PDF Format:

CC11282016.pdfCC11282016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
November 28, 2016
7:00 P.M.

Michelle Distler – Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Sunderman
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember VaughtAssistant City Attorney Dehon
Councilmember MeyerFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember KenigParks and Recreation Director Holman
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
IT Director Bunting
Fire Chief Mattox
Police Chief Moser
Public Works Director Whitacre
Asst. Public Works Director Gard
Asst. Finance Director Kelly
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Communications Manager Breithaupt
Shawnee Chamber of Commerce Director of Business Redevelopment & Retention Bowen
Shawnee Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Leeper
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: Please stand and join us in the Pledge followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. 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. 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.

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

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.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]

D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Mayor's Items, and I have no items tonight.
E. APPOINTMENTS

1. CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Appointments. Item No. 1 is to Consider Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Councilmember Neighbor is recommending the reappointment of Elaine Copp as the Ward I representative, Councilmember Kemmling is recommending the reappointment of Donna Sawyer as the Ward II representative, and Councilmember Sandifer is recommending the reappointment of Pam Cremer as the Ward IV representative.

a) Appoint Elaine Copp to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

MAYOR DISTLER: Three actions are required. The first is to consider reappointing Elaine Copp with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to reappoint Elaine Copp to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]

b) Appoint Donna Sawyer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider reappointing Donna Sawyer with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kemmling and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to reappoint Donna Sawyer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Appoint Pam Cremer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider reappointing Pam Cremer with a term expiring December 31, 2019.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to reappoint Pam Cremer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring December 31, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: And if you guys would stand up, Donna and Pam, and I don’t know if Elaine is here. Thank you so much for your service.

(Applause)

F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

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

G. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION OF LAND AND VARIOUS AGREEMENTS RELATED TO A QUIET ZONE IN THE AREA OF 75TH AND MARTINDALE.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is Public Items. Item No. 1 is to consider the Acquisition of Land and Various Agreements Related to a Quiet Zone in the Area of 75th and Martindale.

Staff has been working with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to create a quiet zone in the area of 75th and Martindale. Three actions are recommended including the acquisition of land, a land exchange with the property owner at 7315 Martindale, and a construction and maintenance agreement with BNSF.

a) Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $213,660 for the acquisition of the property located at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Martindale Road.

The first item is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $213,660 for the acquisition of the property located at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Martindale Road.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $213,660 for the acquisition of the property located at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Martindale Road. The motion passed 8-0.]

b) Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement for Exchange of Land Implementation of Quiet Zone Crossing and Closing of Crossing with the property owner of 7315 Martindale.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an Agreement for Exchange of Land/Implementation of Quiet Zone Crossing and Closing of Crossing with the property owner of 7315 Martindale.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement for Exchange of Land/Implementation of Quiet Zone Crossing and Closing of Crossing with the property owner of 7315 Martindale. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a Grade Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with BNSF for the implementation of a railroad quiet zone.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a Grade Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with BNSF for the implementation of a railroad quiet zone.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mayor, I have a question for City Manager Gonzales. I don’t know if this can be answered at this time, but I did have a prospective resident reach out to me that’s interested in buying a home in the area and so they’ve been following this and asked about a possible timeline once funds are allocated. Do we have any rough estimate on that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The clock starts as soon as this agreement is signed with BNSF. They’ve told us worst case scenario 12 months, but we’re pushing for six. So, our hope is next spring.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Great. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other comments or questions from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize the Mayor to sign a Grade Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with BNSF for the implementation of a railroad quiet zone. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER ACCEPTING A TRACT OF LAND FROM JOHNSON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to consider Accepting a Tract of Land from Johnson County Parks and Recreation District.

Last year, the City purchased two tracts of land along Mill Creek to work toward closing railroad crossings in the area of 55th and 59th Street. Johnson County Parks and Recreation District has agreed to convey land between the two tracts to the City as a means of access.

The recommended action is to consider accepting a tract of land. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to accept a tract of land from Johnson County Parks and Recreation District. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY FROM CLARE ROAD TO K-7 HIGHWAY AS A MAIN TRAFFICWAY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 3139, AND ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, GLEASON ROAD TO K-7 HIGHWAY, P.N. 3413.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 3 is to Consider an Ordinance Designating Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road to K-7 Highway as a Main Trafficway and Repealing Ordinance 3139, and Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Clear Creek Parkway Improvements Project, Gleason Road to K-7 Highway, P.N. 3413. This project is on the Capital Improvement Plan for construction in 2016.

a) Pass an Ordinance designating Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road to K-7 Highway as a main trafficway and repealing Ordinance No. 3139.

There are two recommended actions. The first is to pass an Ordinance designating Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road to K-7 Highway as a main trafficway and repealing Ordinance 3139, which contained an error in the street name.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance designating Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road to K-7 Highway as a main trafficway and repealing Ordinance No. 3139. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3177 was assigned.)

b) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the improvements to Clear Creek Parkway from Gleason Road to K-7 Highway.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider adopting a Resolution authorizing the improvements to Clear Creek Parkway from Gleason Road to K-7 Highway.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to adopt a Resolution authorizing the improvements to Clear Creek Parkway from Gleason Road to K-7 Highway. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Having passed, Resolution No. 1792 was assigned.)

H. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2016

1. CONSIDER APPROVING PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SENIOR LIVING.

MAYOR DISTLER: MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is H, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 2016. Item No. 1 is to Consider Approving Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Regarding Senior Living.

On November 14, 2016, the Governing Body tabled this item. The Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body pass two Ordinances making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan related to senior living facilities.

Because there were a number of questions at the last meeting, I have asked Planning Director Paul Chaffee to do a brief presentation on the City's planning tools and processes, and on issues related to the senior living density issue. I will open it up for Council questions when he completes his presentation.

Mr. Chaffee.

MR. CHAFFEE: Good evening. I’m going to do a real quick refresher on the Land Use Guide and the procedures for adoption of amendments to the -- both zoning regulations and to the Comprehensive Plan.

[Land Use Guide Review slides]
First of all, the Land Use Guide itself is a portion of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. What it does is it provides a visual depiction of desired land use patterns in the City. It guides future growth for green field, in-fill and development sites and it’s one of the tools that we use in evaluating rezoning applications. It identifies locations for various types and intensity of residential, commercial, office and industrial development.

It is not a zoning map. So, one of the differences between the Land Use Guide and the zoning map is the Land Use Guide is a broad picture of different types of land uses, just commercial. But it doesn’t identify that this has to be a commercial neighborhood or commercial highway. Or we have low density or medium density or high density residential. But it doesn’t say in the Land Use Guide that this is R-1, RS, duplex, PMR (Planned Mixed Residential).

