that I can't be misinterpreted. What I just am talking about Broken Arrow. And when you run the numbers, the 20 to 35, that's half the expected kids, 40 to 70, because half of them would be going to, you know, the upper grades. So, I was specifically dealing with Broken Arrow. And that's again in talking to the school district as recent as today.

So with that, I will note too on school district, this is true for many of the projects we have now with these Class A multi-family projects with higher rents. First of all, clear point, again, I think this is intuitive for all of you, but you will not find families with children in the one-bedroom units. It just, I mean, anything can happen, but it's not what happens. So, we have two and three bedroom units. And what we find is with these higher rent Class A projects is that many of these folks are renters by choice, really almost all of them are renters by choice and they end up staying longer if they have kids in the facility. If they don't stay in the project longer though what they do do, and this happens again and again and again, is they move themselves eventually over to the single family and within the several mile radius, often not wanting to move out of their feeder school system. So, with that again you find that it is key that these Class A projects sometimes have a different dynamic, if you will, with respect to school children. But this is again and again what we found. And overall, no capacity problem, will do nothing to hurt and really we believe enhance Broken Arrow and the rest of the school district.

What's next? Go to Financial Impact. And Financial Impact, when I say that I mean broadly. So, the City, the taxing jurisdictions, everybody. How is everybody going to be affected by this project? Let's start with direct positive impact for the City. One, this is a gated community. This has a decorative metal fence around the whole community with a secure entrance. And so the streets inside, as you look at the whole plan, typically you're the last people I need to say this to. But typically, if we were to score a multi-family project like this of $35 million, we the city, the taxpayers that is, would be footing the bill for any public streets and even sometimes public detention and things like that. Here because it's a gated community, all of the stormwater, all of that it is privately maintained. All of the streets are privately maintained. The light fixtures, everything, even the fire drive that you know about here going into Widmer Woods for emergency purposes, all of that is maintained privately, so nothing on the public rolls. Also for a project like this there is an impact fee for open space which goes directly to the City. And as Mr. Chaffee mentioned, importantly, you know, were almost there, a good portion of 62nd as projects have come in have improved the curb, gutter and lights et cetera. We will do all the curb, gutter and lights and sidewalk on our portion. And again, we've been very open to the City's dialogue on the overall improvement district that would finish off those last few pieces beyond our property line. Again, I would suggest to you this is how this developer operates. They are not coming in here just to make a buck. They certainly are because that's what capitalism is, but they're here to be a part of this community. That's just another example.

So, those are just several direct, positive, immediate impacts for the City. An impact for the City that also extends to the rest of the taxing jurisdictions is a project like this, and we don't know for sure because we don't know Mr. Welcome and his staff will put this on the books for, but we can safely say this is well over $400,000 a year tax bill for this project. It could be higher as long as I'm not -- Mr. Welcome is not listening. But the point is it's significant. We’ll argue the other end. I'm joking. I'm joking. The point is this is a $35 million project. This will have a significant tax bill immediately, a large portion of which goes to the City, the largest portion of which goes to the school system which is great, and then to the other taxing jurisdictions. So, that's not to be glossed over especially on a project like this. Unlike many other in the Metro right now of comparable quality they get public incentives and divert tax dollars, this doesn't at all.

Indirect benefits, but powerful. Indirect not meaning weak, not meaning speculative, indirect meaning not direct. Impacts to the City. One is this developer does not bring us, even though I think you know this, America First is based in Omaha. America First brings zero subs to the market. First of all, and we can go, and I have all sorts of details that we can go into now or later, but where they will make sure that the notices are put out to all the local contractors and they will bring no subs from out of the area, so that's a lot of jobs, you know, dollars for contractors in the area who then turn around and spend money. You know how it goes, it's great for the local economy. So, that's the first point. The second point on indirect, but powerful benefits to the City, is something that I have, I both believe in and have been witness to listening to this Council over the last 3½ or 4 years again and again and it's great, which is density brings rooftops. And when we get the rooftops we get the restaurants and retailers that the residents and taxpayers are calling for. Without it, this one is not an art. I talked about an art before, this one really is a science and those in the industry know this. The restaurants and retailers, the reason they stay around, especially the really good ones is because they know when to go in, and they go in when there's rooftops and there's density. So, it's exciting that sure this is one project, but this is a big one, and it's in-fill, and it's close to downtown, and it's exciting because it starts to get towards that goal that I've heard again and again and again of density and rooftops help commercial.

But another indirect impact to the City is what I said I'd speak a little bit more about which is young professionals. Young professionals, that is specifically Generation Y, who make up 80 million people right now, and Generation Next, I have to always remind myself of the lingo because I think it changes every few years but Generation Next, who are the ones coming after them, right, the ones that are graduating from high school and coming through, they’re even bigger. And the trends are these folks want apartments. I talked about that, always offering that smaller unit for some of those young professionals, well, they're coming and they need to go somewhere and this developer wants them to go in this City, and they want them to go at this in-fill site close to the core. And importantly, and again you know this, it’s those -- I almost said kids, I mean, it’s not, it’s these 20 and 30 year olds are going to come here, and statistics bear out again and again and again that they will oftentimes choose when they buy their house, they will choose to do it within a few miles, that's what they do. I think that's what we want.

Baby boomers are the other indirect, but powerful impact to the City because we need baby boomers to stay. Do you know what baby boomers do when they realize they either don't want to or can't be in their home anymore? If they don't find the product they want in this City, they go to one of the other cities that has thousands of units that are available right now and are coming online with more units. I don't think we want that. One reason why is because we like them, but second of all because the baby boomers have money. Not all of them, I'm speaking in generalities right now. A lot of times they're at the place in their life with a have expendable time they have expendable income and that's what helps our commercial. So it's interesting. You have the cycle, have this Generation Y and the Generation Next who want to bring in, who eventually go out and occupy the homes that the baby boomers vacate and they come in and they stay in our city and they go into this nice Class A maintenance provided facilities and it provides this beautiful cycle that so many cities are after that keep you vibrant and rejuvenating and that's what we’re after. One of the powerful indirect impacts of this project.

Let's go next to property values. There is not a single multi-family, I would almost say zoning project, almost, it's probably an exception, that I have ever been a part of where with good intentions, and I'm glad people, I really am, I'm glad the discussion happens. Property owners adjacent to a site don't bring up, at least the question and some of the argument, right, will this or this will hurt my property value, my home value. It has to come up, right? We all do that with the property. It has to be part of the public dialogue, so we don't shy away from that at all. But when you ask that question it can't just be about, this is humble opinion, right, it can't just be about product type. You can't just say there is a certain use and just stay at a high level we can’t have that use, that's going to hurt my property value. It doesn't work that way. What we have to look at is, how is it done. And interestingly, and I went in this order on purpose, if you look back at our list of quality, density, traffic, impact on schools and then other miscellaneous things like if stormwater is being dealt with appropriately, you look at all those things. And if those are done right, you may hurt property value. But notice how I didn't say in a multi-family project or in a Target that backs up to a neighborhood or fill in the blank, right, it's about how all those issues play out and how you do the development. And so when I started off by saying here is my list of nine things and it’s so important that we look at these nine items and focus on them and really dig into the facts and not go high level, it's because it comes down that. If we stay high level and just say we’re not open to a use, I don't think were being intellectually honest with ourselves and really analyzing the project. So it's about how you do it, it's not about Class A apartments. And I think I'll bring up one example, I could bring up a lot, but I think I'll bring up Tuckaway because it seems like one that a lot of us know about have a good feeling about. That's clearly next to a lot of residential. There was discussion at the time as I read back in the record and talk to people at the City of will this hurt residential property values especially to the east. It hasn't happened. And it's not surprising because Tuckaway is a great project. And again, without being too competitive and comparing, this also is a great project and will have the same impact. It simply won't have any tangible deleterious effect on the neighboring property values. It won't. Not when you look at the specific facts about the project. Now it's interesting, I'll note, this argument about someone being concerned that a rezoning, a new project is going to hurt their property values often comes up in the most heated way in the most emphasized when a city is also changing the master plan. Why? Because often people will say, hah, I had no idea that could go, why is the city changing their mind, the city just told the world, including the property owner and potential developers that this is an appropriate, we’ve studied this, it's in our master plan, this is an appropriate density and use for this area. And when cities switch that, and it happens by the way sometimes, sometimes master plans are outdated what have you, but here we don't have that. And as we talked about on the density slide we're absolutely fitting exactly into what the City expected and invited for this site. Again here property values is just not something that were going to say negatively affected. And again ending on this I'd say, and time will tell, right, if this project is approved and $35 million is invested with local subs and all of that into this gated community. Time will tell, but I'll tell you it's the vibrancy of having more rooftops and density, good density, correctly laid out that leads to retail and commercial and all that, that is what's going to lead to a vibrant neighborhood and that is what maintains and increases your property values. That's what we'll have here.

The second to last item that I'd like to speak to you about is about the developer. Because this might be the one where there's the most perhaps misinformation that was circulated. Again, I don't think necessarily by fault of anybody, I think people are doing Google searches and in good faith coming to conclusions about who this is that's asking you to have the right to develop the land in this way. So, I do want to spend a few minutes on who is America First that's here before you.

So, I break down, America First is a very, very large company. They have different silos, like a lot of big companies do, of what they do. And there's three primary silos of what they do. One is they develop. And when I use the word develop, and I'll use it several times, I mean they get raw land like this and build something and that's what we're doing here. But also, I mean they may buy an existing multi-family project and put money into it and operate it. So to me that's developed. They have about 6000 units that they developed. That silo number one. And very importantly, that's the only silo that Dominic has anything to do with and that I represent. That's the only silo that we have anything to do with. We're talking about development here. That's this project, that's this part of the company.

There's a second part of the company that I'd call the finance silo. And the finance silo really makes loans. They act as a lender to multi-family projects and they make passive investments, meaning no control, you know, they just put equity into a deal to get a return to then give a return to their investors. There's about 8000 units in this bucket.

And the final one is management. And there's about 1000 units that they simply for a fee manage multi-family projects, operate them. So that adds up to about 15,000 units.

Here is where I want to pause. I was very clear we’re only here to talk about the development bucket. That literally we’re not part of the rest of the company, that's what's going on here. But Mr. Vaccaro made a comment at one of the public meetings before either Planning Commission or the neighborhood meeting that, again, I'm not saying anybody had bad intentions, but it was misconstrued and misunderstood. He said that approximately 50 percent of the portfolio, something to that effect, had to do with affordable housing. So, let me explain exactly what he meant. Now you have the background to hear what he was trying to say. So remember, 15,000 units, three silos, the middle one, the finance silo that makes passive investments, that makes loans, they deal with, you know, 80/20 bonds before they got rid of those. They have some low income. They deal with nonprofits that build affordable housing, lots of it. And so when you take all of that in the finance bucket and the very little I’m going to tell you about it a minute it adds up to 50 percent. But let's talk about the development bucket because again that's why we're here. Very, very importantly, there are only two projects in the 6000 units in the development bucket. Two projects which they have ever had anything to do with affordable housing. And because it's worth it I'm going to spend 20 seconds on each one of them. The first was a project that was an existing project they purchased that was occupied by renters that were all considered low income, but the project needed a lot of work. And when they bought the project they used the federal Program Low Income Housing Tax Credits to be able to put a lot of money back in the project. One of the reasons they decided to do that and do that whole deal is because it allowed all of those people, if they wanted to, to stay there. Otherwise, if they take it to market rate all those people get kicked out. So, for them that was a very successful project and it was the right thing to do for that particular project. That was instance one ever of two in the development silo. The second one is probably my favorite because it was very, very unique. They went and found the hospital that was abandoned, and the hospital, and working with the Veterans Administration and the nearby university, they transformed it using a Low Income Housing Tax Credit program that the feds provided to provide a place for formerly homeless veterans. And it exists today and it's operating great and it's the only other time ever that they've been involved in affordable housing in their development arm. Exceptions, very minimal of the whole 6000 units they own, really important to understand about this company.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where is that located at?

MR. PETERSON: But the other thing to understand is there has been allegations that there's been flipping going on. That the developer builds projects and flips them to somebody else. So again, I couldn't emphasize this point any more. Of the 6000 units of the silo of the company that's here before you today that have been developed, ground-up starting 15 years ago, that's when they started doing ground-up, ground-up development 15 years ago, they've never sold a project, ever. They've never built a project from the ground up and sold it. Why? You're thinking why in this market why haven't they been flipping them. Because I mean it gets beyond necessarily what we have to go into in detail, but in terms of how they finance and they have investors and they try to get a return. The stable return is what those investors are looking for. They're not looking for big pops by flipping projects. So again, stated on the record, they've never built something ground-up and sold it. They are not flippers. Clearly the building up here and they're not flippers.

One other fact I wanted to call to your attention that really helps you understand the silo of the company, while they've only had those two very much exceptions where they dealt with any sort of affordable housing there has been six instances where they purchased projects, remember the development silo, and they brought them from affordable when they bought them, affordable housing, to market rate. That's just -- that's what they do. And it's an important thing to understand about this company. So, with all that, to be super clear, this is a market rate project. And even if we don't take it, it's a cliché but I believe it, when I evaluate things in my personal and professional life, look at the past to predict the future. We just went through the past and I think it's very predictive of the future. But even if that wasn't compelling to you, or it wasn't at least completely satisfying or sufficient, I would say, and today's not going to be -- I don't need to tell you all, I know most of you know about affordable housing and the various components and vouchers in Section 8, LIHTC and all that, so I'm not going to do a full presentation on that, but I know you all know as we went through the rents that this project will demand, and the fact that it's a $35 million project this absolutely does not fit the mold, systematically can't fit the mold of affordable housing. So I only say that to round out that whole discussion. They are not going to do it because they've never done it, it's not their business plan. And it just can't be done with this high quality, high cost, higher rent project. So that's who we’re dealing with.

Here is how I end. Why here? Because some of you may ask that. I think we're all, you know, obviously proud of the City and proud of the site. But we've got to say why is this developer coming to this site and coming to this city. And the answer is because they are specifically attracted to the site, specifically attracted the site. And they are attracted to the demographics within the City.

Let's start with market demand in Shawnee. So I was reading, and I honestly did, I went fast but I tried to really soak in so we understood as a development team what the community was saying. So I tried to go through in the social media all the different comments that were posted. And one of the comments really struck me, and I absolutely disagree with it, but it's great because it's a free country and you can say that, it's great. But somebody said, paraphrasing, why don't they just go to another city. And that struck me. And I got to thinking, wow, why don’t we just go to another city. You all know we’re going through the biggest multi-family, Class A, at least in Johnson County, Class A multi-family boon in history. Somebody may point to like 1944, but at least in recent history, right? It's been a boon. And over the last five years alone, and just tried to pick some cities right around us, Lenexa, Olathe, Overland Park and Kansas City, Kansas, so four cities. We added up from 2010 to 2014, by the way '15 has been as strong as ever but people don't have their data out, so were even taking, nibbling on the back of the recession, up to 2014, a five-year period. The total number of apartment units built during that time by those four cities combined 4,714 units, most of which, almost all of which at least, I can't speak to every unit, but I've been -- we have been a part of tons of them, have been Class A. For Shawnee, during that period from 2010 to 2014, we've had zero. But what's more troublesome from my perspective, you all will deliberate and figure out if you agree, is that if you go back for Shawnee to the last approximately 15 years it's the same answer, zero. Then we look at me say, well, how are we doing this is city in terms of apartment units as a percentage of overall housing stock in Shawnee. And the number is approximately 24 percent. Twenty-four percent of our housing stock in the City is multi-family units, rental units. The national average, and then I also called over just because it's a bigger city that I know would have straight average, I called Overland Park's Planning Department and asked what the percentage is there, and I compared it to the national average, and it was very similar, 38 percent. And it was explained to me, although I knew it, but I wanted to hear it again from somebody independent, that that is part of the health and vibrancy of a city. You can't lock out apartments or that loop I was waving my arms around about the boomers coming back and bringing the young people in, the young professionals, and they go into apartments and then they go into the housing and then the boomers come out and spend money and, you know, that is a very, very, very important cycle and cities know that. And again, just calling to the attention it's not only that we haven't had any projects in approximately 15 years, but we’re well below at least the target for a lot of cities in the national average.

Then in terms of why we're here again. I mentioned it again, but I can't say it enough times, which is millennials and Generation Y and the boomers. It's absolutely why this -- they're here for this City and they're here for the site. One, in terms of the site specifically for the young professionals. If you read not only the marketing studies, not only of America First, but other clients I have, and you read online with ULI, Urban Land Institute, you'll find that a lot of these young professionals want an environment where they have some level of walkability. They like in-fill. They want to be in where things are. They don't want to be out in the green fill development. And they may want to be able to get to highways pretty quickly, they don't necessarily in general want to be on the highway, they don't want to be looking at highway. And you know this site, it fits all those things. This is a great site to put up our flag for the Cerner employees, the young professionals and the other businesses that are growing in our community especially in the corridor up and down 435 to bring them to Shawnee. This site specifically. Baby boomers, they often want two and three bedrooms. That's probably intuitive to you too. They don't have the kids, but they want the space. They've earned it, right? A lot of them they want a den and they just want a little more space. They want their grandkids to be able to come over and have a play room. We find that in these projects that your boomers that's often what they do. And the other item is the boomers want, and maybe, you know, you have parents or whatever that identify with this, they don't want to graduate from single-family houses to 14 miles or 18 miles or 35 miles down the road. They want to stay in their community, that's where their friends are. That's where the community center is. That's where the restaurants are they like to go to. That's where they want to be. And so that's key that this project is now not out, and we’ll come back with more projects someday when the developers are telling us they are ready for the west. But right now this is where the boomers can be had because this is the housing stock that will support the boomers moving into this complex. So again, can't over emphasize young professionals and boomers the same.

So finally, it comes down to this though. And reading comments again online and just listening to the community, I've heard a lot of people, especially in recent days say, well, it's all pretty interesting, hmm, I've got to think about that, maybe, oh, but not this site. Not this site. We can't have that on this particular site. And so then you rehash again, so important the facts here, not the knee-jerk overall we don't like apartments. What density did the City say to property owners out there, including this property owner? That's appropriate for this site. Ten. Where are we? Ten. Quality. Is there anything anybody can say about the project? I don't think so. If someone is looking for something to pick on, I'm sure there is some little facet. This is a Class A project that we can all be proud of. There's really no real honest debate about that.

It helps bring density and expendable income to downtown and in-fill Shawnee. Many sites clamor for this. You've heard this, right? Many sites, even our area, that have room to grow out are saying, please, stop infrastructure and all that, we keep going. We have sites that haven't been filled in. Cities clamor for that. They're giving public incentives for projects like this. These folks are not asking for public incentives. They want to come to this in-fill site and again, be in the middle of Shawnee.

I would just hope that we don't miss this opportunity because it is an opportunity. There is not that many sites like this for the boomers and for the Generation Y. They just don’t come around that often. A lot of times for in-fill you have to spend even more money and get public incentives to be able to knock things down to get an in-fill site like this. The site has been challenged. I think the staff report said there hadn’t been a rezoning other than Cobblestone in the last approximately 15 years. This site needed the right fit and we found it. We found somebody with the resources that will immediately build it and it's right for the City. I just hope we don't miss this opportunity because I don't know what comes next, especially without public incentives.

So the last key question is, if the master plan is clear, this is what we were calling for as a city and we told the property owner that, and that we have it clearly identified, this is your job, I have my opinion, right, but I've laid out the facts, if we can't identify clear, negative, true, negative impacts on surrounding property owners based on this project, not platitudes about we don't like the people that rent projects and things like that. So, master plan, no clear negative detriment based on the facts, if we agree about the young professionals and boomers and density and rooftops and bringing retail and commercial, if we still believe in all of that, then there's one question left. Respectfully, but it's true, it’s no beating around the bush. Do we allow adjacent property owners, when all of those facts are present get to tell a property owner next-door, well, we just don't like apartments? Do we get to do that?

(People in audience commenting, "Yes.")

MR. PETERSON: Both a legal question.

(People in audience, "Yeah, we do." Applause. "Absolutely." Mayor bangs gavel.)

MR. PETERSON: It's both, Mayor, it's both a legal question and it's a policy question. I think I know the answer to both. I think the answer is no. We look at the facts and all the factors and everything that goes into this site, we just don't want property owners pick and tell what an adjacent property owner that's meeting the City's expectations from a master plan from quality, from the City's vision, all of that, there's not a veto right. So, with that, this is the right site. It's the right project, it's the right developer. It's right for growth. It fits the vision of the City. So respectfully and humbly we submit this to you tonight and ask for your support and bring this $35 million project to the site. Thank you, Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Okay. So, this is a public meeting. It is designed to hear from all the 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, no shouting, no cussing as I've heard earlier, or other noises that are not conducive to an orderly meeting and which might preclude the Council from fully hearing the speaker speaking. With that being said, are there any Councilmembers who want to make any comments before I open it up to public input? Mr. Pflumm, I know you were interested in commenting.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just wondering why we changed up the procedures. If we're going to do it the other way, I don't need to comment right now.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, okay. Thank you. So, is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item, something to provide new, different information than what was already presented at the public hearing? Please come forward.

MR. CHALK: Good evening. I'm Roger Chalk. My wife and I, Janet, live at (Address Omitted). Mayor, I represent, or I'm with a group of six different individuals that wish to speak, and we would like to request if we could follow each other.

MAYOR DISTLER: That would be fine as long as it's new information that hasn't already been presented.

MR. CHALK: We understand.

MAYOR DISTLER: And we have to keep it at the five-minute limit.

MR. CHALK: I hear you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHALK: After another 45 minutes I heard you. We are happy to see so many people here tonight to witness government in action. By the way, by a show of hands how many of you are here opposed to the project? Thank you. Let's hope it happens. The number one concern of the task group opposed to this project is that it is a residential community and apartments of any kind do not fit right. At the bottom of page 1 of the packet that you received it even states, "The majority of the surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential and DU-Duplex)." Another member of our group will address this in more detail. At the November 2 Planning Commission -- at a November 2 Planning Commission, a vice president of a 2.5 billion conglomerate corporation in answering questions presented by the commissioners made the following statements as recorded in the minutes of that meeting. "When evaluating something that is a market rate; another term that we use a lot is institutional grade apartment community...types of amenities that we're providing that are important to us for owning something in our portfolio for long-term value." "Our unit sizes tend to be a little bit smaller than perhaps some other communities' product...we’re slightly under a lot of our competition." "Of the total properties in our portfolio, I would say roughly, probably half of our units are some form of Section 8." "A one bedroom unit we would be renting in the neighborhood of $750 for smallest to $900 for largest…we'd be $200 to $300 per unit less than what we are targeting for this project."

I don't quite understand that comment. These comments brought on immediate concerns expressed by many residents. There were nearly 80 people at that meeting. And because of those expressed concerns it now appears that the developers needed time to repair the damage and were allowed to table the Council's vote on this proposal until tonight. In the meantime, the developer chose to have their local attorney communicate with you in an effort to persuade you to a different version of the story. Our question is how do we know which one is telling the truth? The vice president of a large successful conglomerate or the paid attorney to do their talking in his place. How can we believe anything being told to us about the future of this project? Their track record, as will be shown to you later, is not compatible with the residential community in which these apartments are proposed to be placed.

A very brief comment about government housing subsidies. In a phone conversation with Jerome Franks, Program Supervisor at the Johnson County Housing Services, he stated that any owner of property can accept subsidies just by following the guidelines. There are no restrictions prohibiting them from accepting subsidized housing vouchers. We've examined the resident reviews of apartment units --

MAYOR DISTLER: Your five minutes are up, so if we can have the next person ready to comment.

MR. CHALK: Boy, that's a fast five minutes.

MR. HATCH: My name is Craig Hatch. My five minutes I give to Mr. Chalk.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. We're not going to do that.

MR. HATCH: I'm giving my time to Mr. Chalk. That's my option.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, as the chair of this meeting, I am not going to allow that.

MR. HATCH: You're against free speech?

MAYOR DISTLER: No, sir, I am not.

MR. HATCH: I am giving my time to Mr. Chalk. What's wrong with that, ma'am?

MAYOR DISTLER: It's not going to be allowed.

MR. HATCH: He's going to articulate what I was going to say, so it would be redundant so, Mr. Chalk, you can have my time.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next person that was going to speak, please come forward.

MR. CHALK: I sure hope our votes work.

MAYOR DISTLER: Please speak your name and address.

MS. NOTLEY: I'll talk fast. Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Name and address for the record, please.

MS. NOTLEY: Okay. Oh, it's not all showing. Okay. My name is Marianne Notley. I live at (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. I was asked to confine my comments to the notion of Vantage flipping their properties and I will try and be brief. Well, oh God, okay. The reason they can build these properties so quickly, they've done 19 in 10 years, is because they do the same plan over and over again which isn’t a bad thing. But the plan, I mean you probably notice from the pictures earlier this evening that you go, hey, it's the same place, it's the same place. Okay. Vantage of Shawnee, same place. Okay. This plan came from American Opportunities for Housing which is a §501(c)(3), a nonprofit in San Antonio that builds workforce housing. And even Vantage's own builders refers to these places is workforce housing. This is an anything deluxe. Anyway, that's just something I found out today about American Opportunities for Housing. Let's see, okay. Well, the build and flip is fairly obvious. Everything built before 2014 has been sold. And the ones that are currently up they’re already trying to pack the apartments full. I've got some more on that. I'm running out of time I'm sure. Okay. The new owners, and some people go, well, so what if they flip them, you know, the new owners will be just fine. Okay. This is a post-Vantage sale. The new owners, it lists who bought these places and who their management companies are and how the Better Business Bureau rated these management companies. And you could tell just looking, you could tell when Vantage had sold the place because the complaints just went crazy. So we have, let's see, six F's and five, no, three C's. Okay. If your kid came home with six F's and three C's on their report card, you know, we've got a problem. We've got a big problem. Okay. I have a quote from a tenant of Vantage. As it came time when Vantage was trying to sell the place, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, all Vantage did was to let anyone in. The last couple months it was still Vantage they let in lots of trashy people, her words. Also from listening to people around the pool people weren’t paying their rent and hadn't paid their rent just so that when the buyers came it would look like a successful enterprise. I don't know. This is just hearsay. This is just what she had written. Okay. So, what's happening at the Vantage sites that are open now still under Vantage control? Okay. They're doing the one month free rent specials and their refer a friend for $500. They're doing it again. That's what they do. And it's not illegal, they're just doing business, but they do flip. And so I'm just left with a few questions may be off-topic. Okay. All 19 properties were built along this corridor between San Antonio and Austin, I mean what are they doing up here? What's changed? And this is not the kind of site that Vantage builds in. They're usually on open ground out in the country. And anybody saying that young professionals really want to come and live behind Shawnee because it's cool to be in town, it’s not cool back there. There's nothing cool about it. Let's see. So, who tipped them off about this property? What do they have to gain? When you follow the money where does it lead? Okay. A lawyer would, you know, you never ask a question you don't know the answer to, I don't know the answer and you don't either.

MAYOR DISTLER: Five minutes is up.

MS. NOTLEY: All right.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since you won't allow Mr. Chalk to have my time, I'll finish up for Mr. Chalk. We examined it, and I do this personally, so I'm familiar with this. We went to several websites that rated these apartments. They started out very, very nice and over a period of time people couldn't recommend them low enough. I had called several of the police departments in and around this area, these areas, and I asked would you -- what's it like, and one lady I got to talk to said, well, I haven't lived here that long, I don't know. My next question to her was, would you live there, and her answer was not on this planet, no way. Okay. So, there's a good one for whoever the police department person answering the phone. The complaints for the management were incompetent, walls and floors allowed bugs, cockroaches, et cetera, overcrowding of some apartment units, trash left all around, dog and cat manure not picked up, cars towed away, even proper stickers were never on the cars. Once again, cockroaches. Several reviews stated that -- that's a repeat. Here is the best one. One individual I did talk to said that there had been a couple shootings at the apartments that this conglomerate manages, but it's a high-end A+ place. So, also somebody lied to us, either the gentleman who is trying to put the thing together or the engineer that thought so much of himself that he talked for 50 minutes and 11 seconds, they said that they didn't turn these over that they kept them all. If he's telling the truth, this gentleman is a liar. If this gentleman is the truth, he's a liar. One of them lied to us. I don't know which, I don't care. We wanted the truth, we're not getting it. It's supposed to be -- Mr. Sandifer made a comment about he would not allow access being denied to people. If they want to go up 67th Street at Widmer Woods with a gate across it, unless I'm missing something that's restricting entrance. You've got two entrances to this of this place, one off of Pflumm, the other off of 62nd and maybe off of Widmer. That doesn't work in the winter. So much for the -- and I'll give myself a goodbye.


MR. HIRT: Hi. My name is Phil Hirt. I live at (Address Omitted). First of all, I want to apologize to everyone for so many citizens showing up to protest this that the City actually had to turn people away from participating. Okay. Then the point I want to make. We are not in the neighborhood, I live right on the property line. We are not opposed to change. We are not opposed to new development. That's not a new theme, but that topic keeps coming back. We want something that the neighborhoods and all of Shawnee can be proud of. Apartment projects like this are best suited for and are almost always put onto main arteries, thoroughfares, highways, 435. If you look at all the cities and all the projects that's most of the time where they go. They don't belong in the middle of a neighborhood residential development. That's what it's all around, except for the park and the city pool and all that, it's a residential neighborhood. This project doesn't fit. They have admitted that its 28.6, it's actually 28.66 acres is what this project is. That comes out to, I'm not very good at new math, but that comes out to 287 units rounded up, 312 makes it 25 units over. That's probably good enough. Okay. I'll read from line, if you care to read that, please. This is, apartments were proposed on this property years ago and were denied by the City of Shawnee citing the same concerns. Please review these quotes taken directly from the minutes of the May 20th, 1985 Shawnee Planning Commission meeting. "Staff recommended that the portion of the plan north of 62nd be denied as being incompatible and inappropriate for the area. The provisions of the apartments north of 62nd would appear to be an intrusion of multi-family use and what effect the potential for single-family or lower density development of the R-10 vacant land immediately to the west. C), the north tract would appear more suitable for single-family or lower density development. Intense multi-family development of this area appears inappropriate and would alter the general character of the area is a lower density residential area." The north part is what we're talking about here. The south part was where Hy-Vee is now. So, the part that was denied and the reason the whole thing got thrown out was because of that. This area was not appropriate. "D), the plan for the north tract by proposing multi-family use is not an effective treatment of the site. A more effective and appropriate design would incorporate predominantly single-family, detached or a lower density design. E), the plan for the north tract would appear to have an adverse impact by thrusting significant multi-family use into a vacant area zoned and suitable for single-family development. The developer withdrew this proposal because of City staff recommendations and opposition from area residents." The only thing that has changed since that Planning Commission decision is single-family residential neighborhoods did develop and flourish to the West and to the north because of this attention and vision for looking out for what is best for Shawnee in the long term and not grabbing a smaller development, which is going to generate less tax. The other development that was going to go in was about $64-$68 million, and there are other developers wanting to use this for the same purpose if given the chance, and ignoring the consequences to the neighborhood. Other cities are in the news frequently for denying projects in order to protect their neighborhood residential owners. Why can't Shawnee? The neighborhood and all of Shawnee deserve better. Thirteen hundred Shawnee residents have spoken and petitions. We are opposed to this apartment project. How can you completely ignore the citizens that you were elected to protect? Are you going to listen to a sales presentation or the citizens who elected you? Please do not sell us out. One last comment. Widmer Road fence is not a Widmer Road fence, it's a Widmer western boundary. If you go back and look at the minutes of the Planning Commission it is misstated the way you're voting on it or however you put it in here. It's not to run from the north gate to the north property line. The Planning Commission minutes are more clear than that even though they are a little foggy as to where it starts and ends, it says nothing about gate north. It’s the Widmer perimeter that they voted to put a six foot fence on. Then the last comment, the hundred foot, I'm sorry, the 30 foot right-of-way that the City is requiring this builder and developer to give to the City is a right-of-way for anything future, even though it's not now planned, it's not needed, it's not wanted, it's a problem, it's going to be a problem, it goes to nowhere. You cannot just connect two streets and put more traffic onto Johnson Drive. There's no reason for that right-of-way. What we would like, for you to take that back out of the plans. Don't demand that they give you the 30 foot right-of-way.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Mr. Hirt.


MR. HIRT: I had to quickly. I'm sorry.

MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah. I apologize for interrupting this. I just have a quick thing here. Brenden Davidson from (Address Omitted). I'm not here with a statistical plan. I'm not here with a tax argument here, I'm here with a moral argument on this. And the fact is you were all elected to represent the citizens of Shawnee. Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Neighbor, you were elected from my ward. You represent me. You represent my family. You represent my neighbors. Many of my neighbors are out in the hall right now sitting there saying don't vote yes on this. Are you going to stand with them or are you going to stand here with a corporate lawyer. I don't know about you, but if I were in your seat I would stand with the people you were elected to represent. And as for the rest of -- as for those of you who I am not as acquainted with, the same goes. I am sure there are people all out here who are from all of your wards. And, Mayor Distler, we all took a part in that election that elected you. And we are here to say that, no, we do not want this. Well, I have disagreements within many of these for is, especially those involving, I believe it's Title 8, I'm not entirely certain on that. This is not the case here because there are many problems wrong with this. He claims it's going to be a gated community. Now, let's assume he's being truthful there, which we're not entirely sure. Gated communities are not something Shawnee needs. Shawnee is for one an open city here. We do not want gated communities. We do not need gated communities. They are not a part of what Shawnee wants or needs. In addition, they're also inherently racist. We are not going to turn this into a -- turn to the Jim Crow south. We are going to stay an open and tolerant city that we have always been. Don't sell out this city to this corporate lawyer who does not represent our interests, who does not represent any of the citizens here, who doesn't even live in this town. He does not serve any of us. He does not care about our interests and his company does not care about our interests. Do not sell us out on this. Represent your voters. Represent your constituents who do not want this plan. I cannot see any reason why you should vote for it based solely on that reason that democracy exists so that people can have a say. And the people are saying, no. They are saying no to this destructive, to this awful complex that they -- this company wants to build. And as they have put on the board back there, he may represent America First, but America First puts Shawnee last. So, who are you going to put first?


MS. ROBINSON: Thank you, Brenden. It's nice to see some passion among our young people in the city, so thank you very much. My name is Julie Robinson. I live at (Address Omitted) in the Widmer Woods division. And I'm here tonight to talk a little bit about the economic impact of this development. In my professional life I'm a marketing professional and I deal a lot in helping clients identify their target audience. So, some of the things that were talked about this evening with boomers and millennials, those are things that I do every day with my clients. And, you know, I attended the City Planning Commission November 2nd as well. And one of the things that one of the commissioners said is that he was in favor of this project because he believed it would bring new businesses to our community. And we heard some of that same discussion tonight about density and rooftops and that that would bring business to our community. In fact, research shows that the opposite is actually true. The American City Business Journals recently conducted a comprehensive study about what makes businesses locate in certain communities. And what they came up with was a measure that is called Overall Affluent Score. Now, this score is not just about household income. It's actually a 12-point formula that takes into account a number of different factors. Interestingly, density, like you get with apartments, is not on the list. It's not a factor. What is on the list are several things that make up our community that go along with single family residential developments. It's things like occupation. It's things like education level and notably it's about home ownership and home values. New businesses want to locate in communities that rank highly on this overall affluent scale. Unfortunately, this is an article from the November 20th Kansas City Business Journal. Currently the City of Shawnee does not even rank in the top ten of all the communities in the entire KC Metro area. But if you see the list our neighbors Overland Park and Lenexa are on that list. And is it possible to have this chart to be part of the public record this evening?


MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. An apartment project like Vantage may bring density, but it will not improve Shawnee's ranking on this overall affluent scale. In fact, it will in all likelihood push us further down on the list. I strongly urge all of you to reject the Vantage proposal so that this land can be available for a future project as has been mentioned that would be more appropriate to this neighborhood and would raise Shawnee's ranking. A no vote for Vantage is not a missed opportunity as has been said this evening. It will help us in the long run to attract higher quality new businesses like Overland Park and Lenexa. And that's what millennials and baby boomers want. They want entertainment. They want high quality retail. And they actually want granite countertops and stainless steel appliances because I do a lot of research on that as well. And I think actually we also could maybe hope that a quality developer who took out a full page ad in our Shawnee Dispatch could maybe not have typos. I don't think that's really quality. And if anybody goes back and looks at the word "concierge trash" in the ad, that's not spelled correctly. So, I have to wonder what is their real attention to detail. So, with that, Mayor Distler and City Councilmembers, I implore you to listen to the voters who are here tonight. I think we have spoken very clearly. The people who elect you have definitely given our opinion and we urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you very much for your time.



MS. NACHBAR: My name is Melissa Nachbar, and I live at (Address Omitted). It's a fact that an apartment complex was proposed on this site and voted down by the City Council in 1985. There was then, as is now, a major opposition from the residents. Their voices were heard. I've been a resident of Shawnee my whole life. I care deeply about this community. I work in this community. I worship. I buy goods. I pay taxes and I vote in this community. I've lived at my current residence directly west of this project for 21 years. My husband Greg and I would not have built our home in the neighborhood if there had been an apartment complex there. I can assure you my neighbors feel the same way. The City may have invited this project, but the citizens have not. It's more important now that there are more residents living in this area that this remain a neighborhood with home ownership. As Julie stated, bringing affluence to our city has more to do with home ownership and values. Therefore, education is a key. As apartments have been added to our neighborhood, it has tipped the balance. They have significantly changed the community of Broken Arrow school. What was once a blue ribbon school has become a Title 1 school. It was never the capacity that was our issue. There is capacity because families are transferring out of this school. As an elementary teacher this is concerning. As a resident of Shawnee, this is unacceptable. Our property values are directly related to having a thriving school community in our neighborhood and our city. And when new families look to buy a home the ones that would be in apartments aren't going to come and stay around this neighborhood because they look at the city as a whole and they look at the critical factor in the school neighborhood. Deciding where to buy they won't live in the Broken Arrow neighborhood. The only way to keep our community and this school community from deteriorating further is to deny this project. I have 286 signed petitions and another 866 names from our online petition that we circulated. There were more names, but I marked off the names from outside Shawnee, which I appreciate that people were so concerned that they did want to sign our petition. I want to make this part of the public record. May I do so? We represent the people of Shawnee. Some of us went door to door to obtain those signatures. And just so you know, we will go door to door again come election time if this comes through. The people have spoken. We're not against development of this property, we want a right fit. We are against apartments on this property. An area that already has over 1300 units within a three mile radius. Although the proposed apartments look nice now, they won't forever. I am a mother of a 27 year old, 25 year old and 22 year old professionals. They're not going to live in this part of Shawnee. The fact is the City cannot guarantee that these apartments will not in the future become subsidized housing. The first priority of the City Councilmembers is to support the residents who already live here, pay taxes and have elected you. If Good Starts Here, prove it. Mayor Distler and Councilmembers, I implore you, don't sell us out.



MR. BRUMMIT: Good evening, Commission. My name is Mark Brummit. I live at (Address Omitted) near the proposed site. Not to rehash old business, but our friends that took us on a trip to Disney World about the project here were saying regarding traffic. I have a 1985 traffic study that was produced by -- they said something about 2050 trips daily. It was approximately the same size apartments. Their numbers are drastically off on that as far as that is concerned. And I live on Pflumm Road so I see it first-hand. I will also show you another shot here if it'll project through. I'm not sure if it's going to project real well, but you can obviously see these are police cars here. Major accident across from the proposed entrance of this project. The road that runs there is 61st Street. It's an unregulated intersection. No turn signal, no crosswalk for people. I watch people have to run across that every day and it's dangerous out there. I know the City's position is that it's a four-lane road. Without a turn lane into this project, when you're pulling in, you're going to go down Shawnee Mission Parkway, you're going to go to Pflumm. You're going to turn left. You're going to be backing up traffic and the whole one lane. And you've got 312 units, it's pretty unrealistic to think that there's not during peak time there's going to be problems out on this road. I happened to go door to door. I spoke with all the residents along 61st. The problem with traffic was right now. This is a real problem. It's just going to get worse and worse and worse if a high density project like this goes in. Those of us who live along Pflumm Road supported the retirement project simply because it was a good quality project. A lot less traffic in and out, something very conducive to this site where as this, you know, this model that we saw looked all great and everything if it truly becomes what they say; however, it would be much better access out near 435 or Shawnee Mission Parkway. There's plenty of open land available out there. You can see it advertised for sale. It's a big enough tract for it to all fit on and you're not going to have this issue of public safety. You're not going to have an issue of people walking down the road here. Okay. And, you know, Widmer, people are going to cut through that subdivision. That's why there's so many people here from Widmer. We knocked on their doors. They're going to cut through the division. They're going to go any way they can to get access to Shawnee Mission Parkway. That's why Lenexa does what they do and they do it well. They build them out on 435, easy in and out. Hey, my friends live in apartments. I have nothing against apartments. You know, my age group, you know, I'm a little older than a millennial, but, you know, bottom line is they're going to live out there. They're not going to want to live in where there's really nothing for them to do. They want to go up to the Legends. You're going to get easy access to the Legends if you're out on 435. That's, you know, the bottom line on that. Addressing a couple other key points here. Not to be, you know, I don't want to beat traffic to death. Do I just -- the question is when we sat through the zoning meeting their executive president presented four of them. And there is something about these facts getting confused. There was no confusion. We have the planning notes. You have the planning notes in your hands. Things were said and then we get a different, kind of a different version of that when their lawyer comes up. Why in the world would a lawyer speak instead of the executive vice president of a multi-billion dollar company that does this daily? He builds -- they build buildings. This is their business. They know that they're doing. Why would he not stand up here and talk to us and tell us about how great his projects are. Why do we have to hear it secondhand through their lawyer? That makes no sense to me. We do have big concerns about the developer because there's mixed information. That's not our fault. It's out there on the Internet. If you want to go check it out, everybody here is more than welcome to do it. This information is not, you know, it's not something we're making up. If we're looking at what do they do in Kansas, in the last meeting it was brought up about Woodland Park. It really wasn't addressed, but Woodland Park is one of their properties. Part of it is subsidized. It was not built, intended that way. People were promised a pool. I don't know if they were promised something that looked as pretty as a pool here, but that's looks fantastic. They never got a pool. Okay. So, what we're dealing with here is we're dealing with what-ifs. Okay. What if they can't get that rent? Okay. What if people choose, you know, hey, I got a thousand dollars, I can go into a house. I mean, there's plenty of houses out available in the market in Shawnee that you can either rent. If you get enough credit you can buy it. We didn't once hear anything about an application process or any vetting that they do of their residents. I'm really concerned about that because this is like in my backyard. In order to achieve the development numbers that they're showing us, all these numbers that they are -- they're a building machine. And you have understand that. They're like a big retailer. They're going to build it. And why did they come to Shawnee of all places? Because they like us so much? It's a template. They've got an open piece of property. They're in Omaha. They were near the developer. I ask the City, the Council, please support the residents. We went door to door. These are the people that vote for you. You know, you need to not sell us out and vote, you know, vote for the people here. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. And I will ask again as people come forward to try to not have repetitive comments and let's keep new information coming forward.

MS. WICKIZER: I am Dixie Wickizer. I live at (Address Omitted). Let me first start by saying that I purchased my home in Widmer Woods in June of 2015. I work for a multi-family property management company. I have been in the business for 16 years. I did my research to make sure that there were not going to be any apartments built where I was buying my home. Voila. Now, we have apartments. And I can honestly tell you that I would not have purchased my home knowing that there were apartments being built. It's the business that I'm in. I know it. I work it every day, I live it. But I also know people that are buying homes look for homes that are not surrounded by apartments, period. I live it every day. It's my job. So, that's the first thing I want to tell you. The second thing being in the business that I am in, I want to reference the Class A, which was said repeatedly, higher rents, which was said repeatedly, I have done five new construction developments for the company that I work for. I will tell you the high rents are a minimum of $200 below what the high rent apartments are going for. The interiors, we'll start with the interiors. The millennials that want the, you know, they want the simplistic life. They want granite. They want stainless. They want attached garages. They want concierge. They want resident events. They want -- attached garages is huge by the way. Just FYI. The baby boomers, this -- the baby boomers and development is something that's huge right now and that's kind of coming on. There is a need for it, but these are planned communities. Baby boomers are not just renting apartments. They want to be surrounded by their peers. They want to live in a quiet neighborhood still. They do want to be around shops, but they don't want to have a 27-year-old single guy with all of his buddies over on Sunday drinking beer at his apartment. That's not what they want to live next to. So, is there a need for the baby boomers? Yes, there is. But again, they're planned communities with very high-end interiors, attached garages, events planned around those of that age. So, I'm not denying the need for those things, but what they're proposing I would not consider Class A luxury. These units within the next five years will be any other B property that you could find in Johnson County. Unfortunately those properties are about 20 to 25 years old and this one is going to be five years old. That's one of the biggest misconceptions that I can offer you and what I do every day is that we don't -- these are vinyl wood plank flooring. This is not even Pergo. Black appliances, did you see the rendering? It's a standard coil burner. It's not even a ceramic cooktop. These are things that are expected every day in rentals. And the high end and the events and the services that you provide, these are things that renters are looking for. So, can someone come in and buy this as they've sold many of their other properties that they've developed. They can come in, they can buy it, they can do whatever they want. They can accept government assistance for rent. They can keep it the way that it is. But a lot of people don't turn down government subsidies because it's guaranteed rent. Crime goes up. And with density comes crime. You do have traffic issues. I mean, there's a lot of things that are going to go into this that are going to affect the neighborhood surrounding it. Oh, real quick. Water Crest, the density that's at 23, which is like four or five floors with elevators, it's an urban development. They're still having problems filling up by the way. We live in the Midwest. People don't like these urban developments. They like all the perks, but they don't like the let's build it really tall like we're in a big city. It doesn't work. It's not working in Lenexa. But they did as one of the other residents pointed out. Lenexa has a plan. They are putting their apartment complexes on the 435 corridor. They are putting it to where they're not in the middle of their neighborhoods.


MS. WICKIZER: Just my thoughts. Thank you very much.

MS. TROJNIAK: My name is April Trojniak and I am actually of the Y generation, so I feel like you might be a little attacked here to the gentleman that gave the PowerPoint. But, you know, like what you said about the Y generation, I honestly can agree with. When I go talk to my friends, what they're looking for, you know, is exactly right, there's convenience. There is, you know, they don't – aren’t looking for a lot of, but that's because they all live in downtown Kansas City or somewhere where they can walk to a lot of amenities. If I'm living there, I'm going to walk to Sonic and Hy-Vee. Friday's I think is over there. Like I'm, you know, my friends aren't going to go hang out there just FYI. I happen to live up the street, but I moved to Shawnee because I have two little kids and the school system is great. You know, when I moved into Shawnee just six months ago I found out that our schools are overcrowded and there is -- because, you know, there is so many -- 26 kids in my son's class to one teacher. I don't think that, you know, what's being heard as far as like we don't want apartment, we don't want apartments. I think the ideal location there something can happen. I think the challenge for the developer and whoever owns that land is to find something. I happen to be a young professional who happens to be an architect. So, just a couple like holes in your presentation that I deal with code every day, and it's always up for interpretation. So, when you say, you know, you have this range of 5 to 10.0 percent or, you know, whatever it was square footage, and you're one percent over, you know, I grew up watching the Price is Right and one is still over, you don't win. Wahont, whaa. So, the next line exactly was high density is 10.01, so it's still high density. You can twist it however you want. 10.01 was still high density and you're at 10.1. You know, and it says, yes, it says not to be construed as a maximum, but that's because that guideline is given as a range because that's what we'd like to keep it as. The City would like to keep it anywhere between five to ten as a guideline. No, it's not a max, but that's the ideal location. And you've heard a lot of these people that have lived here for years and years and years that they came to Shawnee, they built their house in that subdivision because that was the range of medium density. So, I think the challenge for you and, you know, being an architect myself I've done a lot of development. I've deal with developers and there's some that are open to different ideas and there are some that are out to make a buck. You want to be a part of the community and you want to be a part of Shawnee, but you've built a privacy gate all the way around it and made your nice little oasis. You're not connected to anything. You didn't look at the context around you. There's houses to the west of you. You know, there is retail to the south of you. So, I don't think that -- I think there can be a better solution than what was proposed. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. And I think even the older people, sorry, the mature people here that are not Y generation, you know, said they're not down on a development happening. I think it's just that there can be a better opportunity. There's a better solution there and there's a lot of precedence for it. It doesn't have to be a cookie cutter apartment building. It's funny that there was not one plan shown on that whole presentation of what 753 square feet of a one bedroom actually looks like. You know, that's downtown high rise living in Kansas City where my friends can walk to the Power & Light and do that kind of thing. And when they're ready to move out of that, they still want convenience. They still want to get on the highway because they work downtown or they still want to be able to get on the highway because they work at Cerner or they work at College Boulevard, you know, at Corporate Woods. They're about convenience. We're about go, go, go and convenience. And, you know, then you slowly ease into it because that's what I'm doing, of ownership and owning something. So, maybe a townhome. And, yes, I want it all. I want a garage and I want stainless steel and I want granite because I'm entitled because I'm a Y generation. But, you know, we didn't believe in working for it anymore. But that's just my input. So I don't think -- I think what's being heard, there's a lot of this, we hate it, we hate it, but I think there's actually -- the simple solution is that there is a better alternative there. I think that's your challenge, not the apartments. So anyway, that's all I got.



MAYOR DISTLER: The Council has requested a quick five-minute break, and then we'll get right back to you.
(Shawnee City Council Meeting in Recess from 10:01 p.m. to 10:07 p.m.)

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Let's reconvene the meeting, please. Whenever you're ready, ma'am. Thank you.

MS. LONGSTON: My name is Melissa Longston. I live at (Address Omitted). I just made sure this is correct. I believe this right here is 62nd Street. The flow right here and right here is where the traffic would be. There is a lady's house right here and I know Roger lives down there. There's a gentleman's house that's right here that kind of sits cattycorner, Gene, who just recently passed, and then I bought my property there as well. I purchased my property there because I wanted to live in Shawnee. They've got great entities. They've got great everything. I've heard nothing but great things about Shawnee. I had a choice to buy a house in Overland Park or Lenexa. I chose Shawnee. I just purchased this house January 2nd, and now I find out that it's going to be a retirement village. And I understand things go through. There's nothing you guys --

(Members in the audience clarifying it's not a retirement village any longer, but apartments.)

MS. LONGSTON: Well, it was going to be retirement, now it's going to be apartments. And I understand things fall through and I get that, and that's business. But we bought that house so that could be the last place we lived before the kids have to go pack us someplace else. For my grandkids to be able to play. Right now I have people who walk through my yard. I don't have a privacy fence. I have people that walk in between the land of my neighbor's and myself. I have kids who get off the school bus, they walk through my land as well. Who is not to say, and I understand it's going to be gated and they're looking for the higher end, the millennials and all that stuff. But who is not to say there's going to be kids, or even adults, I don't care who, are going to be walking through my property? And then I asked about where the compactor was. Originally I thought it was planned to be right over by myself, but like I said I moved here for a reason. I think Shawnee is a great city and that's why I planned it here. And now I'm wondering if I should get out and get away quickly. Thank you.