What the zoning map does is it depicts the actual zoning on specific pieces of property. And those go through the rezoning process that I’m going to describe a little bit later on.

Another thing that the Land Use Guide assists with is to identify potential locations of various forms of development to meet other goals of the community. And you’ll recall one of our goals is that ultimate build-out 35 percent of our assessed valuation be for commercial and industrial uses as opposed to residential uses. And that’s just to assure us that in the long run that single family properties aren’t overburdened with providing a tax base for the community as a whole. So, that’s why it’s important.

Several years ago we went through and identified additional areas for office development and some commercial development to help us reach that goal. And I know you all are very familiar that when you look at the assessed value of property that the commercial and the industrial and the office development, it’s assessed at 25 percent of its value, where residential properties are assessed at 11.5 percent and vacant properties are 12 percent. So, it’s important that we kind of identify those places.

And then as we look to the Land Use Guide in the future, not start picking away at our office and our commercial development because that sort of lessens our opportunity to meet the goal that we’ve established for the long run of the community.

The Land Use Guide, we also -- the consistency of the Land Use Guide is one of the factors considered in evaluating rezoning application. And in the staff reports you’ll see, both to the Planning Commission and the Governing Body there’s the little portion there, does it conform. Or if it doesn’t conform, this is why it doesn’t conform. And then if there’s a rationale and a recommendation for a project being approved, not in conformance with the Land Use Guide, which you certainly can do. What were the factors that staff and Planning Commission considered that deemed that perhaps this was just as good a use as what we may show on the Land Use Guide.

In some of those situations we look at other factors come into play such as traffic, potential site layout, adequate provision of utilities and other services and buffering. And the Planning Commission, just to let you all know, the Planning Commission has begun its review of the Land Use Guide for the next series of modifications if we make any at all.

[Land Use Guide map slide]
So, this is a generalized version of the Land Use Guide. And you can see the broad categories, just commercial, high density, low density, medium density, office commercial, office service, public, quasi-public. And we even break it out, we separate the schools from other facilities like the utility substations or churches.

[Text Amendments to Zoning Regulations slide]
Text amendments to the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission may initiate text amendments to Zoning Regulations. By state statute, it is their responsibility to conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the Governing Body. And approval of text amendments to the Zoning Regulations follows a public notice procedure in the official city newspaper and review by the Governing Body. So, the state has told us how we have to notify the public in the case of text amendments because a text amendment isn’t on a specific piece of property. It’s just to the document as a whole.

[Text Amendments to Comprehensive Plan slide]
And text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are very similar. The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing and initiating text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Notice of the proposed amendments are published in the official City newspaper. And we also put them out on our website and other means too to let the public know.

And by state statute, it’s the Planning Commission’s responsibility again to conduct the public hearing and forward a recommendation to the Governing Body.

So, just as a real quick review, every year the Planning Commission takes a look at the Comprehensive Plan, and we don’t necessarily update every version or every chapter. We take a look at just broad areas.

In 2015, we modified the text for the Johnson Drive, K-7 Highway and Shawnee Mission Corridor Plans and modified land use designations for 15 locations along those corridors.

In 2014, we updated the Bicycle Routes and Trails and future Trail Plan and the Transit Plan.

In 2013, updated goals for industrial development

In 2012, we indicated the location of Belmont School, which had just opened, and updated the parks and future park development goals.

In 2011, we updated the demographic information based upon the 2010 Census.

And also in 2010, we inserted a Transit Plan working with Johnson County Transit where are the bus routes, where are future bus routes. So, that was sort of a supplement to what we already had for our circulation plan indicating the major-minor arterials, residential streets as well as our bike routes.

And then we amended the Land Use Guide for additional office and commercial space. And then we moved the site for the Monticello Library because -- to approve those types of public buildings, they need to conform with the Land Use Guide. Originally they were looking at a site up in Gray Oaks up where Woodsonia and Clear Creek Parkway. Then they abandoned that site and moved down on 66th Street just west of Hilltop where they’re building the library, or getting ready to build the library.

In 2009, we amended a Goals and Objectives and a Corridor Plan for the I-435 Corridor.

In 2008, we put in the Comprehensive Plan that we’re beginning the I-435 Visioning study. We updated the K-7 Corridor study for the Silverheel extension that the City did as part of a benefit district. Once again updated our Recreational Trail maps.

And in 2007, we amended the Land Use Guide along Renner Road and we identified the schools separately from other public uses.

So, as you can see over the years we take a look at a wide variety of issues and it’s not just the same thing year after year after year. Some years the Planning Commission will recommend amendments to the City’s Land Use Guide. Some years they won’t if things seem to be going well and we’re providing the amount of ground that we believe is necessary for development.

[Background slides]
So, the background for what we’re looking tonight regarding senior living density requirements is we know that there’s a need for senior housing opportunities, it’s increasing not only nationwide, but also within the City of Shawnee.

Developers for these types of facilities have made inquiries about potential sites for development as well as the density that would be permitted in their development.

Current density requirements in the zoning regulations, as well as the definitions for low, medium and high density in the Comprehensive Plan, play a role in a developer’s decision to construct senior housing.

And real briefly, right now we make no separate designation for any density for senior housing as opposed to a traditional apartment development. So, the maximum density that we currently allow in the zoning regulations is 15.5 dwelling units per acre.

So, the Planning Commission over a period of three meetings, which is longer than we usually take when we’re taking a look at amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, discussed the unique issues associated with senior living facilities and proposed text amendments for a public hearing as required by state statutes. And they held that hearing on October 17, 2016.

Our current area requirements from the Planned Mixed Residential zoning regulations as well as density definitions in the Comprehensive Plan was one of the things we looked at, what our current area requirements are for the High Rise zoning district, which are multi-family structures at least four stories in height, the area requirements from surrounding zoning regulations from the communities surrounding Shawnee, and density requirements and their comprehensive plan.

So, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to forward for approval to the Governing Body because the number of required parking stalls for senior facilities is 1.3 per unit as opposed to 2 per unit for a traditional multi-family development. So, you don’t necessarily need as much ground to develop a senior housing project as you would for an apartment development just because you don’t need to provide as much surface parking or underground parking.
They found that indoor amenities are more common than outdoor features in a traditional development such as swimming pools, recreation areas, convenience facilities such as doctors’ offices, beauty and barber shops and enhanced security devices in the rooms. So, generally in senior living environments you don’t see the outdoor swimming pools or you don’t see a lot of other areas devoted to outdoor active use. You see more of the amenities are indoor that complement the living choices of those who live in senior living developments.

The Shawnee density allowances were generally lower than peer cities with the exception of the high rise zoning district. And we’re in pretty good shape. We allow the highest density of all the communities once you get into those high rise buildings.