MR. GRIMM: Okay. My name is Brandon Grimm and I live at (Address Omitted). I live directly adjacent to the property in question and I grew up in the house next door and I've lived on the land practically my entire life. As for someone mentioned, you know, about zoning changes over the last 15 years, well, as of '04, my great-grandfather still owned that so there wasn't any talk of zoning changes at that time. So, as per apartments bringing in business and things like that, I'd like to point out the intersection at 75th and Quivira. Specifically, if you can see -- I don't know if you can see it. This monstrosity over here. There are plenty of apartments in the area and I guarantee you those substandard apartments were not built as substandard when they were built. The property is almost entirely vacant. I counted out of 44 slots today, five tenants. Not looking good. Yeah. If you could turn those. Sorry about that. This is a picture, you can't see it very well. I'm showing it because it actually shows one of the people who was hurt in an accident on Pflumm Road. The man in question is lying next to his motorcycle, and I get to witness this, so I thought you should get to witness it as well. I have heard -- I have seen three accidents and heard of five since the mid of October. So, don't tell me traffic is not a problem. I've lived there almost my entire life and this is the most amount of accidents I have ever seen. So, don't try to tell me that again. I had a few notes here I wanted to mention. The reason I live in Shawnee is precisely because it's not Overland Park, Lenexa, Kansas City, DeSoto, Olathe, you name it. I like Shawnee. But what I don't like are giant apartment buildings, especially what look to be possibly substandard. Let's see. All that talk about millennials. I'm a 29-year-old bank teller, violinist, aspiring to be a better community member. I don't want to live there. I am your demographic. Take a look at me. I don't want to live there. We heard everybody talk about the people they know, I'm standing here. I went to school with some of your kids. I went to school with one person on this board. You know, I'd like to also say we're talking about how people are harping on this. You know, harping, harping, harping, whatever. It's monotonous, the monotonous threat. Well, I'm sick and tired of the monotonous threat of people wanting this apartment complex. I don't like that threat. You know, am I to understand that that front page thing was paid for? If it is, it's called sponsored advertising, a sponsored content and that's advertising. And I for one am ashamed to live in a town that would allow that in their newspaper. You know, the traffic committees can be as smart as they want to, but it doesn't equate to actually living there. So, I'd like to say that practical experience I think proves greater than their traffic study does. Does the traffic study even take into account the extra traffic that will be coming from the retirement community that's being built on Johnson Drive between Pflumm and Rosehill? I'm not sure on that. Let's see. I think I had a couple of other things here. Oh, I'll tell you this. I'm not wasting your time, but I hope I'm not wasting mine. As for the outside being very important of this -- this complex, you know, they talk about the outside being very important. Well, my closing statement is you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.


MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MR. GRIMM: Thank you for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Please come forward.

MR. BENNET: Thank you. I'm Tim Bennet. I live at (Address Omitted). I moved to Shawnee about a year and a half ago for an apartment very much like this one because the options aren't out there everywhere. Shawnee is a great place to live and I like living here and I've gotten involved in our city and our volunteer teams. And I would love to see more young professionals like myself as a millennial living here and I think this apartment complex is a great way of bringing them here. Thank you for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.

MS. BUDENBENDER: Hello. I'm Grace Budenbender. I live at (Address Omitted). A couple of points. Some basically the same as what some of these people have said. I have a 29 year old, a 31 year old and a 33 year old and none of them want to live in this apartment complex. What we do have in Shawnee that seems to be the attraction of all of my kids' friends, the ones that have married that have children that are starting families, they absolutely love Shawnee. It's a great community that you can raise your kids in. The second point that I have is that we actually have our house up for sale. And there is not one real estate person that is going to come tell me or has told me that this is a bonus to have this in my backyard because this is going to raise my property value. Okay. Nobody is telling me that. The other thing that I'm hearing from almost every real estate person is that Broken Arrow is such a problem. It is such a problem already. Do not add to this. We have got to figure out how to make a great school great again. When my kids attended that school you couldn't hardly get in there. There were kids that were loving that school. There were great teachers. It was a school of excellence. And now to hear about it, it is just deteriorating. I mean, you cannot add more problems to an area that is already struggling to get a school going and make it functional for the children attending it. Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MS. HORST: My name is Susan Horst. I'm at (Address Omitted). I'd just like to talk a bit about the City services. I read where this location will help draw residents because it's within walking distance of the pool, walking distance of the library, the Civic Centre and many other things. And those of us that try to find a chair at the pool already know it's overcrowded and the library is overcrowded. And the Civic Centre open gym times a lot of times is overcrowded. And you can't tell me that 315 more apartments full of people trying to ride bikes or drive cars or go to our pool, because this pool on a scale of the drawing that I saw looks more like a hot tub than a pool, tell me that those kids are not going to go to our wonderful Shawnee pool instead of their small pool, and our library. I mean, our services are wonderful, but they're going to be very overcrowded I believe from traffic to the library, to the Civic Centre, to all of it. And so I've very concerned about our City services for those of us that enjoy them today. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MR. SMITH: My name is Wallace Smith. I am at (Address Omitted), so very near this space. In fact, this would be my back yard. I do have to say one thing. I'm a parent of Broken Arrow students, a student and alumni and am active in the PTA. And I do say that while we have some challenges that have been growing we are an awesome school. And I would say that our math leads have been crushing Raymarsh and Benninghoven by the way. But I am concerned about this being in my back yard and being the first thing I would see as I drink my morning coffee. And I'm concerned about especially the traffic of the back door of this space off of 62nd Street, which is not completely developed and it does -- there's some development work perhaps to be done, but it's nowhere near what the Cobblestone development offered. One was an openness to the Civic Centre and the park and a connection for the City and an enhancement of accessible space. This is a gated community that closes off in addition to the park. It's an enhancement for only those who are inside the property if it's an enhancement at all. The key word I kept seeing on both exterior and interior was veneer. Veneer stone, veneer countertops, veneer whatever. Veneer means fake. I'm sorry. It's fake. And this is -- while the Cobblestone was actually an exciting project and had multiple creative opportunities including some retail space, this is just apartments. This is not good for Shawnee where something Good Starts Here. So, we are the people who vote and we don't want it and it's clear. So, thank you for hearing me.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MR. NICHOLS: Hi. My name is Justin Nichols. I live at (Address Omitted) in Shawnee and I'm probably not going to be the most popular guy in the room here because I'm going to speak in favor of the project. This is an appropriate use for this land. The master plan is what you guys approve every year. The land use guide is what you guys approve every year. And according to those documents this is supposed to be multi-family. This is an appropriate use for this land. This is not an area that's supposed to be development single family. The property owners here have a choice on how they want to develop the land. Your job is not to take away that choice from them. Your job is not to have other people tell you how someone is supposed to develop their land. If it fits the land use guide your job is to approve. That's why the Planning Commission voted 8-2 to approve it. Shawnee needs a development like this. We are the only major city in this area not doing a multi-family project right now. This is a major development for the City. It's a development that has no incentives attached to it. We talk repeatedly. I work in the development field as a lot of you know. We have problems all the time with people wanting to come up here and ask for incentives. And you all have struggled with incentives all the time. This is not an incentive project. This is a project that all of the money that's going to go on the tax rolls. We're talking about something that's going to put, by my rough math it's going to put about $200,000 into the school district. It's going to put about $60,000 into the City every year. That's real money. That's something that is tangible. That's different than the projects that you all look at that have economic development impacts. And it's a typical project because they're not asking for incentives. How you vote on this is going to set the tone for future developments in this City. And if you think that it won't, you're fooling yourselves. This is the kind of project where again it's not an incentives project. If you don't approve the projects that come to you that are going to benefit the City, it's going to make it harder for people that are developers to consider the City because they're going to think they're up against it before they even walk in the door. We don't want that in our City. We need more rooftops in this City to sustain retail, especially in this area. We've been putting money, public and private, into the Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor and into downtown trying to increase the retail, trying to improve that area. And it's worked. We've got some really great -- we've got some really great stuff going on on Shawnee Mission Parkway from 10 Quivira down towards 435, the Johnny's, the re-skin that happened at Price Chopper at 10 Quivira, all of that has been really good. We need more of that sort of project. And this is the kind of thing that will help sustain that retail. We need that. I know that people have kind of scoffed at the idea of young professionals and retirees. All you have to do is look at the professional literature on this stuff, the people that actually do studies on this and don't rely on anecdotes. You'll see that the young professionals and retirees are saying this is what they want. This is the kind of project that we need. And people can, like I said, people can say whatever they want, but if you actually do research you find out that that's the truth. The project has 312 units. By my math about 144 of them are going to have a rent payment that is going to be at least equal to if not higher than a lot of people's mortgage payments on a 30-year mortgage. That's a good project. That's the kind of thing that when people choose to live there you're going to have people that could make the choice to live in a home and they're choosing to live in your community in this apartment. That's a good thing. Those are the people that you want.

(Unidentified speaker talking out of turn)

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Nichols, just a second, please. I ask that everyone respect every speaker that is coming up to this microphone. They have all respected you. I ask that you sit and listen quietly and give every speaker the respect that they deserve. Everyone has an opinion. This is a public meeting and I'm not going to tolerate otherwise. Thank you. You can start his time again.

MR. NICHOLS: The rhetoric around this issue doesn't reflect who we are as a city. It doesn't reflect who we want to be as a City. The voting against this for any other reason than because of the merits of the application itself and whether or not it's an appropriate use for this property is wrong. And anyone that votes on any other reason than the merits of the project should be ashamed of themselves. The bottom line on this is that you're making a decision that sets a tone for the future of this City. You all know what you should do. The question is what you're going to do. I've been a long-time supporter of our business community as many of you know. I work with our Chamber of Commerce. I talk to the business owners in this City. We need higher densities. We need more rooftops. This is a good project. Do not vote against this project because of fear or misinformation or bias or stereotypes or rhetoric. Do not rely on innuendo, look at facts. This is a good project. The people that are opposing this are good people. I believe that with all my heart and I know that they have the best intentions. But I think that they've been somewhere along the way somehow they've gotten some bad information. And I don't know what else to say about it, but this is a project that betters our City. It impacts our City in a good way and I would very strongly encourage you to pass this project. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.

MS. HEATH: Hi. My name is Stephanie Heath. I live (Address Omitted). I had done daycare for 12 years in home. Took the kids to the Bichelmeyer-Pflumm Park. It's a quiet neighborhood. We saved up for ten years to live in a home in a quiet community without apartments and that we love. We may move on to our third home, I know this irrelevant, but we want to stay in Shawnee. But it's kind of on the line due to this apartment. The traffic behind there, it's already high. With adding 300 some units, 600 parking, that's not what we want. I've walked around our neighborhood and asked them what they want. I asked are you for or opposed it. And I have signatures that I have given to this lady over here, Michelle. Melissa, I'm sorry. We're just opposed and we want you guys to be with us and for us. We're electing you in office to help us, to help us run the City and we need your support because we are not in favor of them coming in. We have rooftops coming in. There's Regan Place, there's 17 triplexes. If you look over by Target, they've only completed four of them. They're triplexes. We have places that we're approving, but we don't approve of this in our neighborhood. Thank you.

MR. LOGAN: Good evening, Mayor and Council people. Thank you for allowing me to take a few minutes of your time. I'm Leon Logan, (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. I'm here tonight, I'm the Chairman of the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Shawnee Chamber. The Shawnee Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Council promote job creation, business expansion as well as real estate development in Shawnee. The Shawnee Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports the proposed Vantage of Shawnee housing development. While additional site and zoning details must be deliberated by the City Council, this proposal still brings density and contemporaneous housing options to Shawnee. The proposed 312-unit Class A apartment development at 62nd Street and Pflumm will create the best of market living spaces for approximately 500 residents as it is currently proposed. As Shawnee makes substantial public and private commercial investments along Shawnee Mission Parkway and in downtown Shawnee, an influx of new consumers is needed to grow these Shawnee businesses, restaurants and other services that come with it. Business leaders have repeatedly identified the correlation between residential housing density and expanding retail shopping and sales as being an important factor in future growth. Vantage provides the needed density and the new patrons necessary for continued business growth. In addition, the Chamber recognizes the importance of attracting and retaining a skilled, educated and increasingly mobile workforce in our City. Surveys from recent years consistently show a preference among both young professionals and baby boomers looking to downsize for high quality mixed-use apartment options. Options to satisfy this preference have become the norm in communities throughout the metro area, but Shawnee lacks a new apartment option. The most current comparable apartment developments in Shawnee, that was built over 15 years ago. And it's vital that our community has the diverse vibrant housing options that our employers need and that their employees desire. The Chamber similarly supports expansion of our existing tax base where it's appropriate. This project is proposed without using the TIF district approved for this site. Development will create substantial additional revenues for the City, for the county, for the school district, and expand our existing tax base when it's complete. The Vantage at Shawnee development proposes to include high-end amenities in its walk-in closets, resort-style pool, cabanas, dog park, et cetera. That will help attract the young professionals and the retirees alike. Partnering with business leaders in City government, the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce shares the vision of a growing and vibrant community today and into the future. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MR. BINGHAM: Hi. Bing Bingham, (Address Omitted). I moved here from Lenexa back in August. I moved from Parkhurst development. My back yard was Renner. They built a five-story apartment complex similar to this one only it was called urban density for a reason. It had five stories. It had garages. It had granite. It had tile and hardwood floors. It was first class. From the pictures I've seen here that is not first class. The house I live in apparently is one of the five in a flood plain which I didn't know about and it rained really hard this last few days and three inches of rain, and I had a nice stream in my back yard, but I did not have a flood. And my neighbors who have been there several years have never seen a flood. So, I'm in a little doubt because I used to be in the insurance business and you had to be in a flood plain in order to be considered for certain insurance. It's not in the flood plain so I don't know where this notion that we have to do something downstream from a flood. Now we might when they put the roofs in for the apartment complex and they put all the asphalt down, that's going to cause a water runoff and that's probably the reason they've had to enlarge the little pond that's back there so that they would have an overflow. And then I might be in a flood plain because it's caused from their roofs. I am a baby boomer. I have many, many friends who are the same age I am. None of them want to live in an apartment, even the ones that were built over by me that are first rate and they have elevators. We want one floor where we can get around where we can walk. We want to be able to visit our grandkids. We want to be able to travel. I don't want to live in an apartment, as has been mentioned earlier, where there's a 27 year old having a beer party next door. That's not what people of my generation want. We grew up with single-family homes. We grew up with mom at home. We grew up going to our neighborhood schools. That's what I see in Shawnee. That's why I moved to this neighborhood. I was in people's houses the first week I lived here. I've met all my neighbors up and down the street. I've walked with their dogs. That's why I lived over here in Shawnee. This is a very nice area to live in. It's a community. I think when apartments go in in an area that's residential all the way around it, it's a mistake. And I know that we need development and I can understand that that's a nice piece of land. But I just wish that in respect to this whole project, has anyone looked at any of the Vantage properties? Do we know what they look like now? Has anybody been down to Texas? Has anybody looked at what they really have? I don't think you should make a decision till you know what their things look like now, what they've developed. I think you should not decide on this till you know what the outcome is. You're saying it looks great, it's on paper, what's my promise. You've got us saying one thing to the residents, you've got a developer saying another thing. And it may be that everything they've said is absolutely great, but what if it's not. What if it's what the research from other people what they've done. I have been at city council meetings in other cities. They would table or not take the vote till they had the hard evidence of what the projects looked like from these developers. Don't go to Omaha. Go to Texas and see what they built and what it looks like. He's got a diagram up here that says Vantage of Olathe. Is that the next place they're going to build this thing? He doesn't even have Shawnee on his model. You know, they misspelled words in their ads. It's just cookie cutter and throw it in here. Don't put it here in Shawnee. At least take a harder look at it. Thank you.


MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.

MR. BUDENBENDER: My name is Joe Budenbender. I live at (Address Omitted). My property backs up to this development. I've heard everybody, you know, speak their pieces and, you know, I'll give everybody, you know, A's for some of these things and they're talking about who's lying to who and what's going on. But I want to just point out one thing. The obvious is if you're going to have 312 units of millennials, whoever, everybody on the planet I know that is of driving age has a car. So, you're talking about 624 cars. And they're going to be making two trips a day, one to work and one home and maybe another one. So, that 200 and some trips is sugarcoating that. You know, you're looking at 600-plus trips a day out of there for your traffic. My wife said the things about the school and that's -- a lot of the feedback we're getting, we put our house up for sale right after this began and that's a huge issue. It's been a huge issue. My realtor is here. You guys can ask him. I know some of the people here. I went to school and got a degree in 2010 in public administration. I took a number of courses that address urban development and these urban areas where people can walk to school or work, whatever. That works fine on the east coast, the high density living areas on the west coast where there are subways, busses, all kinds of transportation. The Midwest is spread out. People want area and they don't want to be on top of each other. That's why I built my house in 1995 where I did. I have a large lot. I back right up to this thing here. I'm not in favor of a lot in there, but the last project was going to put 67 patio homes in there that were going to be owned by people. And I'm going to finish this off by saying that when I took a course on the impact of local and social resource management and urban policy and administration, the major input for getting jobs and for businesses in the city are commercial and professional and manufacturing facilities. We can get those, we have some, but there's some out there. The economy has made it hard I'll admit, and I'm going to give credit to the staff. I mean, you guys worked on this, I understand. But this is not a good fit in this area. Warehousing, the people want entertainment. They want theaters and they want -- the last thing they put out are residential homes with ownership. The people own these homes. They take care of them. They mow their yards. They keep the paint up. They do it because they own it and they have investment in it. I have investment in my home. Our area is quite frankly people are having to take far less money for their homes, and a lot of it has to do with this. I have a couple of people that have shown interest in my house, but they're waiting to see what happens here tonight. Anyway, I'm going to just leave you with the fact that our ward is against this. And we have elected you guys to give us -- to take care of our needs and our votes. And like I say, the rest of you all, there's a lot of people out here that are taking exception to this. And at, you know, at election is when we'll -- we pay back for whatever happens. So, we appreciate your time. And like I say you can sugarcoat a lot of things. And I'll give you guys credit, you got a big ad which was nice and you're paying an attorney to come explain all this stuff and try to right the things that maybe you said wrong. But, you know, we can't do that. And then the six people that wanted to get up there and show everything that we had going were limited to five minutes and we don't have time for that. So, I'm just going to leave you with that and I hope you do the right thing. This is a good thing in another spot. It's not a good thing right here on Pflumm Road and 61st Street. Thank you for your time.


MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.

MR. NACHBAR: I'm Greg Nachbar. I live at (Address Omitted). There is one thing I did agree with what the developer's speaker said that a look at the past is a prediction of the future. I'm paraphrasing that a little bit, but you kind of go with that Cottonwood Park, Shawnee Station, a couple of those apartment complexes. That'll kind of predict the future if you take on this new project. So, I think we know what that's brought to the area. We talked about the schools. We talked about the crime in the area. That's all part of it. Also I'm not surprised that the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce is for this project. We've had three tenants, recently the 10 Quivira Plaza. You know, Merriam is getting all kinds of stuff. Lenexa, Kansas City, Kansas. We've got to get something, but something is not this project. Let's do something, Chamber, to bring in some business. Now, talking the $400,000 tax incentive that the area is going to get. How much of that exactly is going to Shawnee? What's the additional cost for the traffic, the crime, the additional policing that we have to do of the areas? Can we take that all into consideration? One thing when this project was first proposed it was luxury, now it's quality. Where are we going now? What's next? You know, let's be smart here, Mayor, City Manager, City Councilmembers. This is not the project for this place. We're not against development of the area. We're just for a better project and this is not it. Thank you for your time and we expect you to vote the right way. Thank you.


MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please. Okay. If there is no further public input, I will ask if there is any discussion from the Council.

MR. BRUNING: If I may.


MR. BRUNING: Ken Bruning, (Address Omitted) in Pflumm Wood. I didn't come with a bunch of statistics tonight. I did a little research online talking about looking at property values, whether they're improved or diminished by the construction of apartment complexes. All of us here can take the time to look that up because you're going to have one university study that says it has no negative impact. Another university study will say that it does have a negative impact. What I'm here to address more than anything is about the character of Shawnee. I moved to Shawnee 11 years ago coming up from New Orleans and my wife and I looked all over the metropolitan area and we chose Shawnee because Shawnee has a character of being a warm, small town. Frankly, apartments don't lend to the feeling of a warm, small town. And particularly in the location that you've all chosen or that the developer has chosen. I'm not against apartments per se. But when you're going to put up 40-plus foot buildings right across the street from single family housing, these people are going to have to wake up every day, look out their front door and look at these huge monstrosities across the street. Plus add to that the fact that renters really don't have an investment in our community. Homeowners have an investment in our community. And that land I really believe would be better suited for development of single family housing. In real estate they like to say location, location, location. Well, this location really in my opinion doesn't suit the climate of the neighborhood. I don't think it reflects the best interest of the residents in that neighborhood. I know the money that will be generated from it for the City coffers is attractive, but let's maintain the culture of that part of our community. And lastly, in respect to the people that have all been standing out here voicing their concerns, I'd have to ask each and every one of you individually if you would be willing to vote for a 40-foot, multiple 40-plus foot dwellings, being apartment complexes, being constructed right across the street from your own homes. I think there are better locations in Shawnee for this and I don't think any of you would want them in your own neighborhood. Thank you.


MR. HENRY: Hi. My name is Eric Henry. I live at (Address Omitted). I won't take up the whole five minutes. I do want to challenge the developer's lawyer though. He said that this was the right site for the right project and he said it's the right developer. I can't speak to the developer, but I can speak to the site and the project. It's the wrong site for this project. I think this project is probably good for the City in another location. I look at Lenexa and I see 435 has got apartments all the way up it. I think that we should look at that type of development along our corridor. I think we have the land that we could do this with, but this is a residential area and I don't think it fits. I hope that you all will look at this and deny it. Thank you.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mayor, you said earlier you get two fives. I'm going to use one of my second five. One thing you don't know that this is room is full. Everybody knows that. But what you didn't see out in the hallway there were about 60 people in the chairs. They were all full. And everybody out there was against this. And the second, that's enough.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any other public input? Okay.

MR. CHALK: When does the clock start this time because I think last time it started earlier, but I'm not going to take five minutes. I want to speak of one other thing that I am constantly fighting with on City Council, and that's Widmer Road. The extension of Widmer Road from north, from 62nd Street down to the cul-de-sac. As stated, the proposed developer is not required to extend it. And there is a requirement though for them to set aside 30 feet of a right-of-way. This is supposed to accommodate additional development. Have you been on this road where this additional development can occur? I know of two members of this Council that have that. There is only the possibility of two lots that are on Mrs. Dudley's property that could be developed, but the cost of road improvement and utility construction negates that possibility. Drainage and terrain makes the rest of her property impractical for development. That's why the developer in 1976 did not do so with those lots. To develop anything on my property would have to be in the form of putting in caves because that's what the terrain looks like. Councilmembers, please do your work.


MAYOR DISTLER: Any further public input? Okay. And actually before I open it up to Council --

MR. FARMER: Pardon me. I'm John Farmer. I live at (Address Omitted). And I hear all the things that these people have been saying tonight and I agree with many of them. If everyone says if you were putting single dwelling houses in this area where each person owned his house and would take care of it for years, if you revisit apartment complexes years later you know what happens. Now, no one said anything about return revenue that you're going to receive in the City. And I think you should check out, have someone look at how much the property values will decline in the single dwellings around this complex so that you'll end up not in the long run not getting any more revenue than you would have gotten if you hadn't done this. So, thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. Before I open this up for Council discussion, I had a question for Mr. Peterson if that's okay.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, ma'am.

MAYOR DISTLER: And now I can't figure out which name it was that asked the question. The one that had the chart that showed like the property 2013 and then two years later it was sold or whatever. Now, is that from one of those other two silos that you were talking about earlier? It's not their development silo, but one of their other arms of their business, or what was that that we were looking at?

MR. PETERSON: I'm glad you asked the question. There's a handful of items that I felt were veering off into probably unintentional misinformation again, and that's one of them. So, Vantage is a product. It's like we said, products are repeated, you know, in different areas, and Vantage is one of those products. This developer has never developed a Vantage project. This is the first time. They have purchased the rights from Clermont who has developed approximately 20 of these products in Texas and some other places. So, anytime someone is going off and googling Vantage, and again, I don't blame them. This is what -- I'm setting the record straight under oath, on the record. This is the facts. This developer has never developed a Vantage project. So, this other developer, which frankly I don't have -- I don't really know much about
Clermont because it's not my client and they have -- they're not the developer and the owner of this project. They may have sold projects. That may be what others in the community are finding, but it would be -- it's absolutely wrong to make any connection between that developer building that product elsewhere and whether they flip or don't flip or whatever they do.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Answer the question.

MR. PETERSON: And that's not who's here. We are someone else doing the Vantage product and we have never flipped. That is on the record one hundred percent accurate.


MR. PETERSON: And, Mayor, if you want me to address a few of the public comments, or I can wait for Council to address.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You've already had your [inaudible] minutes.

MR. PETERSON: Because again, there's still some misrepresentation out there.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and for those making the comments about the time, Mr. Chaffee and Mr. Peterson were giving a presentation so that the Council and the people in this meeting could have an opportunity to see and understand the details of the project. They were not here as a part of public input. So, Council, do want Mr. Peterson to address now or do you want to have discussion first?


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Please go ahead.

MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Mayor. And again, I'm not going to go line by line from what everybody said, but I tried to do a good job of listening carefully and clumping into categories. And I'll start with the first category that I heard, the very first speaker of the night brought – the very first speaker of the night brought up and then I heard it resounding. I tried to lift a few quotes just to -- it's a very important concept here, so I'll read a few of them. Of course they're paraphrased, but I think you'll recognize them all. One, apartments of any kind do not fit on this site. This is not small town Shawnee. Renters do not invest in this City. And this is a paraphrase, but I know you'll recognize the sentiment. This does not belong in our back yards. If this was your back yard, Councilmen, would you like this project in your back yard. And all of those items fit within the bucket of concepts or comments that I tried to address on behalf of the developer in our presentation which is those are 50,000 feet. Those are just we don't like apartments. They don't drill -- any of those comments don't drill down to the specifics of the zoning application before you, don't take into consideration the medium density master plan and all that. So, frankly, those are not valuable to you because they don't get to the heart of what you as a deliberative body are supposed to consider. They're just high level we don't like apartments and not in my back yard. So, that's one -- a lot of the comments made, Mayor, fall into that category and, frankly, don't carry weight in a deliberative process under Kansas law for zoning.

But let's get to some of the more specific comments. I'm glad you brought up the next one on the list specifically it's so important to understand who the developer is. That's one of the biggest areas of misinformation that hopefully we tried to address in our opening presentation and then with the follow-up, Mayor, with you on what Vantage is. Hopefully that's crystal clear. Again, we are not Clermont who has developed the other 20 Vantage products. This is our first time to get the opportunity to do it. And again, we have never sold a project that we've built.

Next, there was a few comments that fell into the category of, you know, I think they were talking about -- these individuals were talking about the Vantage products when they talked about how they were being managed poorly. Again, that has nothing to do with us. It was interesting though, it's important to note without getting too far into the weeds, that the slide that was put up that talked about management companies doing a bad job, again, that's not us. But it made me wonder the source because some of you are in the industry and may recognize it. Gray Star, which was on there getting an F is one of the largest multi-family, well-respected property managers in the country. And I don't want to bring up other clients by name, but institutionally back some of the top multi-family developers in the country. They're developing tall buildings in Kansas City, Missouri, downtown and things like that use Gray Star and some of the others on that list. So, I just want to offer up to you I'm not prepared to go through each line. I just don't know what that source was and I would say it doesn't really carry any weight again because we manage our own projects. But it's scary when you see somebody putting F's on a piece of paper up on the screen, so I wanted to at least address it. It's just not -- it's not relevant to what's going on here with this project which we always manage ourselves. Also when you see things like, wow, this project is cockroaches and all these sorts of things. Again, not us. Those were I think some other developer and I can't speak to that. But keep in mind, you know when you go to a restaurant or you go to a hotel or whatever, you're looking up online and you look to see if there's any comments, again, they weren't talking about us as a manager or owner. But keep in mind that you can always find somebody complaining about something. And certainly if you have 300 units of triple Class A luxury sky rise apartments in downtown Chicago somebody is going to be upset that the plumber didn't come fast enough and put a bad review. So, I would say take it with a grain of salt when there is kind of platitude remarks about, again, it's not even us, but just that such and such multi-family developer or manager isn't doing a good job, that probably, although we couldn't see what the source was, it's somebody getting online and looking if somebody is complaining. It's just you'll get that in any industry anywhere. So, it really shouldn't carry any weight and certainly it doesn't apply here because it wasn't about us.

Ms. Robinson brought up something that really goes to the heart again here of who is going to rent this project. Actually she got to that, but she brought up an important point about rooftops. Really it was interesting, going against what I believe the Council has been pursing and believing as a whole, again, since I have been, you know, involved a lot with projects here in the last four years. She said, well, it's not really about rooftops and cited a study that said there's, what, 20 factors or something like that that are going to lead you to be able to get the commerce, the commercial, the retail. But again, I hear through you that the citizens are asking for. And she said rooftops really aren't on the list. I've never read that study before, but I stand before you telling you this is my industry, and especially with top-notch grocery anchor, top-notch retails, the very phrase that when we get rejected by committee, by retailers, what do they say. They say not enough rooftops. I hear it week in and week out. It's a fact. I live in that industry. But then she brought up almost to the exclusion of that we're not saying that, you know, higher incomes and education, she put those as key factors on the list. This isn't to the exclusion of. Remember there is almost this subtle implication that this project is a below-market rent or affordable housing or something like that. I'm not here to debate the merits of affordable housing today because I don't have -- that's not what we're doing. So, I'll take, you know, the premise that education and high incomes are helpful also to bring commerce and retail and all that. And again, when you look at our rents, and they're the highest, they'd be the highest in the City and they're comparable with a lot of the projects in the metro, certainly not all, right. You're going to get higher rents and probably even higher amenities in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. But we're not trying to be the very best in the entire region. We're trying to be great and this is a great project. So, the idea again that somehow we're missing the mark on leading to that ever important commercial and density and all that, simply it's a nice piece of paper on the screen, but when you drill down to the heart of it and the facts, again, it just doesn't carry the day.

The school was brought up, and I think it was Ms. Nachbar, and I apologize if I have the wrong speaker, but brought up Broken Arrow. And the implication there, boiling it down, and there was a couple other speakers that brought this up that Broken Arrow will suffer if this project is approved. And I have to be honest on this, respectfully, calmly, I say I don't get it. I'm not following. I don't understand. I don't know translating what's that's -- what are those statements really meaning? I'm going to do my best. So, apartment dwellers at the highest rent project in town, at a Class A project, you can see it with your own eyes, that somehow kids of parents, or a parent or whoever it is, in this sort of project are somehow going to hurt Broken Arrow school. I don't know if there's a deeper message there. I'm not understanding it. But it's been said a number of times and we absolutely disagree with that premise there. We just don't get it. It's not true. I don't know why those kids are any different than the, you know, other kids in single-family homes around there. Again, this is almost a subtle mischaracterization of the project.

We then get to -- there's only a couple more, Mayor, a couple general categories of comments here. One is there is an implication that the citizens understand better. It's almost a low view of Shawnee. And again, that's my perception. I could be totally wrong, but you hear people saying, well, people aren't going to come here. People aren't going to come to your project. It's Shawnee. This developer wants to invest $35 million in this project and absolutely believes in Shawnee. They have market studies. They've been here. And they want to come do that. And I hear this, again, it's kind of a subtle, well, no. Not us. Young people won't come here. Boomers won't want to live in this project. And all I have to say is these folks have done this, you know, thousands and thousands of units and they've never had a bankruptcy and they've never had a failed project. I truly believe their past predicts their future success and they believe in Shawnee, so I'd hope that you can too and help them to make this investment of $35 million.

Remember when I said that on interior, I mean, we don't even usually talk about interior finish. I've never been actually -- never is a little strong. Almost never in the history of a zoning file have I ever been before a governing body talking at all about interior finish. Again, we're okay talking about interior finish. But what's interesting is the conversation when it comes to everybody trying to define what Class A is and, you know, what quality is, I told you because I just felt it was going to come that somebody is going to pick out a few things that they don't like about this project and then say it's low quality. Well, of course, you're always going to be able to look to a project and find something that it -- whatever. I'm making this up, but it doesn't have textured ceilings, it has a different type of ceiling. It doesn't have a ceiling fan that you can control. I mean, you can always come up with things. And when you really look at the big picture, I'm not going to go through every single amenity, and you get out whatever the, you know, our informational piece in the Dispatch or what we talked about today and you look through all the amenities, this is a quality project. Can somebody stand up and point out that it doesn't have this or that? Of course. But there's attention, right. Because you can't also charge above market rent. You bring in a quality project that you know, that this company knows is going to work and that's what you end up with, a very, very nice project. Sure. You could pick out a few more amenities, but you'd have to give up something else, right? You can only reach a certain investment in the project before it doesn't pencil. Quality, quality, regardless if somebody says it's missing, you know, some nit or nat in the interior finish.

Traffic. All I would say on traffic because there's been a lot of pictures shown. There's been a lot of first-hand eyewitness accounts that there is horrible traffic on Pflumm. And, Mayor, all I would say is don't even listen to me, listen to your own City's professional staff. This is why obviously they're paid to advise the City. They have reviewed third-party professional studies. They know how the roads are designed. There's going to be accidents on any road. I'm not surprised. You could pick any road and take a picture in a year and you're going to find an accident. But, please, don't listen to me, listen to your professional staff and understand that these roads were built for this. And, in fact, a project that was improved that would have put a lot more volume onto this road infrastructure. This is actually, you know, a very, very large reduction in that. So, things like bringing up there's 600 trips, you can't talk, and this is platitudes again. You have to listen to the professionals. They talk in peak flows and they know this road infrastructure will perform, which is why your professional staff is recommending it.

So, I think where I'd stop is just here. This is a turning point, Mayor. I firmly believe it. And again, these are opinions, right? You can freely disagree with me and I'm sure there are people in the room that disagree. But I will define this as a crossroads and a turning point for this city. It's nothing short of that. There has been 15 years since we've had a multi-family project. We've talked about the demographics and the studies that show you have to have this loop. You have to provide the various levels of accommodation in your city or it becomes unhealthy economically. You have a top-notch developer. A top-notch developer. We've set the record straight. I'm under oath. I have a reputation here. We're giving you the absolute facts, not googling online, with good intentions. We've given you the facts about this developer. Top-notch. They're ready to go. They have their financing. They want to start this in the spring. If this gets turned down, I don't know, what does it signal I'd rhetorically ask. What does it signal to the development community when there is a piece of dirt that was intended by the City in the master plan for this purpose with a developer that has a top-notch product, the best in the City, and at the end of the day they're turned down. So, Mayor, I'd ask you please, everyone has a right to speak. Everyone has a right to talk about how they don't want something in their back yard. But we have to go from 35,000 feet down to the fine details and weigh this out for the overall City vision for where we want to head and allow this property owner to be -- to make this investment in the City. Thank you. Open to questions now or later.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. Now, we will have Council discussion. And members of the -- public input is done now, so now we're opening it up to the Council for discussion. Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Thank you. I actually have a couple of questions for Planning Director Chaffee if you don't mind. The first one is I'm curious about the initial master plan for the City. Mainly I'm looking at how long has the piece of property that we're looking at now been zoned multi-family and commercial?

MR. CHAFFEE: The City's Comprehensive Plan in 1987 indicated that a majority of the property be developed in a medium density residential manner. Upon approval of the TIF plan for the original Cobblestone, the corner was indicated for a higher type density office/retail type of development.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, and I know from the Cobblestone that that is the case. I'm looking at more how long, I know we've kind of kicked around 1987 as kind of when we're looking back at previous plans from every year that this property has been zoned with the intent to fill it with multi-family or commercial since 1987, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: You're correct.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. One other question, unrelated. I understand that there are a number of duplexes which are multi-family I would say, but single, in the area. Do you know how many duplexes surround this development or the proposed development?