The Planning Commission wanted to encourage the construction of senior living facilities within the City.

[Current slide]
Currently, the area requirement per dwelling unit for a multi-family development three stories or less is 2,800 square feet per unit with a minimum development site of four acres.

However, one modification that we made several years ago is that multi-family developments within a quarter mile of the boundaries of the Townsquare district have an area requirement of 2,200 square feet per unit, which is 19.36 units per acre. And one of the reasons that the Planning Commission took a look, and I believe the Governing Body approved these changes, was that there was a desire to increase the density around the downtown area to encourage redevelopment of office and commercial uses in this area.

Just real quick, a minimum lot area square foot per unit comparison in Shawnee, it’s the 2,800, the 2,250, and the 800 square feet for four-story.

Lenexa’s range is between 2,723 and 1,210. And that just depends on the zoning district that the development chooses to use.

Olathe is 2,420 and 1,502 with 968 for a 4-story.

And Overland Park is the one that’s a little different in that their multi-family requirements are 2,650 square feet. But for assisted and elderly, there is no minimum requirement. It’s based on the specific zoning request. So, that’s just something a little different.

[Proposed Amendment for Senior Living slide]
What the proposed amendment does is it provides for a lot area requirement of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, which is 21.78 units per acre, when certain conditions are met. And it provides an opportunity for a development containing less than four acres in size.

So, what basically we’re doing is be a given sort of a break in the square footage requirements if you’re closer to downtown. And so we’re taking a look at doing something similar for senior living facilities. And it’s only for senior living. It’s not a traditional apartment complex that may come in.

[Reasoning slide]
But the reasoning was it was intended to provide direction to the development community as to appropriate locations for senior living developments.
It provides an opportunity to consider senior living facilities on land shown as appropriate for low density residential development on parcels at least five acres in size that has direct access to an arterial or major collector street with a density of up to 12.775 units per acre.

And I think the caveat on this is that it may be in-fill or it may be shown as an area for low density residential development that’s perhaps next to something else, next to a commercial or buts up against an office type development. And by having the other requirement that it be located on an arterial or major collector assures that traffic can be handled by a development that may be a little more dense.

It provides an opportunity to consider senior living facilities with a density of 21.78 dwelling units per acre in areas identified as potentially for medium density development.

And it removes text related to a relationship between a density range and a maximum allowable density.

[Considerations slide]
So, the Planning Commission went a little further in the amendments to the comp plan and in the zoning regulations to say, you know, other things that we’re going to look at if someone comes in for a project that exceeds the 15.5 units per acre is, is there adequate parking that’s provided on the site. Is there some enhanced landscaping. Are the level of amenities, what are the level of amenities provided, and what is the quality of materials and architecture of the buildings when it’s reviewed and approved. And some of those items we already have in the Comprehensive Plan talking about when we look at multi-family developments.

[Approval slide]
As with all requests to rezone a property, notification is made to surrounding property owners within 200 feet. We also publish in the newspaper, a public hearing is held by the Planning Commission, and recommendation forwarded to the Governing Body.

And one of the things that we do in addition to the state requirements is we have the applicant post the sign on the property indicating the current zoning district, the proposed zoning district and the time and date of the public hearing.

That concludes my presentation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Does anyone on the Council have any questions or comments? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A couple questions, Paul. One of the things I noticed was an estimate of 1.3 cars per unit when you’re looking at parking spaces and so on. And I’m just wondering where you came up with that number because I don’t know. I’m past the 55 mark and I know most of this -- I’d have a hell of a time getting that car away from my wife. I know she wouldn’t let go of it. I’m sure not getting rid of mine either. Baby boomers seem to love their cars. And the group coming up behind us seems to be no less disposed to giving up an extra car either.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I don’t know if that’s a very good idea to look at a 1.3 on that because I think it’s going to be closer to 2 than 1.3.

MAYOR DISTLER: And tell me if I’m speaking out of hand. But I actually did read an article recently, the older you get though the more chances of the marriage becoming one spouse because of death or disability. So, that is what changes the --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, people die. That puts a damper on it. But when we’re bringing the level down to 55, okay. Now, if we were looking at assisted living and things like that you’re spot on. Absolutely. But at 55, we’re talking about some pretty robust people these days. They’re out and doing their thing.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. It’s just not everyone there will be 55. You’ll have 65, 75, 85, as long as they can --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Got it. But it allows 55 --

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and above.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, if it sells out and a lot of 55 to 60-year-old time frame people move in there and say, well, I love this facility we’re going to have a lot more cars and it’s going to impact significantly on the traffic as well. So, I just think that’s kind of a low number there perhaps. I’m not really sure we’re safe with that.

MR. CHAFFEE: Our current zoning regulations, which are adopted in the parking standards, the standard is 1.3 units be provided. That doesn’t mean that that’s what a development may come in at. They may have more parking spaces if they feel that their clientele is going to require more. And that’s one of the reasons when the Planning Commission takes a look at an increased density they’ll take a look at the number of parking stalls as provided. One of the things we’re also beginning to see in senior living developments is the underground parking or the covered parking types of facilities. So, while putting it under the building you don’t have to have so much land up above on the surface to provide the parking. And that 1.3 comes from national standards that are published for various types of land uses throughout the country.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: However, when they want to go somewhere they got to leave that area and try to get on the streets and join the traffic.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, that’s another consideration if, of course, and you mentioned traffic in here in this study.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But with this kind of density obviously you’re talking quite a few more cars and there might only be certain areas that would really be appropriate for this. Because I’m looking at -- when you say low density we’re talking about the potential placing this in areas of low density. That’s five units per acre.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And we’re going to say we’re going to possibly put in something here with 19 or 20 residences per acre.

MR. CHAFFEE: No. No, we’re not. We’re saying in the areas that are designated for low density perhaps up to 12.7 dwelling units acre.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. So, you’re going from --

MR. CHAFFEE: And that would be on a case by case basis.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You go from a maximum of five to 12. 7.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. For senior living only.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Could you add that for medium and high density then?

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, what we did for medium density is we took it up to the 21.7.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 21.78.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. 21.78, which would be the 2,000 square foot per acre is the 21.78. That’s where that comes from. And that’s for senior living facilities only also.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you know, Paul, in many cases --

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I hadn’t quite finished with my questions.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think in many cases this may work out just fine. I’m worried about I guess those exceptions that’s really kind of come to mind. I’m thinking about we’re trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole. A developer has got a piece of land out here, they want to jam this in there and the property owners are really unhappy in the neighborhood where this is being proposed. And, you know, we’re out there with pitchforks and their little lanterns and things in the dark of night, you know, at your doorstep. I’m not real crazy about that concept. And that’s where I’m really coming from in all of this. I think in a lot of cases this can work out fine. I think in the last meeting I suggested we look at that Land Use Guide or the comprehensive guide, I’d like to take a really good look at that and kind of hone that down and say, okay, here is the areas where we really think this type of development would be really appropriate and would work out really well and designate those areas. We’ve designated other areas. You can do candy stripe and we can do other things that have two designations on a specific parcel. And I’d kind of like to see some analysis and study like that where we could kind of point the developers in the right direction where we see this is a good path. It’s one that’s probably not going to be a high resistant situation. I’d like to encourage you guys to go over here if you would kind of deal instead of just say it was open season, come on in and then we’ll tell you no if we don’t like that. I mean, that --

MR. CHAFFEE: And I think that’s something to take a look at. But we don’t do with the Land Use Guide for anywhere else saying this is where we want Walmart to go, or this is where we want a dog kennel to go.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, if Walmart was a high-rise Walmart we might.

MR. CHAFFEE: The issue then becomes then as sort of talking to a real estate person is if we start going out and saying these are the four sites that we’ll approve senior living facilities on, these are what we’ve identified, the price of that property has gone up exponentially because the property owner knows he’s got the developer where he wants him to be. That these are the only four sites. I’m one of the four sites. He’s coming to me and chances are the price of the raw ground is going to increase or the negotiations may not be as broad.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But, Paul, it still comes back to a simple obligation we have to the residents of this community that are already here.

MR. CHAFFEE: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I think we need to protect those folks. They have their property. They purchased it maybe 20, 30 years ago, maybe just last year. And they went into that property thinking that this was the way it’s going to be. And they notice what their environment is, what their neighborhood looks like, the makeup. And suddenly, whoops, these guys are wanting to cram in a 21.78 units per acre right next door to me here. And I didn’t really buy into this when I bought this property. And that’s why I’d like to -- I just want to make sure we have safeguards for the folks that are already there. I think that’s something that’s really incumbent upon us to do that.

MR. CHAFFEE: And that’s one of the things that we take a look at the Land Use Guide on a frequent basis. Because what may have been appropriate 30 years ago on a piece of property that’s undeveloped may not be appropriate today. And that’s why the zoning process then becomes important. If we’re unhappy with the development and its locations and have the reasons to deny it, it certainly gives us an opportunity to do that without saying it’s going to be here, here or here. And if it’s anywhere else, you know, we’re basically saying up front sort of prejudging, no, we don’t want it at this location.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I accept that argument to a great extent. But I wouldn’t think it would be hurtful to have some guidance that’s provided saying that I know that this is the type of area that, you know, you could expect good and swift approval from the Planning Commission --

MR. CHAFFEE: Certainly.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and the Governing Body because this is the type of thing that this ordinance is looking at as far as encouraging development in this kind of area. I don’t think that’s harmful.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are you complete now?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m done.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig and then Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. So, I reviewed the minutes from the past meeting that I wasn’t at and reviewed the Land Use Guide. And I guess I’m a little bit confused. I don’t quite understand the objection to this. As I see it these are very light amendments to the Land Use Guide. Basically it allows us to consider higher density for senior living facilities in areas that are low to medium density. So, the key word is “consider.” The process, as Paul outlined, isn’t changing. It still has to go through the same process that we’ve come to know as far as going through the Planning Commission, then going to us on the Governing Body for approval. So, the fact of the matter is it gives us more leverage to be able to consider possible exceptions that are out of the box. But, you know, to claim this is open season, I mean, that’s just not true at all because it’s basically just giving us the ability to consider if something comes before us that we think may be a good exception that we have that ingrained in our Land Use Guide, which is of itself a blueprint and vision of future development in this city that we look at year after year, number one. Number two, this was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. There was no protest, no dissent that was registered at that meeting, which is also something to consider. And then, you know, it is true from a development perspective, I know when it comes to traditional multi-family housing many objections are raised as far as traffic patterns and how those are changed in regard to that. It is a fact with senior facilities the traffic patterns are like comparing apples to oranges. You have less traffic. Usually you don’t have families per unit. So, if you have one vehicle at the most per unit, not multiple vehicles. And many of these communities are communities within a community and they provide services such as shuttle services, bus services to take residents to and from places, to take them to events. And so there is less use on traditional vehicle transportation. So, that also has to be taken into account. And the other fact is when it comes to high density, particularly for senior living, it makes sense to be able to look at these exceptions. From a property tax perspective it’s more beneficial to have the higher density. It’s more efficient that way. And then, you know, I would just also add too that, you know, it comes back to how competitive we want to be with our surrounding communities. Overland Park and Lenexa, they have -- these communities are exploding. The Village Co-op is a great example. That filled up pretty quickly when that opened here in Shawnee. I spoke with the marketing director over there who basically is in charge of all of their properties. And the one in Lenexa, and I’m not sure if it’s open yet. I know it wasn’t in the summer. But it was already at 75 percent capacity and it hadn’t even opened yet. So, that shows you that there’s a high demand for these types of facilities within our area. And so the question is if -- are we as a city going to meet that demand or are we going to let other -- our neighboring cities meet that demand.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We have a piece of property that’s five acres that abuts or is adjacent like to a regular R-1 neighborhood, what’s the height that you indicated earlier? Was it four stories or was it --

MR. CHAFFEE: No. I didn’t mention a height specific. The RHR, which is our residential high rise zoning district is for buildings that are four stories or greater. The PMR zoning district is three stories or less per acre. Already an RHR, all that’s required is 800 square feet per dwelling unit. So, we’re at 54 dwelling units an acre which is higher than the surrounding the communities. Where we sort of lag behind is on our three-story for senior living or for that matter any apartment type development. And I didn’t mention the higher density on five acres just in the middle of an R-1 area. The Planning Commission was concerned about that too. And so if they were looking at a low density, a senior development in a low density designation on the Land Use Guide, that they wanted that property to also be adjacent to a major collector or major arterial street. So, it could handle any additional traffic. That doesn’t mean that they would approve it because one of the other factors that we take a look at is, you know, what’s surrounding it. You know, my guess would be if it was single family residential all around it and circling it totally without any other uses and they were looking for a high density senior living that they would probably say that’s not appropriate. And more than that it’s not going to be in the middle of a single family neighborhood. If it were anything it would be at a fringe because it’s along one of the major streets.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The reason I bring that up is because we have -- we had that brought up on the Cobblestone property where originally when they did the Cobblestone development it was a senior living development, they built patio homes, you know, to buffer, you know, the senior development to, let’s just say the east and the north, from the residential houses. But when they switched it over to an apartment complex they had basically four-story structures, you know, looking up the hill, you know, from the residences to the west. So, you know, how do you prevent, you know, that, you know, from happening to, you know, someone that’s been an R-1 and looking at a field and now all of a sudden they’ve got a four-story, three stories and a roof. Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: You know, that’s what you take a look at when you’re evaluating the rezoning application. In Cobblestone, the villas were actually along the west side and along the south side of the development and you had a five-story senior living building that was going to be at the north side of that site adjacent to the pond that’s there today.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right. But the --

MR. CHAFFEE: So, the taller building was actually closer to the neighbors that were on the north and the northwest of the site. And then the shorter buildings were further to the south more adjacent to the property that was vacant.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: To the west.