MR. CHAFFEE: Let me go from Rosehill to the homes on the west side of Albervan, which is about the same length from Pflumm Road going east and west and from Johnson Drive to Shawnee Mission Parkway, there are 80 duplex buildings which would be 160 residential units.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, land that has been zoned for exactly this purpose since 1987 that already has at least 160 duplexes almost immediately surrounding it. Thank you, Paul. I would just make a general comment based upon that. You know, I was on the Planning Commission for a number of years as well and I think what it is the role of this Council is to look at the intent. It is zoned multi-family. It is actually partially zoned commercial which is a higher density than what they are proposing. And if you look at every single piece of this guideline, they meet those expectations. Yeah. I think we've kicked around a lot of conversation about property rights tonight, and I think you're absolutely right. This is a property rights issue because the people who own that land and bought that land intending to use it as prescribed to be used have the same rights to do with their land as we would. And I think we've gotten so into the weeds with what we should or shouldn't do with business, I would not ever want someone to come in and tell me what I can do with my business. I don't think any of us would feel that way either and now we're quibbling and saying they have a typo, oh, nobody is going to want to move here. That's not our role to decide whether they make a business decision. It's our role to determine what fits within the guidelines of the City. And in my opinion this clearly does.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your role is to uphold the will of the people.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Ms. Meyer.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. That is correct. You're voted in. Your job is --

MAYOR DISTLER: If we're going to be disruptive from the audience, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the room. The Council is having their discussion on this vote. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, in follow-up to the comments I just heard we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all if this property that they're proposing fit the zoning requirements. We're talking about a zoning change in order to fit this. That's what this is all about. There asking -- requesting to change zoning. So, it doesn't meet everything. Yes, it meets the master plan, but, you know, we work with the master plan. I was on the Planning Commission for over 20 years, so I have a little bit of knowledge in that area myself. Okay. And the bottom line is that master plan we constantly updated to try to reflect what the zonings are and so on. We changed zoning a number of times to fit the master plan better. This wasn't changed. It still needs to be changed in order to accommodate this development. Now, I disagree with the idea that high density in-fill projects are a good thing. These neighborhoods are mature. People have the right to have the living climate they moved here for. As a good case in point I've been to several of the Meet the Mayor Thursdays. Each time Mayor Distler asks that each person introduce themselves and say what they like about Shawnee. Over and over you hear about how they like the small town atmosphere and the comfort they find in their neighborhoods. I believe the City of Shawnee did a good in zoning when they zoned this land. Competent planners did not foresee this high of a density for this area. Often the City requires transitional densities of development as you go from single-family residential to higher density development and we're certainly not doing that here. We're going from residential, bam, right into the high density apartment buildings. There is no buffer in between. There is no quadplexes or duplexes or some kind of transitional zone which is going to buffer these people from that sort of development. Now, I'm not saying this developer has planned or proposed a bad development. I think it's a good project. It's just in the wrong place. I agree with that, what people are saying.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It's a great project in the wrong place. And I really kind of don't like to hear aspersions cast upon that because it's not really appropriate. The bottom line is it doesn't belong there. It just doesn't belong there. Finally, this Governing Body represents the people of Shawnee and that's you.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: As a representative elected by the people of Ward II, I have a moral and an ethical obligation to hear those people and what they have asked me to do. And I have to represent them and use all of my power that I have to ensure that my constituents are well represented and their community stays theirs. And that's all I have to say about this, gentlemen.




COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I'd like to go ahead and start off by thanking everybody who is here for giving their input. I think we're all very passionate about our community and that's been shown tonight, regardless of which side we're on. And also I'd like to acknowledge that there's many people who couldn't be heard tonight as well due to jobs, families, and you know, taking their points into consideration as well.

Me personally I've heard people both reach out to me for and against this project, by e-mail and by phone. And, you know, one thing that I want to highlight. I'm 30 years old, so I fit the profile of a millennial. I think I'm the youngest person on this Governing Body and I also work with a lot of millennials as well. I work for a technology company with over 400 employees in the area, so I understand the concern, the residential concerns. I will remind the Governing Body that we a have responsibility to making decisions that are the best for the entire city, for the neighborhoods around the project, but as well as the City as a whole and our growth and development. One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Peterson earlier, he had mentioned the housing stock and the percentage. In Shawnee, 24 percent of our housing stock is apartments. And Overland Park, as he mentioned, that's 38 percent. I took the liberty of contacting the City Manager of Lenexa to get an idea of what their percentage is, and it's 31 percent. So, the idea that we have too many apartments is just not true based on the surrounding areas, number one. So, that's something to take into consideration when we make statements that we have too many apartments already in Shawnee. I happen to live down the street from Tuckaway. In fact, it's on my jogging trail. I do live in a home that I purchased in Shawnee. I've lived here 12 years. I know that when I first moved here I looked at Tuckaway as an option. They had a waiting list at the time and there was no way that I was going to be able to get in at time. I've called them recently. They continue to have a waiting list. That tells me that there is a market demand for high quality apartments within the City and that demand is not being met by just a couple of apartment complexes number one. Number two, having worked with a lot of millennials, it's not a question of affluence or being able to necessarily be able to afford a single residential home, it's a matter of desire and want. I work with many people who want maintenance provided communities. They have the salary level to be able to afford homes throughout the City as well as Johnson County, but out of choice they would prefer maintenance provided living. Some of them travel and are on the road and so they don't have the time for upkeep. And others are involved in a number of things and just don't, and do not want a home. So, I think it's a misnomer to say that everybody aspires to single-family residential. That's a trend that we've seen changing within the last 20 years really. And I work with many people, only a couple of whom live in Shawnee within that 20 to 30 demographic. Many of them live in Crossroads. Many of them live in the downtown urban core of Kansas City. Others live in apartments in Leawood, Prairie Village and Lenexa. And the answer I get time and time again is that there aren't apartments, quality apartments in Shawnee that they want to move to. There isn't a space for them here. Several of them would love to live here because they work either along the Johnson Drive corridor or the Shawnee Mission corridor or they live just a little bit further south and the office developments out there. So, I think it's -- we would have young people that would move here because not all of them work in downtown Kansas City. Several of them work here in Johnson County and they want to be close to where they work. But if we don't have the opportunities for them to do that, they will move further out, which many of them have done. It's a known fact that we have a growing high growth industry within Kansas City, particularly with Google fiber coming here and the startup community. We have thriving bioscience industry. We have a thriving tech industry, information services, logistics, transportation. We see what Cerner is doing just north of here. We see what's happening in southern Johnson County. So, the question is there is going to be housing demand and need. Many of those people will go to communities where that demand and that need is being met. And another thing that was mentioned too is that a lot of the growth is primarily along the 435 corridor or highways. I think we shouldn't neglect to mention that Lenexa is redeveloping their entire city center around that area, 435, where those apartment complexes are going. They're moving city hall. They want to move their library out there. There is going to be a fitness center. They're making it into a walkable community. That is going to be the center of Lenexa ten years from now. There is no question about that. That's been part of their plan. Similarly, I consulted work in downtown Overland Park, they have two new developments that are going up there. The View, a 216-unit development, 10,000 square feet, as well as Market Lofts that are going. Those are both going around 80th and Marty area. Both of those projects are being funded as a CID district with an added one-cent sales tax which this developer has asked for no incentives. So, just another point to illustrate that there is inner-development happening, so it's not just when it comes to apartment complexes and condos, it's not just along highways. But you see this trend towards city centers. And many of those suburbs in Johnson County, in particular, providing these options. Both Overland Park and Lenexa have those at various places. So, and I would say too, I know a lot has been brought up about the 1985 denial of an apartment complex then. I would just, you know, cautiously suggest that communities change over time. 1985 was the last time the Royals won the World Series before this year. That was also the year that I was born. It was before my family actually moved to this county. In 1985, Shawnee had just a little bit over 30,000 residents. I think it was 32,000. We've more than doubled in growth. We're up to 65,000 residents as of last census. So, our community has grown. And as communities grow you have change in demographics, you have different work patterns and you have different industries and companies come in as well. So, just something to be cognizant of as far as that goes. You know, and I would also add, too, that for all the talk about apartment complexes and about those people, because they don't have ownership, not necessarily being part of the community. My parents moved here and they did not purchase a home right away in Johnson County because they could not afford a home. They moved into an apartment complex. They moved into one in Lenexa. They were looking for a suitable and adequate apartment and that's where they found one in the metro. And so they lived there until -- and so I spent most of my childhood there until they could afford and save up for a house. They didn't want to have to finance a lot of it. They saved and spent as they made. And so when they were able to afford and put more than enough for the down payment to where they could buy most of the house, that's when we moved into a home. So, I would not be here and I would not be part of the community that I'm a part of if it wasn't for that decision to move to Johnson County and to move to an apartment complex. And so I've grown up here my entire life. Been a member of the community. A Shawnee Mission Northwest graduate. A-plus honor roll student. And the opportunities that were afforded to me was because of the community and the options that we had here.

But the last thing I would leave with is that I work with a couple of people right now, I have somebody I know who lives in Shawnee that's thinking about moving to a loft in downtown. Hasn't decided yet, but they want that smaller more minimalistic space. Again, there really weren't -- aren't a lot of options. And I think valid points have definitely been made about some of the apartment complexes that we already have in the City. And I think we can look back to prior approvals that were made on different complexes and agree that there were probably decisions made as far as growth that probably could have been made in a much better fashion. But I think that we also have to look to the future. And I have one person that I know of who lives in a single-family home right now who is looking to downsize and they don't know -- he doesn't know where he's going to move right now. He's a neighbor. I've talked to him and he's looking at -- he's looking at downtown, but he's also looking at Leawood and he's also looking at Prairie Fire over in southern Overland Park. So, I ask that you keep everybody in mind, too, and keep those people in mind who want to be part of our community and haven't had that opportunity yet. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. I was on a housing task force ten years ago in the county. And the county had -- their staff saw this coming of the need for the housing. And we worked for quite some time trying to put together a plan that all the different cities could work through. Overland Park, Lenexa and several other cities jumped on this plan and they built several of these units that are like what this particular unit is. This is what's bringing it out in the community. This is -- they have waiting lists on these. I have a daughter that just got a divorce. She lived with us for a year. She has four children. She wanted to get out on her own. She just did. She's been looking around Shawnee. There's two available or places that she would even live in and it would have been Tuckaway or Greens of Shawnee. There's waiting lists for eight months. Any of the other units around here, and I don't want to say bad about them, but the insurance rates are higher because there's more crime in them. This particular unit I had to get wrapped around because I wasn't sure about it and I don't like apartments anyway. My daughter cannot live in Shawnee because there isn't anything available. You know, there is a need for this. You know, she's paying $1,700 a month rent for a 35-year-old apartment at 95th and Mission. You know, this would be a better deal for her. And that's to some opinions. I've done some research on this. I've checked into it a lot. And if I didn't believe in this, I was totally against it up until about a week ago. I was not even considering it until I got into the nuts and bolts of this to find out the income levels of the people that would be able to afford this. And it's not a low income housing. You know, you guys can think it is all you want. And you can think that, you know, you're going to put criminals in some place that they have to have a card to get out of. They can't get out of there fast enough. You know, come on. We have Tuckaway that has a gated community right down by me. Tuckaway has been, what, crime free, is that true?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Basically crime free.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. So, I was against Prairie Lakes which is right by my house. And we were sold a bill of goods on Prairie Lakes and I was against it. I was on the Planning Commission and the people came up and asked us to vote for it. I didn't want to vote for it. It's right in my back yard for say. But there's been people shot and killed there. People drown in the pool or in the lake there. It's been -- it's a crime area. It has not affected the value of my house or the houses around me. They're selling as fast as they go on the market. So, for people to come up and say all of this when I already know the difference, you know, people are talking about the values of the houses. We have the values of the houses that are around the Prairie Lakes ordeal and it's a subsidized, low-income, rental unit. And the property values have done nothing but go up from -- and that's proved by sales and by the county. You know, so it's very hard to turn something down when you've done some research on it and you really believe the City needs it. And most of the people you'll talk to in this City are going to tell you, yes, we need something. There's no question about it, we need it. And now, you know, this is what's in front of us at this time. You know, as of like that was said, since 1987 there hasn't been anything to be able to put on -- they couldn't -- nobody could afford to address the issues on the property and build a project. There was too much property involved. We have an issue on the table. He has the financing. How do we know another is going to come? I mean, if any of you people owned property and you came to the City Council with a project like this and you really felt in your heart that it was a good project and you come up here and we tell you, hey, we don't think you want to -- we want that there right now. Why don't you just keep paying taxes on that property and we'll let you know down the road. You know, that's just not fair to it. And, you know, you guys can sit back and say whatever you want, but if it was your own property you would look at this 100 percent differently than what you are. You know, that's the way it is. I mean, as been told many times before, if people do not want property to be developed, they need to buy it. You know, so this particular ordeal I was against until I got into the nuts and bolts of it and I got -- and it's not what I was told it was and it's not the way it was represented to me.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry. First of all, I want to thank Vantage for bringing their project to Shawnee. I mean, there's a lot of great comments of both sides. And the big deal here is that the project does not fit our zoning, otherwise we wouldn't be having this vote. We'd be on to the next steps. So, I mean, I don't see how with the public outcry on this project, and they all had some great, great things. And I hope you didn't offend any of them when you came back on them because they brought some real experts in. They did their research. I want to commend you guys for doing a great job. I mean, there's nothing I don't believe. And then, you know, some of this stuff that was presented, you know, came across as, you know, you just didn't get off on the right foot. If you want to do a job, like Mr. Sandifer said, in the community, I mean, there is a give and take there. Okay. So, I was kind of under the impression when you guys had some more time that you were going to address some of those concerns that those people had. And it wasn't addressed in the concerns, it was addressing the comments that were made at the meeting. There was no changes made. Okay. So, really I think the people did a helluva job putting all their information together. And, I mean, there's just no way that this project fits on that piece of property. So, I mean, that's where I'm at.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, here we go. I'll be honest with you, you know, when this first project came about I wasn't -- I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm Ward III. I drive -- I'm a driver for economic development. I always have been. And when I first heard some of the comments by the Planning Commission, yeah, I had my reservations and that's why I think the developer realized that some information was getting misconstrued and got us the correct information. There's been some talks on subsidized housing. I'm going to say right now that's a non-issue, it's not going to happen. You can't spend $34 million today with no incentives and subsidize a project and get a return. You're going to lose money. You're going to go bankrupt. Something was said about, look at the projects that were built and look how they look today. There were certain projects, some of the last ones built in Shawnee that were built specifically Section 42 projects that did become subsidized, and that was probably the developer's intent from the beginning and that's why they were Section 42, which is tax credit projects. And that's how they ended up as subsidized projects. We have a project here that is no incentives. And the last project Cobblestone that everybody supports we got our butts kicked by a lot of people because we approving $11 million in incentives. And people said how could you do that, how dare you do that. So, now we're looking at a project that does fit within the zoning. The Planning Commission approved it 8-2. It's in the master plan that was put in in 1987. So, I understand that people built their houses there. Some of the houses were there about the same time, built before that, but a lot of the newer, nicer houses were built since 1987. No different than I bought my house -- I built my house off of K-7 in Crimson Ridge and, you know, I'm a few hundred yards from railroad tracks. And there is people that have built in my neighborhood that didn't know there was railroad tracks there and then all of a sudden we're upset because, well, I hear a train. Did you look at the railroad tracks and realize that you're 200-300 yards from tracks. That's just -- you've got to do your homework. And when you build a house next to a field you need to go into city hall and you need to say what's the master plan on this field. That's just how it is. That's why we master plan, so people can make decisions in the future. Do you all want to build next to a field that's master planned multi-family? Because there's a chance that's what's going to get built. And there's no guarantee it's going to be something that you necessarily want.

Let's talk about the some of the apartments when we talking about them looking bad. Nieman Square. Every one of these I've talked about is older than 15 years. Nieman Square Apartments was behind Color Tile. 7.46 acres, 152 units. They've got a nine-month waiting list. Their apartments start at $785 a month for a one bedroom. Extremely popular with working professionals because of their access to both highways. They have no subsidy vouchers accepted. It appraises for $11.2 million, $155,000 tax benefit to Johnson County, $31,640 tax benefit to Shawnee. Pinegate West, 20.4 acres, 286 units. They essentially run at a hundred percent. Usually they'll say 98 percent because you always have the one that becomes empty. You've got a two or three-month period of turnaround. But they essentially look at themselves as a hundred percent full. Starting in the 700s, no vouchers, appraised at 19.9 million, $276,000 benefit to Johnson County, $56,000 benefit to Shawnee. Hampton Woods. I lived in Hampton Woods when I was 19 years old. I was one of the first people. In fact, I was the first one in my unit. Thirty-nine acres essentially, 344 units. They run 96 percent plus full, 700, they start in the mid-700s. No vouchers, $19.2 million appraisal, $268,000 benefit to the community -- to Johnson County, $54,000 to Shawnee. Tuckaway, 22.7 acres, 263 units, 8 -- they start at 825 for one bedroom up to almost $1,000 for two bedroom, hundred percent full, small waiting list, no vouchers. Appraised at $25 million, $349,000 taxes to Johnson County, $71,800 to Shawnee.

Interesting thing. I got to talking to the manager who has been there since day one, the manager and the maintenance guy at Tuckaway, been there since the day they were built. Average demographic that they're getting coming into their apartment, 40-year-old professionals, 40-year-old professionals. So, what we're saying is we don't want 40-year-old professionals in Shawnee. That's not the demographic we're looking for. That's what I'm hearing people say because basically what essentially is presented to us is a project very similar to Tuckaway, 40-year-old professionals which describes some of the people sitting at this table. The other thing that he said that they're seeing in the last few years is they're filling up with people that have sold their home and have not identified a home to purchase. And he said that's the biggest growth area they have right now. So, there's a lot of people out there because of this market we have, we have a high market and they sell their home and they're not able to go and purchase something they want or find what they want, so they're renting an apartment. He says what's interesting though is a lot of these people sign a six-month lease and some are there three years later because they go, you know, I kind of enjoy having the lawn mowed for me and having the amenities. So, this is from a guy that's been at that property since day one who says this is a big growth. This is an area of growth for them. People selling their houses and moving into an apartment waiting for that next house to come up. Now, do we want them to move into an apartment in Lenexa or Overland Park or Olathe and then take the chance of that house they buy? Once you get connected to an area and you like the amenities all of a sudden you're buying a house in that area and we lose that person. I'm not sure we'd want that.