MR. CHAFFEE: And then the three homes in Mill Valley.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are you done?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sure.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I was just asking.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no. I’m thinking, but go ahead.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You said for parking, so the 1.3 that Councilman Jenkins was talking about, so you said we currently have 1.3, so nothing has -- are we changing that or is that what it’s been?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. Nothing will change.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: And those are national standards --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- that we use for parking.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, that’s been around for quite some time. So, former Planning Commissions would have voted on that for many years.

MR. CHAFFEE: And I don’t believe that that’s changed since 1974.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: I believe that portion of the code is the same.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Interesting. I’m going, you know, and Brandon brought it up and I brought it up before, it’s really all about competition. You know, we’re not competing with our neighboring cities. And I believe the reason we’re doing this is like you said. You had developers that have been coming to us saying we’d love to build senior housing or we’re trying to build senior housing in Shawnee, but it’s not feasible based on what other markets are allowing, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: You’re correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if we want senior housing this is something that we need to be competitive on because it really is driven by dollars with developers. And when you can increase a number of units it increases the return on your project which then makes it feasible. As far as picking and choosing sites, you know, I’m kind of a free market guy. I kind of thought other members of this Council were also free market people. And when we start dictating to developers, when we start telling them where they’re going to build something versus them coming to us, you know, we’re kind of getting this thing reversed. I’m in the business, but I don’t do site selection. Nobody up here is qualified to do site selection. When developers are going to develop something there’s companies, that’s what they do. And they take a look at traffic. They look at demographics. They look at trends. They look at a lot of factors and the go after sites that they think their project will succeed the most in. And when we try and play the role of site selector and tell them, oh, no, well, we know that site you like, but we think you should go over here, you know, that just doesn’t fly. So, what the developer says is, you know, I’ll just go to another city, how about that. And then we sit here and look green fields for another 20 years wondering why nobody wants to build in Shawnee. We have a Land Use Guide. If someone bought their house 20 years ago and next door to them that Land Use Guide said this is multi-family and they didn’t bother to look at what that field was designated for in the Land Use Guide, I’m sorry, but you have that opportunity. You can walk into City Hall. You can ask for the Land Use Guide and you can say I live next to a field. What’s the potential for that field? And the Planning Department would be more than happy to say, well, it could be this, this, this or this. Yes, we can increase density like we’re talking about, but we’re talking about senior housing. I don’t think an increase in senior housing is going to offend anybody. The fact that nobody was offended at the Planning Commission meeting when they had the public meeting tells me that we’re trying to make this into a political issue here and it’s not. This is a Planning Commission issue as several members on this or a few members on this Council were former Planning Commissioners, they should understand that. We are not here to tell the Planning Commission how to put together the Land Use Guide. They put it together. They bring it to us. We approve it. It’s been approved. And when we do get into that role of telling somebody where they’re going to build or not going to build something, then are we also going to take on the responsibility of the success or failure? If we say, no, we don’t want you to build your project there, we’re going to say you can build your project here, then are we also going to be responsible for the failure of that project when it doesn’t fly because that’s ultimately what we’re doing. It’s the epitome of picking and choosing when you start doing that. That is not our role. It is free markets. They’re going to go find a site. They’re going to look at our Land Use Guide. They’re going to decide if that site works for them and they’re going to come to us with a plan and they’re going to put a plan together that’s got to fit within our zoning laws and we approve it or we don’t approve it. But we’re not here to pick and choose sides.

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I just wanted to [inaudible]. You know, if we go along with something like this, how do we prevent what, you know, four-story structure is right beside someone’s house? You know, because that’s the potential. And we have that potential over there right now on Pflumm Road and 62nd Street.

MR. CHAFFEE: Sure. And the potential is always there for someone to come. Although I don’t think that if someone came in with a four-story building surrounded by single family homes that the Planning Commission is going to think that that’s necessarily an appropriate location. And I’m not so sure that a developer is going to want to put his four-story building completely surrounded by single family.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t have to be completely surrounded by, but it could be right next to these two houses right here and the moving away. And the idea is to have some buffering there. You start out at single level or two levels.

MR. CHAFFEE: And that’s why the Planning Commission has their hearing on the rezoning application and discusses those different factors and makes recommendations to the Governing Body. And then the Governing Body acts upon the recommendation that’s made by the Planning Commission. And, you know, that’s one of the beauties with rezoning. If it gets sent back to the Planning Commission that the Governing Body has some concerns and can express those concerns, the Planning Commission can look at that and determine whether they should modify a recommendation or suggest to the developer to modify it and then send it back in a different form.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are you done?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I mean, I’m just wondering about that because we had that issue already and the Planning Commission put four-story building right next to, you know, to this west side. So, how do we prevent that from, you know, and with the ordinance here I mean you can’t --

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, at the time the Cobblestone Court development came in and those buildings were considered by the Planning Commission and it came to the Governing Body and the Governing Body also determined that those structures were appropriate in those locations with those given elevations.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. The single story ones. But when the --

MR. CHAFFEE: No.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: The five-story was approved, too.

MR. CHAFFEE: The senior building was part of the Cobblestone Court plan --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, I understand that.

MR. CHAFFEE: along with some commercial type development. And those elevations for the five-story senior living building was part of the approval and the elevations were approved when that rezoning went through. And let me say it was five-story from one side and four stories from the other because it was a built on a hill, so it had a lower level.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm, are you done?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m good. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Paul, thank you for your presentation. This gives a little more understanding to some of us that have never had the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission. But I think these are good amendments for both the zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan. I think it gives us some more tools and certainly could help us perhaps competitively, but I think there are lots of stop gaps and things where everything can be thoroughly vetted to make sure it’s in everyone’s best interest.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I just want to bring up real quick about competitiveness again because, and I brought this up and I actually read some neighbors in our last meeting about what our other cities are doing. So, when we look at apartment complexes, this argument is, well, and it all seems to be about a certain piece of ground that is on Pflumm Road. So, I was there, you know, the argument was, well, that would be fine if they build them out on 435. They just need to build these out on 435. But as policy, and even on our -- and we’ve not been talking about this, but even on our non-- on our regular multi-family, not even retirement. Our senior housing, we’re what, our maximum is?

MR. CHAFFEE: 15.5.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: 15.5. So, the brand new complex on 435 in Lenexa, just this side of 87th Street on the west side there that block developed, that’s 30 units an acre. So, everybody that sits there and, you know, a lot of people think it would be great to have a complex like that in Shawnee. That would do great things for us. Thirty units an acre. The new one that they’re building on Quivira at about, what is that --

MR. CHAFFEE: 82nd.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: 82nd. Yeah. So, it’s on the east side of Quivira there. There’s about 17 -- 16 to 17 units an acre. You couldn’t even build that in Shawnee. I mean, that’s -- this whole density issue, we have to get our head around the fact that urban sprawl just doesn’t work. We’re going to have to get dense if we’re going to compete. If anybody is going to build anything in Shawnee, then we’re going to have to change our attitudes on density and understand that if our retail is going to succeed, if we’re going to be able to get restaurants to come to Shawnee like everybody keeps asking for, it takes warm bodies. It takes density. The reason all those things are being built all over the other cities is because they have a lot density. We don’t. You drive around, you do an aerial shot of Shawnee and you see a lot of green field. And when you look at our density numbers on a map we’re not that dense. In fact, we’re not dense at all. So, there’s just not -- we might have some areas of good income, but just not a lot of people of them. We need to increase these density numbers and we need to increase the demographics of -- that multi-family brings on quality multi-family that bring -- that go out and spend more time in restaurants. So, even when we’re talking about senior housing, you increase a density, it’s a more expensive project. It’s more money on the tax rolls. When you go from 10 units to 20 units, the value of the project increases based on the number of units they’re making, which then increases it on the tax rolls and increases our tax base. A multi-family project is considered commercial property. When you look at our commercial rates and say we need x-amount of dollars from commercial property taxes, multi-family is considered a commercial property. Not from the standpoint of zoning, but when you look at taxes it’s a rental, it’s a commercial property. We have got to step up to the plate.

MAYOR DISTLER: And I guess just to kind of add to that and what Mr. Kenig said, I guess what comes to my mind though in regard to competition, I don’t know if you’d really call it that, but just with Saturday being our shop local, you know, we want a balanced community. And retired folks tend to have the tendency to shop local more than anyone because they don’t want to drive out to Olathe to see their doctor or their dentist or go to the bank. And they’re retired so they’re not at work during the day and stop in at the grocery store in Overland Park instead of their local grocery store in Shawnee or going to the Walmart and with the senior living, we’re not putting the extra burden on the schools that has been, you know, such an issue. So, it’s increasing our population. It’s balancing the community. It’s increasing it in a, I believe a good way that helps supports all of our businesses that are in Shawnee and would help them to thrive to bring in more local. But competition that-wise. I see them shopping local a lot more than the younger generation. I mean, not that either way is bad, it’s just another thought that comes to mind of why I would think we would want to definitely increase our senior living.

But are there any other questions or comments from the Council? Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: This is kind of a rehash of the conversation we had two weeks ago. And I talked with Paul some and I appreciate that conversation. He said something kind of similar to what Brandon, which is that he said it’s not just a blank check. Obviously we’re not just going to let you build these wherever. And, Brandon, you had said open season. It’s not open season. There are definitely some checks and balances in place. So, I don’t know if this being really representative as they can put it wherever whenever, but it is potentially opening the door to putting close to a 13 unit per acre building in what’s now currently designated as low density. And I think that’s where my hang-up is. I try to visualize what that would look like. It’s not apples to apples, but the Vantage, at least the original proposal was around -- it was a little over ten. And so we’re saying this could be 30 percent more dense than that. And I get parking is not the same and these aren’t the same. But I just wonder if that’s the best use. And Mr. Vaught had said, you know, they can go to the Land Use Guide and see the field next to them is low density or whatever and then they should make their opinions based on that. Well, when I went to the City’s website to pull up the Land Use Guide, here is what the City website says is a key to the Land Use Guide. “Low density areas range from rural uses to typical suburban subdivisions.” So, you see that piece of land next to you that’s what’s you think is going in there. Not four-story retirement home. Medium density includes duplexes and townhome developments. So, medium is duplex. If you see it next to you it’s medium, you’re maybe thinking duplexes. Small multi-family uses, planned unit developments, it goes on. And then high density you would generally expect an apartment or condominium. So, are we changing the game on people that are next to a low and we’re saying, well, we told you here you could expect typical suburban subdivisions, but now we’re going to put something in that is otherwise considered heavy density, which is over ten. We’re going to say that this nearly 13 residential, or that this nearly 13 senior living facility can now go in what we had told you was going to be either rural or subdivisions. So, that’s where I’m a little bit concerned. Yeah. You’re right. It still has to go through the Planning Commission. It still has to get approved. It still has to get approved by the Council. So, I realize there are some checks and balances. I’m just not sure if I’m comfortable with the way this is written. You know, we can ask ourselves -- the last time someone applied to have one of the re zonings and we said no, they didn’t take it so well. And so what happens if the Planning Commission does approve this and we say, ah, we don’t want it. We’re going to find ourselves in another similar situation. I don’t know. It’s all hypothetical. So, who knows if we end up there. But essentially where my hesitation to go forward with this is, is just, golly, I look at that medium density and I think it’s almost 22 units. I don’t know what that’s going to look like. I mean, can you get that under three stories, four stories? I don’t know at the end of the day what that would look like. But that seems like a lot to put in that area. So, those are my objections on it. Those are my objections. Oh, one more. Sorry. I don’t fully buy the argument that because no one from the public showed up to the Planning Commission meeting to protest it means that everyone in the public is in favor of it. We know that City elections, we get awful turnout, like 10 to 13 percent. And it’s just [inaudible]. So, just because they didn’t show up doesn’t necessarily mean people are in favor of it. It just means that, well, it could mean lots of things. It could mean they weren’t aware of it. Could mean they didn’t consider it because it’s not directly affecting them. There’s a lot of different things. So, just because it was passed unanimously or there was no public dissent doesn’t inherently mean it was supported by the public.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would agree that you could say that because someone didn’t show up. But the idea of the Planning Commission, which how many members are there?