Every one of those projects are still attractive projects. They're vibrant projects. They're not collecting vouchers. They were built market rate. They're still market rate. When a project is built market rate and is built in a quality area it stays that way. And I believe that's what is being presented to us.

Just to throw in another one just to give you an idea, which is totally off the radar from the market rate apartments, one of Shawnee's more vocal residents, Ray, lives in Carlisle Apartments. 23 acres, 436 units. That's appraised at $18 million. That's got $258,000 to the tax rolls and $51,000 to Shawnee. And that's I believe they probably have -- take vouchers in those apartments. So, some interesting facts. People talk about Cottonwood Apartments. Keep in mind Cottonwood was built in 1973. 1973. That's an old apartment. That's nothing that was built new. That's not like we approved this thing here recently. It was built in '73. That's an old, old apartment complex.

I've heard a few times that this is a residential community. Apartments shouldn't be allowed as though apartments aren't residential. It's residential. It's taxed residential. Your assessed value is residential, not commercial. It's 11.5 percent, same as your house when you're assessed. So, it's, you know, to say that this is a residential community or a residential area, we don't want apartments, well, that's residential. I mean, not everybody can afford to build a house or buy a house. And like we've heard, and I'm in commercial real estate, I've done plenty of research and I see plenty of material. That is a huge growing trend. The millennials and the younger professionals, they don't want to buy. They watched their parents get burned on their house. They watch the market crash. They are very apprehensive of dropping that 10-20 percent down payment on a house and hope it all works out. Many of them stay in their job for a couple of years and want to move. The days of having a 30-year career with the company, that just doesn't happen. So, they want to be a little bit more flexible. That might change down the road, but this is what we're dealing with right now. And I think it's going to probably -- it's kind of how the business community is working now. People work on projects for a couple years and then they move on and people come and go. But, you know, they have expendable income and they want a place to spend it.

When we talk about building on the highway the reality is go find a piece of land on 435 you can build an apartment in Shawnee. There isn't one. Number one, at Johnson Drive you have a landfill at 47th and Holliday Drive, between that you have a landfill and nobody is going to build an apartment complex near a landfill. And there's not a flat piece of ground. The only flat, in fact it's not even flat, but the only piece of ground that really makes sense is the Hodgkin property. We passed a TIF four years ago on it and we haven't had a single looker on it. And you couldn’t build an apartment complex on it because access is so difficult you couldn't get to it, so even if you built it nobody would be able to find it or access it unless millions of dollars are spent with some kind of exit on and off for 435. So, yeah, we can say go build them on the highway. Go find a piece of ground on 435. There's nothing flat or exists right now that you could build or on the market that you could build an apartment complex like this. So, then the next thing is we go out to K-7. Well, the reality is, is the Greens at K-7, they haven't built their -- they own the piece of ground to build Phase 2. They haven't done it because they don't run a hundred percent because K-7 is that far out. So, they have good residents, but they're not getting the millennials. What they get out there believe or not is a lot of divorced people that end up in there with their children and whatever because you have this giant residential community and they want to stay close in the school district, so you have a high percentage of that. And, yes, you have working professionals in there, but it's not attracting the millennials out there because it's on K-7. That's where I live. It's far out there. So, you know, will that come, yeah. Do we want to ten years to see another one get built? I don't think so. I think we're going to miss our window of opportunity.

It's been said that these by someone who works in the apartment industry that these are below rents, these aren't. When you look at their starting rents this is right in there with everything competitive, if not higher than a lot of the market rate apartment are. So, I don't know where that's coming from. But it's just not true.

Some of the other things I hear from people in Shawnee is employees. They have a hard time hiring people. You know, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Johnson County in Shawnee. Well, there's a lot of employers that that's tough on them. Whether it's the retail industry or warehousing, whatever it is, they have a difficult time hiring anybody from the local community, mostly because we don't have the product. We're at the 20-something percent versus these other communities at 30-some percent of that age bracket, which would supply that workforce. And we're not supplying the workforce. You know, I grew up in -- actually I spent my high school -- junior and high school years in Wyandotte County. When I turned 18 years -- 19 years old I moved out of my parents' house. Everybody said how come you didn't stay in Wyandotte County. Wyandotte County hadn't built an apartment complex in years. They finally built one, a new one, Village West Apartments, or I think -- whatever they're called, out there on 110th Street, just this last couple of years. But for years they had not had an apartment product. That was a major detriment for them. And when you look at the Village West development with all the restaurants and everything they had one of the biggest problems those retailers faced was A, we have a hard time getting employees, and B, we need a mass of people here to feed this animal. It's working, but there's not enough rooftops and they need the rooftops and that's what's coming.

I love hearing the sentiment that if it's not owned it's not kept up. I see a lot of home ownership where the grass is 12 inches tall, the shutters are falling off, broken windows, un-maintained, unkempt, unpainted houses. When you look at apartment complexes they're typically maintained by, and I'm not saying people in this room houses are like that, but we see them and they're out there. When you look at apartment complexes they're maintained on a regular basis. They have crews that come in and mow the grass every week. They have crews that will plow. They have crews that trim the trees. It's called property management. And so you contract it. It's probably done on a little bit more regular basis than what some other people do. And like I said if you drive through Hampton Woods, you drive through Tuckaway, you look at them all, they're very -- they're well-kept and they're attractive projects and that's what being recommended here.

So, I'm going to back to the whole, and I like the property rights. You know, this is a property, they own it. It's in the master plan. We have a project that fits that and as a property owner I think they have the right to sell the property and I think the developer has the right to develop it within the plan that we've prescribed or we've put forth or the expectations.

When it comes to representative government I hear all you people, but there's a whole lot of people that do support this project and we got e-mails from them. And I'll also say that my job is not always to vote what everybody tells me I should because everybody could stand up and say we don't like paying taxes, lower the mill levy by ten mills. If I have 2,000 people tell me that does that mean I should vote that way? No. Because that would crash the City's checkbook. So, I'm elected to do what's best for the community. I'm elected to do what I think is best for the City of Shawnee and for the future of the City of Shawnee. I think this is what's best. I know people don't agree with it, but I've just go to look at it objectively with the facts that are presented to me and I think this is the thing to do.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify something that a couple of my colleagues have said, and one of them was a colleague on Planning. So, I know he knows the drill, but the reason we are here for a rezoning tonight is not because the current property does not fit within an apartment complex structure, it is because we are lowering the density to bring in the apartment complex because part of it is zoned for mixed use commercial. So, we are going lower in density. This area has always been and is appropriate absolutely for the type of development that we're coming in for. I think it is a complete red herring to say, oh, they're coming before us now because it's not zoned appropriately. It absolutely is.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling and then Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I actually have a couple questions to ask Mr. Chaffee because I was not on the Planning Commission like these other two, and I want some clarification.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How did you ever get elected?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I don't know. I'd like to clarify a couple terms I've heard, and I don't know if they're interchangeable, but I felt like they were. When you were talking with Ms. Meyer, she was using the term multi-family and you were using the term medium density. Do those mean the same thing?

MR. CHAFFEE: They can. Medium density gives a feel for a unit per acre. A multi-family is, oh, as Ms. Meyer felt, even duplex being multi-family because it's more than one or condominium or an apartment or whatever maybe.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I guess when I read these zoning titles though I don't see the term medium density, I don't see the term multi-family. I see Planned Unit Development, Mixed Residential.

MR. CHAFFEE: Let me clarify that a little bit for you too. The Land Use Guide in the Comprehensive Plan makes the identifications as to density classifications where they're the general ranges, and like Mr. Peterson and I indicated before, it's not intended to be a maximum cap. So, that's the term that's used in the Comprehensive Plan when we're talking about the general nature of development. Throughout the community we have classifications called Public/Quasi-Public, which would be schools or the AT&T facility or a church. We don't have a zoning district that's called Public/Quasi-Public. So, the zoning district names are different than the terms that are used generally in the Comprehensive Plan. And you'll find that for every city that you have. With a PUD you're approving the zoning and you're also approving the development plan. So, while it looks a little weird in what we're doing, we're going from PUDMR which is Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential, which is the zoning category that we use for a multi-family development or it could be a development that has a combination of duplexes and multi-family units. And PUDMX, which is one of our newer zoning districts that we have which is more a mixed use where we have the Cobblestone development that was going to have some retail and some office and some residential in a three-story building, we didn't really have a zoning category until about three years ago that would even accommodate something like that. So, when you have a PUD you're approving the zoning and you're approving the development plan. So, as it stands today we've got this Cobblestone plan that's sitting out there that's basically been approved. People's land is zoned either PUDMR or the PUDMX, and so we've rezoned it to PUDMR to adopt a new plan and the old plan goes away and then this is the new plan that's adopted. And the reason we're not using the PUDMX is that there is no indication of a mixed use type of structure that's being proposed at this time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, did we change the zoning when we approved Cobblestone?

MR. CHAFFEE: We did.


MR. CHAFFEE: It was R-1 and it was changed to the PUDMX and the PUDMR.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Because I heard you telling Ms. Meyer that in '87 this was multi-family housing, but you're telling me it was R-1 up until two years ago?

MR. CHAFFEE: No. We talked -- my response to Ms. Meyer was in the Comprehensive Plan it showed as medium density residential.


MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But that's different than multi-family housing?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. It shows as --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, it wasn't zoned for apartments until --

MR. CHAFFEE: Wasn't zoned that way. The Land Use Guide indicated that an appropriate use for that property, which at the time in 1987 was still undeveloped, would be a medium density residential type development.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I appreciate you clarifying that for me.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I don't know if this -- this is probably isn't worth saying, but I'd like to commend Mr. Logan for being able to respectfully disagree with the people that spoke. I was pretty disappointed in Mr. Peterson. I thought you were condescending and you insulted the people here. You said that they were using platitudes, that there was no real honest debate. That your debate was based on facts and theirs was just googling online. I find that condescending. Maybe talk to Mr. Logan afterwards for some pointers because I was offended for my constituents, so.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I'm not sure on the official definition of a young professional. If I'm not one I was one a while ago.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Professional or young?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Young. I did my fair share of school and I moved out to Shawnee when I still had two years of college left. I was 24 years old. At that time my student debt was already more than the house I was purchasing. And I picked Shawnee. It was close to 35. But I don't know the pulse of every young professional out there or how we even classify that. But to me an apartment wasn't enticing. I lived in Kansas City for five years. I wanted to get out of there and I chose Shawnee because I could -- there was a house I could afford here. And so what young professionals want, we're just generalizing, I know my experience is anecdotal, but that is my experience and I feel like I do fit the definition, or like I said when I bought a house here at least I did.

Moving on to the property rights. I don't know. This could get kind of a sticky, I don't know if we're arguing semantics here or not. This area was zoned R-1 recently. Probably when a lot of these people bought their houses.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: It was changed for the Cobblestone two years ago when we approved that. And when it was purchased it was not PUDMR like they want us to change it to. It's like we're saying you met the requirements, but now we're going to prevent you from building. What they're saying is they bought it and they want us to change it so they can build it. That's not quite the same thing to me. And maybe it's splitting hairs, but to me that's a little bit different than they bought it, they already met the qualifications, and then we're trying to prevent them from building it just because.

I feel like the Council deals with property rights all the time. Jeff said that the role of the Council -- I don't mean to single you out, but one of the things you said is that the role of the Council is to protect property values. And that argument has been used when we talked about zoning for food trucks. We said, well, it's your property, but I don't want you parking a food truck on your property because it might affect mine. We talked about it with the chicken coops just recently. Well, it's your property, but I don't want your chicken too close to my property. So, we do walk this fine line. I'm for property rights, I really do believe in them. But we do walk a fine line because to live in a society we do give up some of those rights to live in society and I don't believe in giving up a bunch of them. But to suddenly come out and say we don't ever infringe on property rights when that's been the discussion of two recent meetings, we do. We do talk about that. At what point do the people around you -- we also talked about special permitting for the animals, possibly having neighbor consent. And we didn't pass it, but that's a discussion we've had. So, it does go on there.

Lastly, I ran two elections and I went door-to-door on weekends for a total of eight months between the two, and I met a lot of people, talked to a lot of people. There's probably some in this audience that I talked to on their doorstep. And thanks for being kind to me. One of the things I took away was they thought the Council didn't listen to them, that their government didn't listen to them. And that was kind of one of the reasons why I was running because I was irritated. I didn't necessarily feel that representation as well. And, you know, I love the fact that this project doesn't have any kind of incentive tied to it. I'm always against the TIFs. And so when I first saw this I thought awesome, let's get it done. But I've spent the last three weeks answering e-mails and phone calls. I can't even work on my patients without them sitting up and telling me to vote no on this thing. And so at some point I feel like I do need to listen to what they're telling me. My kids, they don't know what's best for them. So, what they want is somewhat irrelevant. But you people aren't my kids. You're the people that chose to put me in here. My kids didn't chose to have me as a parent, I chose to have them. But the other way around, you guys put me in here. You're not children. This is what you want, which is to block this. And even though it probably wasn't the initial way I was going, I respect that desire to block it and that's why I just couldn't be for it in the end.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. One thing. Mr. Smith, you spoke positively about Broken Arrow. Bless your heart, it's a good school. One of the things I will point out that -- the education that the kids that get to go to Broken Arrow is exactly the same education put on by the same fine school district. Admittedly I'm prejudiced, my wife is on the school board. If you have an issue with the school, talk to Cindy or Patty Mach, I'm sure they'll be glad to talk to you and get any information you want.

But to clarify on that, Broken Arrow currently has about 450 kids. The Shawnee Mission School District target or ideal is about 500 as suggested here. The K through 12 would be for this project would be 40 to 70, so we'll figure 35, which is right within -- it's not going to overburden the school. Another thing is the Shawnee Mission School, 23 kids is their target group for K through 2, and 26 or 27 on 3 through 6.

The other thing, I would like to thank Mr. Peterson, the developer, thank you for bringing this project to our city and putting it before us for consideration. I would also like to thank all the citizens that have taken, it's almost the witching hour and are still here, for coming and sharing your opinions. I listened to them all and have taken the consideration. And most importantly, I would like to thank our City staff who have worked on this diligently in trying to bring this project to the City.

Being elected, and you know, and as Jeff alluded to, we are all very cognizant of why we're here. We are here to take of the day to day, but we are here to have the strategic foresight to make plans to go for the future and what is best for the City, not only today, but ten years from today when there is a whole new group of people up here in front of you.

That being said, you know, the things that gets us more rooftops, growth, gets us more restaurants, more places to shop, and again that's a huge responsibility. Every one of us in this room has a love for our city and whether we perceive it as being a nice, little smaller community, but we're 65,000 people. We're the seventh largest city in the state. And I think that is all very, very important, but I will share with, you know, as Ward I, I am not totally convinced that this is the right project to drop in on an in-fill in a mature neighborhood.




MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Just one point of clarification and that regards the change in zoning a couple of years ago for this location. And I would submit that that change of zoning probably wouldn't have taken place if this were the project that we were proposed. The project proposed, Cobblestone, I've talked to a number of these people out here personally one-on-one, they tell me they like that project. So, gee wilikers, guys, we put a project that the people like in front of them, they say, yeah, sure, go ahead and change the zoning. So, we change the zoning to that and then you go, oh, no, we're not going to do that, we're going to do this other project here and we're going to stick that in there on you. Well, they don't like that project. They would have never changed the zoning in the first place if this were the original project.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I don't want to lose sight of that. I think it's a very important distinction. And Mr. Vaught talked about railroad tracks and all that kind of stuff. Any idiot can look out there and see a railroad track. But, you know, when it comes to what the property zone is you can go to the city hall and you can say what's the zoning on this property and the go, oh, it's R-1 and then agricultural. I mean, come on, guys, how many people go and look at the Comprehensive Plan except for Paul Chaffee and those guys that sit on the City Planning Commission. Yeah, we all know about it and we lock arms and we dance around about the great master plan and all this stuff. But the bottom line is if you're a citizen you go and check out the property and you say what's the zoning. Now, come on. I see a lot obfuscation. I see a lot smokescreens and all kinds of BS, but the bottom line is I want to move the question.


MAYOR DISTLER: Real quick though because Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Vaught had asked -- had their pencils up before you moved the question. So, I'm going to grab their comments and then we can do that.

(Off Record Discussion of meeting procedure with the Mayor)

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, whether or not this project goes through, you know, eventually there will be something good on this property. I find it difficult for myself since I was on a committee in the county for quite some time trying to put together some housing plans for the communities to go against something that we were planning on. So, that is the reason that I'm agreeing with the project. Now whether it goes through or not I'll agree with something else down the road, too.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is something this Council needs to think about if you do a little bit of research on zoning issues in front of councils. There's reasons, specific reasons that have been settled in court on why we can vote no. And I don't believe we're abiding by those reasons. I think we're -- I think without people being a little bit better informed on this issue and we have -- if you younger people on this Council that haven't been faced with this before, but I’m telling you, in the industry I'm in and I've read cases on it, and I think everybody needs to be aware on the reasons we can vote no on a zoning decision. And I'm not saying everybody needs to vote tonight in support of it because of that, but I would say before everybody wants to vote no on this, you might want to think about tabling it and doing a little bit of research on it because we're kind of --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Excuse me, I'm talking, please. We might want to talk. We might want to talk -- we might want to do a little research.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Mayor, the question has been moved and there's a motion on the floor.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I understand that. I'm still talking.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you're out of line with that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I'm not because the Mayor has recognized me.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because according to Robert's Rules of Order, Mr. Vaught --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The Mayor has recognized me.