MR. CHAFFEE: Eleven.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, I mean, there are only eight of us. They have 11 Planning Commission members. They’re not elected. They’re appointed. But, you know, you try and pick people that are a part of the community that are somewhat active, that are involved, that talk to people. So, you know, they’re not just doing things on a limb. I think there’s members up here that were Planning Commissioners. I’m sure you put thought into what you did. I’m sure you looked at the consequences. So, on an issue like this would you have just went in and passed it or would you have maybe talked to some people and said, hey, what do you think about this. You know, it’s no different than we do. So, you can only do so much as a city. You put it out there. If someone is really concerned, if someone is really an activist, then they would have been there. And obviously we have enough watchdogs in this that watch pretty much everything we do and everything the Planning Commission does that if there was any real angst over this there would have been a bunch of people in that room screaming and yelling because they would have made an issue of it. They didn’t see an issue with it. At the end of the day we’re talking about senior housing. I would vote today to increase density for multi-family all around. That’s not on the table. Hopefully in the next year or so it will be because we need to compete as a community. We need to drop this 1980s mentality that this is how it’s always -- this is how we’ve always done it. And if we continue to do this and cross our fingers and pray that it’s going to work out for us because it’s not. It’s not working out for us. Developers aren’t coming to Shawnee to develop these projects. We’ve gotten a few. But if you look around our neighboring communities we’re getting killed. This is about retirement housing. I live in a really nice neighborhood out in western Shawnee. If I field next to me and somebody wanted to put a retirement housing there with, you know, 12 units or 15 units per acre, I wouldn’t have any angst over that. I would welcome them. And I would hope my son would go over there and maybe volunteer to help some people do some stuff because that’s what communities do. And if somebody sat up there and protested I’d have to really look at them and say, really? You really are going to protest a retirement community like you think these people are going to come and break in your house? Are they going to throw rocks at you? Do you think they’re going to have big wild parties and beer cans all over the place because that’s what old people do? I am so baffled by this. Some of the things that we talk about here I don’t get it. Increasing density, retirement communities. Encourage developers to build retirement communities in Shawnee. And we’re going to say, no, I don’t know think that’s a good idea. You know, let’s let them go to other cities. Let’s just keep looking at that field that’s paying $13 a year in property tax instead of maybe $30,000-40,000 a year.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other comments or questions from the Council? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just one final comment. I try very hard to make it to as many of these Mayor’s Third Thursday meetings as I can. And at those meetings the Mayor goes around the room and has each one of the individuals that’s attending the meeting talk about how long they’ve been in Shawnee and what they like about Shawnee and that sort of thing. I invite you to come to those meetings on Thursdays because what you’ll hear from most of the people in that room what they like about Shawnee is that it has a small town environment with a full size city where you have a lot of amenities you like to have a for a community in terms of emergency services and police and shopping, city services, et cetera, but they still have the small town atmosphere and small town environment. I don’t hear anybody pounding the table saying, you know, we’ve got to get some more apartments in here. We’ve got a density -- make this city much more dense. Frankly, that flies in the face of what the people are telling us. And I just have a little bit of angst about that when the people are telling me they don’t want all that. They like the city the way it is. And I’m not saying we don’t want to have any housing for elderly projects and so on. I think that’s a great opportunity to have some of those. And I absolutely encourage that type of development in the community. What I’m worried about though is keeping the flavor of our community as it is, keeping our environment so that it still appeals to the people that invested in our community and moved here and live here. You also notice an awful lot of them lived here for a very long time. It’s not unusual for the overall length of time that people have been living here to exceed 30 years. So, people like it here. They’re here for a reason. And it isn’t because they want to have a bunch of apartments built. Now, apartments and elderly housing projects are a reality. That is something that is there and is something that we will deal with. And I’m sure there will be applications to build such facilities and we can look at each one of those as they come in and judge on its merits. And if it fits appropriate with the community and it fits in appropriately with the neighboring housing and so on, I think it’s great. I’d love to have it. But I just have a strong sense obligation to our community and our citizens and that weighs heavily on me when I look at things like this. I want to be sure we protect the folks. Do I want development? Absolutely. Do I want more opportunities for people to not have to move out of Shawnee to get into a retirement community? Of course, I don’t want to have to have them moved. I want them to be able to stay here. So, you know, we’ve got to weigh all this out. This all got to fit. That’s all. And I think it’s just a balancing act to a certain extent.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I wasn’t going to say anything. I guess just to play devil’s advocate I would say to Councilmember Jenkins. I have attended those coffees and I would encourage you to attend the evening quarterly Q&A that the Mayor does out in west Shawnee. And I’ll tell you that the response is quite different. And those folks want multi-family. Those folks want development so we can get the restaurants, so we can get the storefront, so we can get development. And those folks also made a significant investment in our city. And I would like to keep them here. So, I do think we have to balance it. But I do want the record to reflect that there are a significant number of citizens who say quite the opposite, that we are lagging behind, that Shawnee is not competitive, that we are not where we should be in terms of development, and that includes multi-family housing. So, I think it just really -- there are both perspectives I would say.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Sounds like we need to build in western Shawnee.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I would just add to what Councilmember Meyer said. I think the viewpoints in Shawnee are much more diverse than what has been presented. I think it definitely depends on the audience and who you’re talking to. The Mayor attended a Young Professionals meeting earlier this year. And the number one concern for them was multi-family housing, additional entertainment and amenities. And these are people that live and work in Shawnee. Many of them have young families as well, you know, looking for a place that they can grow and, you know, basically set down roots. And so the, and I can, you know, go all day long and tell stories anecdotally of people I know that have left because of lack of housing, being able to find something that meets what they’re looking for in the city. And that’s different age ranges. So, not just young professionals I know. But I had a neighbor who became widowed in her 50s and not finding a senior living facility she liked here ended up moving to Lenexa. And that was earlier this year. So, there’s plenty of stories out there like this. So, it’s, you know, I think we have a pretty diverse community. And when you have a community that’s the seventh largest in the state of Kansas, third largest in the county with almost 70,000, approaching 70,000 people, you’re going to have a lot of different perspectives, a lot of different viewpoints. So, it’s much more complex than that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And just to expand a little bit on what Stephanie said in reference to what Mr. Jenkins said. So, you do have two different schools of thought I guess, two different mind sets, east and west. And so while the west is saying we want these things, what we find also is that they’re not as sensitive to taxes and they understand that quality of life costs money. So, when we look at the meetings down here what’s interesting is the same people are saying, maybe saying they don’t want development are the ones that complain the most about the their taxes. And unless you’re living in a bubble, if you don’t have development and you don’t increase the tax base, then that burden goes on to the single-family homeowner. And when you look at the amount of taxes paid around the city by ward, I can guarantee you Ward III pays far more in taxes than any other individual ward. And they are the most proactive on wanting things. So, you know, you’re right. The people that you’re talking to they’re older. They’ve lived here a long time. And chances are in ten years a lot of them aren’t going to be here. And the question is who is going to buy that house because millennials aren’t buying houses. Is it going to be a homeowner? Is it going to be an investor? Will it become a rental property? Are we doing what we need to do to create a community to attract the young, right kind of people, upwardly mobile professionals that will move into this city and keep it thriving. Like what happened in Prairie Village, like what’s happening in Lenexa. If you look around Shawnee right now a lot of these houses and a lot of these downtown neighborhoods are rental homes. Is that what we want? Do we want rental villages? Is that good for our economy? Is that good for our public safety? Does that put a demand on our services? Yeah. Big demand. I mean, it takes money to do this. And development generates revenue. The only other way you’re going to do is to raise taxes. So, I mean, I’d rather develop. I’d rather build things. I’d rather see things come out of the ground and get built.

MAYOR DISTLER: And I want to say every statement up here has been correct, Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Meyer, Mr. Kenig, all of them. Nothing has ever been so enlightening to me in my entire life than going to 6,000 house in the City of Shawnee and having people tell me what they think because it’s a full spectrum of what the people in this community want. And I was actually interviewed tonight by a couple of high school students. And that was one of the questions and one of the challenges is balancing the needs of the entire community. That’s one of the biggest challenges is trying to balance the needs when there is such a spectrum of viewpoints. But every statement said is absolutely right. What Mr. Jenkins said was right, what Ms. Meyer said, Mr. Kenig. All of these meetings have truly happened and they’re all residents of Shawnee. So, we have to take into consideration everyone’s viewpoints. And, Mr. Pflumm, did you have something or --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just wondering if we could move on.

a) Pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. All right. So, the first recommended action is to consider passing an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: The nays were Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kemmling. Okay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report. The motion passed 5-3; with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting nay.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3175 was assigned.)

b) Pass an Ordinance making text amendments to Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan for the introductory paragraphs of the Residential Land Use section.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider passing an Ordinance making text amendments to Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan for the introductory paragraphs of the Residential Land Use section.

Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kemmling, nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance making text amendments to Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan for the introductory paragraphs of the Residential Land Use section. The motion passed 5-3 with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting nay.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3176 was assigned.)

I. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER 2017 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE PROPOSAL.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is I. Staff Items. Item No. 1 is to Consider 2017 Property and Casualty Insurance Proposal. On November 23, 2015, the Governing Body awarded the 2016 Property and Casualty Insurance contract to Brit-State National. The City has received a quote to renew coverage for 2017, which includes additional earthquake coverage for city facilities and a slight reduction in premium.

The recommended action is to consider awarding the 2017 property and casualty insurance to Brit-State National in the approximate amount of $261,121.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to award the 2017 property and casualty insurance to Brit-State National in the approximate amount of $261,121. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY PROJECT, K-7 TO CLARE ROAD, P.N. 3413.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to Consider Bids and Award Contract for the Clear Creek Parkway Project, K-7 to Clare Road, P.N. 3413. Bids were taken on November 9, 2016 from twelve contractors. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to the low bidder R.L. Duncan, De Soto, Kansas, in the amount of $4,995,074.35, and accepting the alternate bid for concrete pavement.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract, including the concrete pavement option.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract, including the concrete pavement option, with R.L. Duncan in the amount of $4,995,074.35 for the Clear Creek Parkway Project, K-7 to Clare Road, P.N. 3413. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH OLSSON ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE NIEMAN NORTH STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, P.N. 3425, SMP TC-21-074.

MAYOR DISTLER Item No. 3 is to consider an Engineering Services Agreement with Olsson Associates, Inc. for the Nieman North Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3425, SMP TC-21-074. This project is on the Capital Improvement Program for design in 2017. Six firms were solicited to perform the original Preliminary Engineering Study. Olsson Associates, Inc. was selected at that time and staff is recommending the City engage them to provide the engineering design services for an amount not to exceed $674,798.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Agreement.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Motion for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement with Olsson Associates, Inc. in the amount of $647,798 for engineering services related to the Nieman Road Corridor North Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3425, SMP TC-021-074. The motion passed 8-0.]

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR NOVEMBER 28, 2016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,422,519.99.

MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Items. Item No. 1 is to Ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for November 28, 2016, in the Amount of $1,422,519.99.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to ratify the semi-monthly claim for November 28, 2016, in the Amount of $1,422,519.99. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’d just like to congratulate the Mill Valley Football team --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yea.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- for the second straight State Championship.

(Applause)

MAYOR DISTLER: Is that all?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We should invite them in to have a proclamation. We didn’t do it last year, so we really should invite them.

MAYOR DISTLER: No, I did.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, excuse me.

MAYOR DISTLER: I went to the school and I’ll be doing it again tomorrow.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’ve got it under control.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, normally they come in here.

MAYOR DISTLER: I know. They want me to come to them.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s a long drive from out there.

[Governing Body talking amongst themselves.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: You got a little festivity coming up on Saturday. You want to talk about that?

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, yes, the Mayor’s Christmas Tree Lighting.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. Uh-huh.

MAYOR DISTLER: Saturday night.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: 4:30. Lights go on about 5:15. And then afterwards you can go and sit on Santa’s lap down at --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we’re still accepting donations.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, yes. For the Mayor’s Christmas Tree Fund, which benefits the Lion’s Club, Vision Screening and Rebuilding Together Shawnee. So, anything else? Okay.

3. CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THOSE ACQUISITION DISCUSSION.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 3 is to Conduct Executive Session for the Purpose of Discussing the Acquisition of Property for the Purpose of Protecting the Confidentiality of Those Acquisition Discussion.

a) Recess to Executive Session.

MAYOR DISTLER: I will accept a motion to Recess to Executive Session for one hour for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting will resume in the City Council Chambers.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could we make it one hour or less?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes, please.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes, one hour or less.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to recess to Executive Session for one hour so we can discussion property --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second. Or less.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Or less.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Or less.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Third.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to recess into Executive Session. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council in Recess from 8:15 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.)

b) Conclude Executive Session.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next action is to conclude the Executive Session.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to conclude an Executive Session.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to conclude the Executive Session. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Reconvene meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next action is to reconvene the meeting. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to reconvene.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

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

d) Direct staff to register for auction of Westbrooke Village

MAYOR DISTLER: If there are no other -- oh, wait, there is another item.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’d like to make a motion to direct staff to register in the auction site for acquisition of Westbrooke Village for the purpose of doing due diligence at this point.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. Any further discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could we do a roll call vote?

MAYOR DISTLER: Sure. Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Do you need to put the amount in there or --

MAYOR DISTLER: I think he did, didn’t he?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I just said register.
[Governing Body talking amongst themselves.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nope.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: The motion passes with Mr. Pflumm, Jenkins, and Kemmling voting in dissent.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to direct staff to register in the auction site for acquisition of Westbrooke Village for the purpose of doing due diligence. The motion passed 5-3 with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting nay.]

K. ADJOURNMENT

MAYOR DISTLER: If there are no other items I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Third.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:12 p.m.)


CERTIFICATE

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

/das December 6, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC11282016.docx