(Mayor bangs gavel)


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught was recognized. He will finish his statement, then the question is called.


MAYOR DISTLER: We will take the vote and no more from the audience, please.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think everybody needs to do a little bit of research on some of the legal issues and some of the legal decisions that have been passed down and that have happened on zoning issues because what we don't want to do is find ourselves in a legal issue over this. I'm not saying we will, but I think everybody might want to do a little research on it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Now, the question has been called and seconded. Is someone going to make a motion or what are doing here?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I moved the question and I move that we vote on this issue and I move to turn it down. I move to vote down this project and not rezone.


MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. I will take a roll call vote. Mr. Neighbor?



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do you want to clarify what no means?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We've got to clarify what no and yes means.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry. So, to turn it down is an aye.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that would require six votes to turn down the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: To turn down is an aye because I recommended to turn it down.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Oh, okay. Well, no, I don't. Okay. But just this vote, if might interject here, the vote is -- to vote aye would be -- I would suggest vote against the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the rezoning, is that right?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That's what your motion -- can you restate it?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Your motion is to override the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the zoning.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That's correct. That is correct.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, the aye vote would be to override the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the zoning. A nay vote would be to not override. So, an aye vote would vote the project down.





MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?




CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The motion doesn't pass because we don't have six votes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 4-4 with Councilmembers Vaught, Meyer, Sandifer and Kenig voting no.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Do we have another motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table this till the January, what is it?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: January 11th meeting. It gives people an opportunity, and the Councilmembers to research it more and give the developer an opportunity to get any other information out.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The motion to deny a Planning Commission recommendation requires six votes to override the Planning Commission. The question only got four votes. So, it did not pass. Statutorily the requirement to override a Planning Commission recommendation in favor of is six votes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, we need a super-majority for this thing to pass. It did not pass.

MAYOR DISTLER: To pass. Right. So, to deny --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There was no motion to pass.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We haven't voted on passing it yet, we only voted on not.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We didn't vote to pass, so I voted to table it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But my actual vote -- my actual thing was I wanted to deny this. That was what I said.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And you needed six votes to that and you didn't get it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. So, you need six votes to deny.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You didn't get six votes to deny.

MAYOR DISTLER: If you would have moved to approve, it would have failed.

(Audience making off the record comments)


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, move to approve.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Chaffee, could you clarify the requirements?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I've already motioned to table it.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. He already motioned to table it.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is there a second?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It's in the packet on page 91.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I'll second to table, too.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. And it's in the packet on page 91, so that was clear before we ever walked into this meeting tonight.

MR. CHAFFEE: Do you want me to clarify?


MR. CHAFFEE: Okay. Kansas State Statutes have procedures that the Governing Body needs to follow regarding issues with rezonings and votes that are required to happen. Generally speaking, it's a majority vote to approve unless there is a protest petition. In this case there was a valid protest petition, so the first go round for the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning is going to take -- or accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission is seven votes. You have to have a super-majority. State statutes allow the first go round that in order to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission, six votes are required. So, in this instance the Planning Commission recommended approval, so a motion to override the Planning Commission and recommend denial takes six votes. Another option in lieu of Mr. Vaught's motion to table is with five votes, the Governing Body can send the item back to the Planning Commission with specific items for them to look and discuss. The public hearing is over and done at the Planning Commission meeting. The only discussion that would happen would be between the Planning Commissioners discussing the reasons that the Governing Body sent the item back to them for further review.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I find this kind of absurd. I don't think there's a person in this room didn't know what that motion was to do. It was to kill this project and say we don't want it in Shawnee. Now, if the phraseology which was actually kind of modified a little bit by other people at this Council, changed it around to the point where we now we can't do it, that's really not good.

MR. CHAFFEE: No. No one has changed anything. Any motion to deny would be to override the decision of the Planning Commission, and that takes six votes to do that at this time.

MAYOR DISTLER: And that was in the packet before we ever entered the room tonight.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Move to approve it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, we can't because he's already got a motion to table it on the floor at the moment.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there a second to Mr. Vaught's motion?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, we get to go do this again.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion and a second to table the item.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Which needs a simple majority, yes?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. That's going to be great.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I vote no to table.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, just yell it real loud. The mics are just failing. Yes.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I'm going to vote no knowing that it wouldn't pass if we brought it back.



MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. And those in –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, the motion fails.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: How does it pass, 5-3?

MAYOR DISTLER: I mean, motion fails.


MAYOR DISTLER: Sorry. I wrote it backwards. Motion fails 5-3. Those voting in opposition Councilmember Vaught, Councilmember Meyer, Councilmember Kenig.


MAYOR DISTLER: In support of the vote -- it's backwards. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the item to the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Let's make a new motion. I'd like to motion that we approve this project.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion to approve. Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It hasn't been seconded has it?

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is somebody going to second it?

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry.


MAYOR DISTLER: All these motions.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now we can vote it out.

MAYOR DISTLER: Now, do you want to approve the project?


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Clarify this for all of us, please.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, we say do we approve the project and it's no.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins made a motion to approve the project.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But I want to be clear, Mr. Chaffee, correct me, that is requires seven votes to pass. And in the absence of seven votes, then the only alternative left is to send it back to the Planning Commission with five votes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That's not what we were told. It fails if it doesn't get the votes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor, do you want to pass the project?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No. I'm going to go no this time.




MAYOR DISTLER: Motion fails with those in opposition, Mr. Vaught -- those in support. Yes. Those in support Mr. Vaught, Ms. Meyer, Mr. Kenig. Okay. So, motion fails.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, we need a motion to remand. We don't -- because it --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don't need a motion for anything.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to remand it to the Planning Commission.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The statute -- Mr. Chaffee.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don't have to have a motion to go back to the --

MR. CHAFFEE: We’ve actually given you three items that you need to do in the first go round. Number one is to approve the rezoning. On the first go round the State Statute gives you one of three choices to do. The first is you can accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. And in this case because there is a protest petition it takes seven votes to approve. Your second choice, and there is a colon, your second choice, or a semi -- a colon. Your second choice is to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that takes six votes, or your third choice is to remand it back to the Planning Commission asking them to look at whatever specific item or items you want them to take a look at.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to remand it back to the Planning Commission to look at density.


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, there is a motion and a second to remand it to the Planning Commission to look at density.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Mrs. Mayor, did you vote on the last motion?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: She didn't have to.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. But you can in a tie. So, if there were five people against this, you could be the sixth one if we wanted to override the veto. If we wanted to override the Planning Commission's suggestion you could have been the sixth vote. That's one of our three options on the page.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But there were only four votes on that motion.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Four plus Mickey was five. That's why I asked if she voted.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: The motion to pass it.

(Inaudible; Councilmembers talking amongst themselves with the City Manager Gonzales)

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But the Mayor can vote if she's the last vote needed.

MAYOR DISTLER: But the motion to approve you need seven.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: She can, but doesn't have to.

MAYOR DISTLER: That was the last motion --


MAYOR DISTLER: -- was to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: However, if the Governing Body wants to override the Planning Commission, the Mayor could be the sixth vote.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And there were only four votes.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. There were only four votes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Do you want me to count them for you there? There’s four here and one there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It was four to four on the first vote to override it. So, your vote would not have mattered.


MAYOR DISTLER: Right. The first vote was 4-4.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Okay. I would just like to say to my fellow Councilmembers in lieu of Mr. Sandifer's last vote, if we were to vote to override again after this current motion that's on the floor, the Mayor could be the sixth vote if she decided to be the sixth vote.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, the current motion is to remand it to the Planning Commission for density.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that is a simple majority. The Mayor can be the fifth vote if she is voting with the motion.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is to send it back for density? No.



MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?




MAYOR DISTLER: Motion fails.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Motion to override the Planning Commission.

MAYOR DISTLER: And those in opposition were -- no, those in support, gosh darn this is backwards, were Mr. Vaught, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Kenig.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to remand the item to the Planning Commission to look at density. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Motion to override the Planning Commission and deny rezoning.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Didn't we already do that?

MAYOR DISTLER: But if you only needed a super-majority -- a regular majority to do the last thing we had that.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning.

(Inaudible; Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)

MAYOR DISTLER: So, please clarify the motion again.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Option Number 2 on page 91. The Governing Body may override the Planning Commission --

MAYOR DISTLER: I can't hear my fellow Councilmember's motion to even know what I'm voting on. Please keep down and, you know, sticking your tongue out at me, I don't know what you think that's getting you, but it's not -- it's not really effective. Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Option Number 2 on page 91. The Governing Body may override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning with six votes. The Mayor may vote, but is not obligated. So, I am making that motion to deny the rezoning.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I seconded that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Deny rezoning.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So again, an aye vote is to deny the rezoning.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?




MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, wait, I wrote these backwards again. Ms. Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?




MAYOR DISTLER: 5-3, motion fails.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kemmling and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Vaught, Meyer, and Kenig voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The Mayor doesn't vote, huh? Okay.

(Off the Record Talking)

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I'll make another motion to remand it back to the Planning Commission for review of the density. Because we haven't accomplished anything else, so we've got to do something.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I'll second that.




COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is a question for Paul. I mean, if we don't come to an agreement, how can -- this project fails just because we cannot determine why to send it back to the Planning Commission.

MR. CHAFFEE: There may be something else you'd like for them to look at other than density.


MR. CHAFFEE: I mean, you know, that's an option also.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The whole project?

MR. CHAFFEE: You have to give a specific reason.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to remand it back to the Planning Commission to look at traffic study.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But, Paul, if that motion fails, then you could do this all night. And you don't have to.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have to follow the State Statute.

MR. CHAFFEE: The State Statute doesn't give you an option that you just don't do anything and let it lie. The Statute gives you the three choices.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We have a motion and a second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion to remand it back to the Planning Commission for traffic. Mr. Neighbor?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?






MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I'll vote to send it back to the Planning Commission, yes. It’s not going anywhere.




COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Unless the Mayor wants to break the tie.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It'll go now because you don't have to have the super-majority.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But she'll have to break the tie.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, right now it's tied.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, she can break the tie.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: She can vote this time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: She has to vote this time to break the tie.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have to comply with the State Statute.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. Well, and, yeah, I mean, we have to comply with the State Statute, so I'm going to vote aye. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to remand the item to the Planning Commission to look at traffic. After a roll call vote, the motion passed 5-4 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, and Kemmling voting no and Mayor Distler voting aye to break the tie.]


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The next item on the agenda, Item Number 3 is to Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Regulations to Provide Further Clarity Regarding Building Setbacks.

At the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2015, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 10-0, recommended that the Governing Body -- we are trying to carry on a Public Meeting here. Please. By a vote of 10-0, recommended that the Governing Body approve the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to clarify language related to setbacks and minimum yard requirements. An ordinance is required. Is there any discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s pretty cut and dry. Do you see something here?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was -- I don’t know if this is for, Paul. Does this cover the Ward II issue that we had with the building?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It does? Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.


MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to pass an Ordinance adopting the amendments to the Zoning Rules and Regulations of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, 2015 edition. The motion passed 8-0 and Ordinance No. 3143 was assigned.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H. Items from the Council Committee Meeting of December 8, 2015, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer. Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure minus a mic, sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Somebody shut the mic down.

CITY CLERK POWELL: There can only be four mics on at one time.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Hey, we’re back in business. Okay. Just one item, it’s to consider the 2016 State Legislative Program. The Council Committee recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve the 2016 State Legislative Program. So I will accept a motion to do that unless there’s discussion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just, I wasn’t going to say much. I was just going to say I reviewed this and I noticed that all the changes that we discussed during the committee meeting were in there and I was going to move for approval but everybody’s quick on approval.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just thought I’d comment on this item here, I mean I’m going to vote to move this forward, but I don’t agree with everything in it as in the -- so if it ever comes up you can look at the minutes from the committee meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion?


MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, yeah, sorry. That jumped. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed Nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve the 2016 State Legislative Program. The motion passed 8-0.]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And Mayor on this next item we’d recommend – staff recommends tabling it since the Vantage project did not move forward.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. And what about item number two?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table item one under Staff Items to Consider Omnibus Ordinance to Terminate Cobblestone Village Tax Increment Financing District Related To Plans And Agreements.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the consideration of an Omnibus Ordinance to Terminate Cobblestone Village Tax Increment Financing District Related to plans and agreements. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The same. Staff recommends tabling this since the Vantage project did not move forward at this time.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table Item 2, Consider Initiating Rezoning for Duplexes and Single Family Residences in the 5900-6000 Blocks of Pflumm Road.


MAYOR DISTLER: Any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this? Motion passes. Oh, wait. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the consideration of initiating rezoning for Duplexes and Single Family Residences in the 5900-6000 Blocks of Pflumm Road. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3, to Consider Change Order No. 1 for the 2015 -- my eyes are blurry -- Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3409. On September 14, 2015, the Governing Body awarded the 2015 Pipe Repair project, which included both full pipe replacement and pipe lining repair locations, to Amino Brothers Company, Inc. The 2015R Budget includes $160,000 for medium priority small storm water utility projects. Repairing pipes beneath streets scheduled to be resurfaced is a higher priority than some of the other planned stormwater utility activities. Staff recommends reallocating these funds for pipe repair and issuing a change order to the contractor.

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



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve a change order to add up to 10 pipe repair locations to the contract with Amino Brothers Company, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas for the 2015 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3401, in the amount not to exceed $160,000 for a revised total contract amount of $731,568.85. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider the Sale of Surplus Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Johnson Drive and Maurer Road (5915 Maurer Road). Policy Statement PS-69, Disposal of Property, provides that the City work to dispose of real property for which the City has no present or future need or is not economically feasible to maintain; and real property, which if disposed of, would be put to a higher or better use for the City and its residents. In March 2015, the Governing Body authorized the disposal of this property. The City has received an offer of $80,000 for the land. The recommended action is to consider the sale of the land.

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



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the sale of property at the southeast corner of Johnson Drive and Maurer Road, accept and approve a deed of dedication of right of way with limited right of access and a permanent drainage easement from the purchaser, and authorize the Mayor to sign a sale contract for $80,000. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, and Sports Field Use and PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. At their November 2015 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the Governing Body approve revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, and Sports Field Use; and, Policy Statement, PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. The revisions include inserting actual addresses of the parks, adding Erfurt Park to the inventory, updating the name of the Metro United Soccer Club, removing the Commercial rate category and implementing a tiered pricing structure and adding a new Rules and Regulation section.

a) Consider Approving Revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer and Sports Field Use.

There are two actions required. The first is to consider approving revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12. Is there any discussion from the Council? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, we have two sections here, don’t we? There’s two actions?

MAYOR DISTLER: No, I didn’t see that. Thank you for catching that, Mr. Vaught. Yes. I accept a motion on PS-12.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval on PS-12. The Revision or Item A consider approving revisions to PS-12.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer and Sports Field Use. The motion passed 8-0.]

b) Consider Approving Revisions to PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to consider approving revisions to PS-60, Shelter reservations and user fees.


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


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We already have one.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’m sorry. You did that before I accepted it.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve revisions to PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. The motion passed 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s after midnight. Your [inaudible] are just spent [inaudible].


MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to Consider a Professional Services Agreement Addendum with Shafer, Kline, and Warren, Inc. for Engineering Services for the 60th Terrace and Earnshaw Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3407, (SMAC TC-021-067). This project was on the Capital Improvement Program for 2015 and is nearly completed. Addendum No. 1 represents additional inspection work that was required because of additional hours in the actual construction contract in the amount of $21,705. The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract.

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.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Shafer, Kline and Warren, Inc., related to the 60th Terrace and Earnshaw Storm Drainage Improvements in the amount of $21,705. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is J, Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for December 14, 2015, in the Amount of $13,167,033.93.

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.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to ratify the semi-monthly claim for December 14, 20015, in the amount of $13,167,033.93. The motion passed 8-0.]


MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss? 3. CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING LAND ACQUISITION.

a) Recess to Executive Session for 10 minutes for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Conduct an Executive Session for the Purpose of Discussing Land Acquisition.

I will accept a motion to recess into Executive Session for ten minutes to discuss land acquisition.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to recess to Executive Session for a ten minute period for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to recess to executive session for a ten minute period for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting in Recess from 12:31 a.m. to 12.38 a.m.)

b) Conclude Executive Session.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to conclude Executive Session.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to conclude the executive session. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Reconvene Meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to reconvene the meeting.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to reconvene the meeting. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Reconvened at 12:41 a.m.)

d) Motion to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less, at the Southeast corner of 59th Street and Woodland Road for a valid public purpose, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. I would like to move to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less at the south east corner of 59th Street and Woodland for a valid public purpose and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less, at the Southeast corner of 59th Street and Woodland Road for a valid public purpose, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000. The motion passed 8-0.]

e) Motion to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000. A condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have another motion?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes, I would move to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000.


MAYOR DISTLER: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And a condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership so the easement should be accepted by the Governing Body.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’ve already voted.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, we’ll put that in there.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, just for clarification.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What, add that in?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: With acceptance of the –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Include that in the motion, please, Mr. Powell.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000. A condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership. The motion passed 8-0.]


MAYOR DISTLER: I would accept a motion to adjourn.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]

(Shawnee City Council Meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.)


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

/das December 30, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon