7. Consideration of a rezoning and preliminary plan known as Canyon Ridge Apartment Homes for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development comprised of multifamily residential, nursing home, and convenience store with gasoline sales uses on property located near the northwest corner of K-10 Highway & Canyon Creek Boulevard

[7. Consideration of a rezoning and preliminary plan known as Canyon Ridge Apartment Homes for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development comprised of multifamily residential, nursing home, and convenience store with gasoline sales uses on property located near the northwest corner of K-10 Highway & Canyon Creek Boulevard]

RESIDENTIAL, NURSING HOME AND CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GASOLINE SALES.

USES PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF K-10 HIGHWAY AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

ITEM SEVEN A IS AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM AG, CPO AND PLAN GENERAL OFFICE AND CP TWO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

ITEM SEVEN B IS THE APPROVAL OF A A COMPANION PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR CANYON RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES.

STEPHANIE SCOTT MCCULLOUGH.

ACTUALLY, WHILE STEPHANIE PLUGS GREAT PLUGS IN HER TECH HERE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SCOTT MCCULLOUGH, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY.

THE REZONING AND PLAN APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT CONTAIN 45 ACRES AND ARE PROPOSED FOR MIXED USE.

A MIX OF USES, AS STEPHANIE WILL PRESENT TO YOU IN A MOMENT.

I WANTED TO NOTE, THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AND ALSO SOME APPARENT CONFUSION OR MISINFORMATION CIRCULATING ABOUT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE AREA, INCLUDING THAT THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING BEING CONVERTED TO MULTIFAMILY, APPARENT CONFUSION ON WHICH PROPERTY IS CITY PARKLAND AND PRESERVED FOR SUCH USES, VERSUS WHICH PROPERTY IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP WITH SOME KIND OF USE IN THE FUTURE.

SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS, AT LEAST I HEARD REGARDING DEVIATIONS GRANTED FOR RECENTLY APPROVED CONVENIENCE STORES AND GAS PUMP ISLANDS.

AND SO WITH THAT CONTEXT, STEPHANIE KESSLER, THE CITY'S PLANNING MANAGER, WILL PRESENT A SOMEWHAT LENGTHIER THAN USUAL.

I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, BUT, SOMEWHAT LENGTHIER, THAN USUAL POWERPOINT.

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE FACTS AND STAFF'S FINDINGS REGARDING THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE UNIFORM, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY WHICH ALL REZONING AND PLAN APPLICATIONS OF THESE TYPES ARE JUDGED AGAINST.

WE DO THAT TO CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO MARKET DEMAND.

THE PRESSURES FOR A VARIETY OF LAND USES INTENDED TO SERVE THE FULL SPECTRUM OF THE CITY'S RESIDENTS AND GUESTS.

AND WITH THAT, TAKE IT AWAY, STEPHANIE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU SCOTT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

STEPHANIE KISTLER, PLANNING MANAGER, HERE TO PRESENT, AS MENTIONED, THE CANYON RIDGE APARTMENTS PROJECT.

THIS IS A APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAN.

AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED, I AM GOING TO GO INTO GREATER DETAIL THAN SOME OF THE PAST PRESENTATIONS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN.

[00:15:01]

JUST BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LARGE CROWD.

AND ALONG THE WAY, TOO, I WANT TO TAKE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME EDUCATIONAL MOMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE, NOT ONLY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT ALSO BEHIND ME, UNDERSTANDS SORT OF WHAT WE DO IN EVALUATING THESE TYPES OF PLANS AND PROPOSALS.

SO TO SET THE STAGE TOO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE WITH ANY SORT OF PLANS THAT COME BEFORE US A REZONING APPLICATION, A PLAN APPLICATION, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THOSE ARE INITIATED BY A DEVELOPERS.

THEY'RE NOT INITIATED BY STAFF.

STAFF'S JOB IN THIS PROCESS IS TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WAS CLEAR ON STAFF'S ROLE IN THIS PROCESS.

WE EVALUATE THOSE APPLICATIONS AND WE COME TO A RECOMMENDATION.

WE DON'T VOTE ON ANYTHING.

WE PROVIDE OUR PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FACTS AND BASED ON THE CODES, AND REVIEWING ALL OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND PLANS.

SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION, I WILL GET GOING.

THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS JUST NORTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY, IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF K-10 AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED.

AND I'M GOING TO START A LITTLE LASER POINTER SO YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN BETTER.

WHEN I POINT TO THINGS.

THIS IS OUR SUBJECT SITE AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS ADJACENT TO THE HIGHWAY TO THE SOUTH, SOME UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST, AND THEN FURTHER TO THE NORTH YOU'LL SEE SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SOME MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE THE CITY OF OLATHE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF K-10 HIGHWAY.

AND THERE ARE SOME DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH.

HERE YOU CAN SEE SOME RESIDENTIAL AND THEN ALSO SOME UNDEVELOPED LAND, AND WE'LL TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THAT LATER AS WELL.

AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A TWO PART APPLICATION, ONE PART FOR REZONING AND ONE PART FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS.

SO I DO WANT TO POINT OUT BOTH OF THOSE COMPONENTS AS WE GET STARTED WITH OUR DISCUSSION HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE CURRENT ZONING IS AG AGRICULTURAL CPO, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT.

CP TWO, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TYPICALLY RETAIL TYPE, USES LOWER INTENSITY.

AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER OF AG ZONING DOWN HERE AS WELL.

SO AGAIN, THREE ZONING DISTRICTS COMPRISE THIS PROPERTY.

CURRENTLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO PUD, WHICH STANDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT ZONING DISTRICT IS TYPICAL FOR A MIXED USE TYPE DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO HAVE MORE THAN JUST ONE TYPE OF LAND USE IN THERE.

SO WITH THE PROPOSED APPLICATION, WE HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.

AND I'M GOING TO SHOW THAT TO YOU ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.

SO NOW ON THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.

IT INCLUDES APARTMENTS.

THERE ARE 22 APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

AND THE DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES EITHER HAVE 12 OR 14 UNITS.

IN THE BUILDINGS, THERE'S A TOTAL OF 346 DWELLING UNITS, AND THAT EQUATES TO 9.62 UNITS PER ACRE, OR UPA, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE. IN THE RED, YOU CAN SEE HERE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL STATION.

SO THERE ARE SOME GASOLINE PUMPS UNDER A CANOPY HERE FACING CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

THAT CONVENIENCE STORE IS PROPOSED TO BE 6100FT².

AND WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT LATER, BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES A DEVIATION FROM THE CODE.

AND THE THIRD COMPONENT HERE IN SORT OF THE BLUE GREEN COLOR IS A NURSING HOME USE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES 80 UNITS IN THAT NURSING HOME BUILDING.

AND IT WOULD BE JUST UNDER 70,000FT² IN SIZE.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE SITE.

I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE READ THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE TO PRESENT SOME INFORMATION ON IT JUST FOR CONTEXT WITH THIS APPLICATION.

BACK IN 1989 AND 1999, THERE WERE SOME ANNEXATIONS FOR THIS CANYON CREEK AREA.

SO THEY BECAME PART OF LENEXA BACK IN THE LATE 80S AND LATE 90S.

IN 2001, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM ALL AG.

SO AS YOU SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SCREEN, IT WAS PART AG, PART CPO, PART KP2.

SO THAT REZONING HAPPENED BACK IN 2001, AND IT WAS PART OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR ALMOST 500 ACRES NEAR PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

SO LIKELY THE AREA THAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT CAME TO THIS MEETING TONIGHT HAVE THEIR HOMES CURRENTLY IN.

SO IT WAS MASTER PLANNED IN 2001 AS PART OF THAT REZONING.

IN 2018, THERE WAS A PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATION AND PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPT PLAN, AND THAT APPLICATION INCLUDED REZONING TO RP FOUR AND CP TWO, AND THAT WAS FOR 12 APARTMENT BUILDINGS, JUST UNDER 300 UNITS, AND EQUATING TO ABOUT 13.36 UNITS PER ACRE AT THE TIME, AND A CONVENIENCE STORE THAT HAD 4773FT².

[00:20:07]

AND THAT APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY THE COUNCIL.

THIS TABLE COMPARES THE 2018 PLAN TO OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL TODAY.

YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE REQUESTED ZONING.

IN 2018 IT WAS CP2 AND P4 AND PUD.

TODAY THE LAND AREA WAS A SMALLER AREA OF THE SITE, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU VISUALLY HERE.

AND THE CURRENT SITE IS ABOUT 45.5 ACRES.

THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS 12 MUCH LARGER BUILDINGS AND THE CURRENT NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IS 22.

SO IT'S BEEN BROKEN INTO SMALLER BUILDINGS.

SO THE MASS AND DENSITY HAS DECREASED.

WITH THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

THE UNITS PER ACRE IS OVERALL LESS DENSE.

IT DOES COVER MORE AREA.

SO THE AMOUNT OF UNITS DID GO UP.

BUT THE OVERALL LAND AREA ALSO WENT UP.

SO IT EQUATES TO UNDER TEN UNITS PER ACRE.

THE BUILDINGS AND THE ORIGINAL 2018 PLAN WERE THREE AND FOUR STORY.

YOU'LL SEE IN SOME OF THE GRAPHICS HERE.

THE GRADING ON THE SITE ALLOWS FOR BASICALLY A23 STORY SPLIT IN SOME AREAS WHERE A PART OF THE BUILDING IS TWO STORY, AND ANOTHER PART OF THE BUILDING IS THREE STORY.

THE PROPOSAL THIS EVENING IS FOR A23 STORY BUILDING, SO OVERALL A LOSS OF ONE STORY.

SO IT'LL BE LESS TALL THAN THE 2018 PLAN.

THE CONVENIENCE STORE PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT LARGER AGAIN, UP FROM 4773 TO JUST OVER 6000FT².

AND THEN THERE WAS NOT A NURSING HOME PROPOSAL AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL 2018 PLAN.

AND THEN THIS EVENING'S HAS THAT THREE STORY, ABOUT 70,000 SQUARE FOOT NURSING HOME COMPONENT.

OVERALL, THIS IS A VISUAL OF WHAT THOSE PLANS LOOKED LIKE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IN 2018 THAT WAS A SMALLER LAND AREA AND YOU CAN SEE THE LAYOUT OF THOSE MUCH LARGER BUILDINGS.

A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS STAYED THE SAME.

YOU CAN SEE A SIMILAR SERPENTINE ROAD COMING THROUGH, ALMOST ACTING AS A FRONTAGE ROAD AND ACCESS POINT ALONG THE RAMP TO K-10 THERE, AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE POSITION SIMILARLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT SERPENTINE ROAD.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE TODAY'S PROPOSAL.

JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER CONTEXT, I WANTED TO INCLUDE A ZOOMED IN VERSION.

THIS DOES CUT OFF THE WEST SIDE OF THE CURRENT PLAN, BUT JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THAT LAYOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN, YOU KNOW, COMPARISON FOR THE SAME LAND AREA.

THE 2018 PLAN INCLUDED THOSE FOUR STOREY, THREE STOREY SPLIT BUILDINGS.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE ON ONE SIDE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR STOREYS.

AND THEN AS THE GRADE CHANGES IT CHANGES TO THREE STOREYS HERE.

SO FROM ONE SIDE IT WOULD APPEAR THIS WAY.

THESE BUILDINGS ARE ROUGHLY 52FT TALL ON THE FOUR STOREY SIDE.

THE 2024 PLAN SHOWS THE TWO STOREY SIDE AND THREE STOREY SIDE.

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD SECTION OF THE ELEVATIONS TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT WORKS AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THE TWO STOREY AND THE THREE STOREY SO IT'S NOT GETTING ANY TALLER.

FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOF LINE IT'S JUST GOING DOWN FURTHER INTO GRADE.

HERE'S THE SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THOSE TWO IMAGES.

AND NEXT I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE REZONING REVIEW.

SO TYPICALLY I SHOW THIS SLIDE AND WE TALK VERY GENERALLY ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE REVIEW AS PART OF THE CRITERIA FOR REZONING.

AND TONIGHT I'M GOING TO GO MORE IN DEPTH WITH EACH OF THEM AND TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT OUR THOUGHT PROCESS FOR EACH CRITERIA.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, FEEL FREE TO STOP ME.

THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE SEEN VISUALLY ON THE SLIDE ON THE SCREEN.

NOW, WE'VE LABELED THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS BY NAME, AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT SITE IN RED HERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE WEST, A LOT OF WHICH IS UNDER THE SINGLE OWNERSHIP.

THERE'S A CITY PARK TO THE NORTH, AND THE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS CANYON CREEK POINT, THE MANSIONS AT CLEAR CREEK, CANYON CREEK BY THE PARK, ALL ON THIS SIDE OF CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CANNED CREEK BOULEVARD, WE HAVE THE CEDAR CANYON WEST DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT CANYON CREEK APARTMENTS AS PART OF THAT CANYON CREEK VILLAS, CANYON CREEK BY THE LAKE.

THERE'S A LOT OF CANYON THEME IN HERE, SO FORGIVE ME IF I EVER MISSPEAK.

AND, THE LABEL FOR THE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS HERE.

[00:25:07]

ALSO SPEAKING TO THAT CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HERE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VIEW SHOWING THE PARCEL LINES.

ALL OF THIS YELLOW THAT YOU SEE IN HERE ARE THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY LINES.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SO MUCH YELLOW ON HERE.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS STILL OUTLINED IN RED HERE.

FOR CONTEXT, K TEN IS STILL TO THE SOUTH.

THE FIRE ESTATE PROPERTY IN PINK IS ALL OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON.

AND WE DO ANTICIPATE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE FOR PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY TO CONTINUE WEST AND EVENTUALLY TO THE SOUTH, AND MEET UP WITH K TEN HIGHWAY.

AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO TIMELINE ON THAT.

CURRENTLY, CEDAR STATION PARK IS THIS AREA YOU SEE IN GREEN HERE THAT GOES ALONG THE STREAMWAY.

IT CONTINUES BOTH ON THE EAST SIDE OF CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD AND THROUGH THE WEST.

THIS WILL BE MAINTAINED.

THIS IS ACTUALLY, IT HAS A DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF NOT ONLY CONSERVATION OF THE AREA, BUT ALSO FOR PUBLIC USE, SUCH AS TRAILS, PUBLIC PARK, AND FOR UTILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC TYPE USES.

SO IF YOU'D LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AS WELL.

BUT THIS IS TO BE MAINTAINED AND IT WILL SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON BOTH THE NORTH AND THE NORTHEAST AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW WE SAW THIS IMAGE ALREADY, BUT I WANT TO ALSO TALK ABOUT ZONING AGAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE AS PART OF THE CRITERIA REVIEW.

SO AS MENTIONED, THE CURRENT ZONING IS AG, CPO AND CP2 AND THE PROPOSED REZONING IS FOR PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING THAT ALLOWS A MIXTURE OF USES.

THE NEARBY ZONING.

AND I KNOW THIS IS A VERY BRIGHT GRAPHIC I APOLOGIZE, BUT THE NEARBY ZONING IS A MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING, A LOT OF AG ZONING, WHICH IS PRIMARILY UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT'S IN THE BRIGHT GREEN, BOTH NEAR K SEVEN AND K TEN, AND THEN ALSO TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE ZONING THAT YOU SEE THAT STARTS WITH THE LETTER R IS ALL RESIDENTIAL.

OUR RP ONE IS A LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

RP THREE IS A HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND WE DO HAVE AN RP FOUR OVER HERE, WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF THE CEDAR CANYON WEST DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS CALLED CANYON CREEK APARTMENTS.

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH CANYON RIDGE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING.

WE ALSO MADE SURE TO LOOK AT OLATHE ZONING MAP.

SO THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE LESS FAMILIAR TO THOSE OF YOU IN THIS ROOM.

BUT WE ALWAYS DO CHECK WITH OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES WHEN WE DO HAVE PROJECTS NEAR THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THE HIGHWAY ON THIS SIDE OF K-10 AS WELL DOES NOT HAVE SINGLE FAMILY.

IT HAS COMMERCIAL TYPE ZONING.

SO YOU CAN SEE SOME C ZONING ALONG HERE.

BP IS GENERALLY BUSINESS PARK.

SO THAT'S KIND OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

AND THEN YOU DO SEE SOME R ZONING AS YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH FROM THE HIGHWAY.

SO I WOULD SAY THE ZONING IS PRETTY SIMILAR ON BOTH SIDES OF K-10 WHERE IT'S MIRRORING.

NOT SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT AGAINST THE HIGHWAY.

IT INTENDS TO HAVE MORE COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USES OR EVEN HIGHER DENSITY IN SOME AREAS.

I BELIEVE THE CC ZONING IS A CEDAR CREEK OVERLAY AND IT ALLOWS A MIXED USE COMPONENT.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE PROPERTY IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR TO REVIEW AS WELL.

THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL GRADE CHANGES FOR THE PROPERTY AND LIKE I MENTIONED, IT'S NOT IDEAL TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE HIGHWAY. IT'S NOT IDEAL FOR NOISE, TRAFFIC.

NO ONE REALLY WANTS TO BACK UP TO A HIGHWAY, SO THAT'S WHY PLANNING BEST PRACTICES PUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY.

ONE OF THE FACTORS IS POTENTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS, AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED PLANS AND THE PROPOSED USES WILL NOT DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT THE NEARBY PROPERTIES OF ANY GREATER IMPACT THAN IF THE SITE WERE TO BE DEVELOPED WITH OFFICE AND RETAIL, WHICH FITS THE CURRENT ZONING.

SO IF YOU REMEMBER BACK TO THE IMAGES I SHOWED YOU WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, THE SITE IS ALREADY ZONED TO ALLOW RETAIL USES IN CP2 AND OFFICE USES AND CPO.

AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES ALLOWED IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS AS WELL MEDICAL CLINICS, PERSONAL SERVICES.

IT'S NOT JUST STRICTLY AN OFFICE, IT COULD BE A DAYCARE.

EVEN SO, THOSE TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALLOWED IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

SO THE SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH THAT, AND IT COULD BASICALLY GENERATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FROM ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CPO ZONING DISTRICT DOESN'T HAVE A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OR, SORRY, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT CAP ON IT.

[00:30:10]

SO ESSENTIALLY THOSE OFFICE BUILDINGS COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 2 TO 8 STORIES TALL, DEPENDING ON THE PLAN.

AND THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL GENERATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD AND K-10, AND CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO DO NOT ONLY GRADING WORK, BUT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE PARKING LOTS AND BUILDING LIGHTS FOR ANY SORT OF RETAIL AND OFFICE TYPE USES ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL.

I TALKED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER WITH THE HISTORY ABOUT ANNEXATION.

SO HERE IS A MAP THAT SHOWS THE YEAR OF ANNEXATION.

FIRST UP WAS THIS AREA TO THE NORTH HERE IN 1986.

THEN WE HAD A POCKET HERE IN 1989 THAT WAS ANNEXED AND THE GREEN.

AND THEN IN 1999, EVERYTHING AROUND IT IN THIS LIGHT PINK COLOR WAS ANNEXED INTO LENEXA AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO LENEXA PLANS AND CODES.

AND THIS PROPERTY HAS REMAINED UNDEVELOPED THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

ONE OTHER CRITERIA IS THE POTENTIAL GAIN TO THE PUBLIC BY DENYING THE APPLICATION AND STAFF'S OPINION IS THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REZONING WOULD HAVE NO GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

SINCE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS, DENSITY AND USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE SITE.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ROADWAY CONNECTIONS.

IT'S ALSO UTILITY CONNECTIONS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE SITE IS ABLE TO BE SERVED BY THOSE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS.

DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION WOULD RESTRICT THE PROPERTY TO THE EXISTING ZONING OF CPO, CP2 AND AG, AND IT'S DESIGNATED FOR CPO TYPE ZONING ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS THE FLU YOU SEE HERE.

AND WE'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.

SO THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE FLU MAP.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE WITH THIS INSET.

OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS BLUE WHICH IS OFFICE DESIGNATION, AND THIS RED COLOR WHICH IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL.

SO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR THOSE TWO USES.

IT IS NOT PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S NOT PLANNED FOR INDUSTRIAL.

IT IS PLANNED FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE MANY OTHER AREAS AROUND IT WITH DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THE DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS.

AND A LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW OF WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU ON AN AERIAL IMAGE.

SO YOU SEE THAT OFFICE AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER DESIGNATION IN THE BLUISH COLOR, THE COMMUNITY RETAIL AND THE PINKISH COLOR.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE CITY PARK.

THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN THE GREEN.

AND THEN THERE'S THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST.

THERE IS COMMUNITY RETAIL PLANNED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

AND WE DO HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THAT AREA AS WELL.

AND THEN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS PLANNED FOR THIS UNDEVELOPED AREA THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AG.

SO I MENTIONED CEDAR CANYON WEST A COUPLE TIMES EARLIER.

I WANTED TO NOTE FOR THIS MEETING THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHANGE BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHAT ENDED UP BEING APPROVED AND REZONED RECENTLY IN 2023 FOR THIS AREA.

CEDAR CANYON WEST IS AN AREA OUTLINED IN THE PINK DASHED LINE HERE, AND THAT REZONING APPLICATION COMPRISED OF SEVEN DIFFERENT TRACTS OF LAND WITH BASICALLY FIVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES.

WE HAD COMMERCIAL, WE HAD OFFICE, WE HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL AND ALSO INDUSTRIAL.

SO A LOT OF MIXTURE OF USES WITH THAT.

CEDAR CANYON WEST DEVELOPMENT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ABLE TO ADJUST FROM OFFICE AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY RETAIL TO ALSO CONSIDER THOSE ADDITIONAL USES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, WITH THE INDUSTRIAL AND OVERALL, THAT PROJECT DID RESULT IN A REZONING, AND I WILL SHOW YOU THAT NEXT.

SO THIS IS THE ZONING MAP TODAY.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE CP TWO IN THAT AREA, THE RP TWO, WHICH IS A LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE RP FOUR, WHICH IS THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AND THE HIGHER DENSITY, THE CPO OFFICE AREA AND THE BP TWO.

SO THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPER COMING FORWARD WITH A REQUEST THAT DIDN'T NECESSARILY MATCH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HAVING THAT CASE HEARD BEFORE OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE REZONING AND SOME PLANS TO GO WITH IT.

[00:35:03]

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE ARE WORKING ON A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT INCLUDES A NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN I'VE PROVIDED THE DRAFT OF THAT MAP.

DON'T WORRY, I'M GOING TO ZOOM INTO THE PROJECT AREA BECAUSE I KNOW YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SEE THE COLORS FROM HERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN DRAFT FORM AND ZOOMING IN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECT AREA RIGHT HERE IN THIS RED BOX, AND IT'S DESIGNATED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN SPACE IS THAT CITY PARK.

I'VE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES KEEPING THE BUFFER BETWEEN THOSE USES.

AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE.

THERE IS A SEWER MAIN THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT CITY PARK AND IN THE CREEK AREA.

SO MUCH LIKE THE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND IT TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST, THERE WILL BE SOME CONNECTION POINTS THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME TREES REMOVED JUST TO RUN THE SEWER CONNECTION TO THIS PROPERTY, BUT THAT SEWER IS AVAILABLE.

YOU CAN SEE HERE SOME CONTOUR LINES SHOWING YOU JUST HOW SIGNIFICANT THOSE GRADE CHANGES ARE THROUGH THE AREA.

ANOTHER ELEMENT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OBVIOUSLY IS TRAFFIC IMPACT.

SO HERE YOU CAN SEE AN EXCERPT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

THIS IS ALL THE STREETS IN THE CITY OF LENEXA AND THE MAJOR STREETS.

EXCUSE ME. THE MORE LOCAL STREETS ARE GRAYED OUT AND YOU CAN'T SEE A LOT OF THEM ON HERE.

BUT THE PROJECT AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED FOR CONTEXT AGAIN.

AND YOU CAN SEE, LIKE I SHOWED EARLIER, THAT FUTURE CONNECTION TO PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY COMING ALONG HERE IN THAT DASHED LINE, SOMETHING THAT OUR STAFF REVIEWS.

ALSO IN THE REALM OF TRAFFIC IS A TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE DIDN'T TOUCH ON THIS IN GREAT DETAIL IN PLANNING COMMISSION, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT SO THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES. SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT ARE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OR YOU'LL SEE HERE THE LOSS.

AND IT'S GRADED MUCH LIKE A REPORT CARD ABCD TYPE GRADES.

AND IT RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF SECONDS OF DELAY IN AN INTERSECTION.

I'LL PREFACE THIS TOO.

I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, I'M JUST RELAYING THE BASIC SUMMARY OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS STUDY.

BUT I DO HAVE TIM GREEN HERE TO ANSWER THE MORE SPECIFIC TRAFFIC QUESTIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE.

SO WITH THIS THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AS OPERATIONAL TODAY WITH NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT SITE.

YOU CAN SEE THESE DIFFERENT TURNING MOVEMENTS WHICH ARE OUTLINED ON THIS COLUMN.

HERE ARE ALL AT A LEVEL SERVICE A AND AT THE AM PEAK AND PM PEAK.

THE AVERAGE DELAY FOR THESE TWO MOVEMENTS IS ABOUT 8 OR 9 SECONDS, AND THEN JUST UNDER SIX SECONDS FOR CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD AND 99TH PICK PICKERING STREET.

IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WE ALSO LOOK AT SOME TABLES THAT START ADDING IN PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO WITH THIS ONE, THIS IS PHASE ONE.

PHASE ONE JUST INCLUDES THE APARTMENTS.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NURSING HOME OR THE C STORE.

SO THIS IS JUST WITH THE APARTMENTS.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DOWNGRADE FOR ONE MOVEMENT HERE FROM AN A TO A B BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS 10S NOW WITH THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE SOME ADDITIONAL TURNING MOVEMENTS BEING ADDED IN THE TABLE BECAUSE NEW STREETS HAVE BEEN ADDED.

AND THE LAST TABLE I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU HERE IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, PLUS THE ENTIRE PLAN FOR CANYON RIDGE APARTMENTS, WHICH DOES INCLUDE THE APARTMENTS.

IT DOES INCLUDE THE NURSING HOME, AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL STATION.

IT ALSO INCLUDES CEDAR CANYON WEST, WHICH IS THAT LARGE DEVELOPMENT I JUST TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WITH THE SEVEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.

SO AS PART OF THAT, YOU CAN SEE HERE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IS DOWNGRADED FROM A TO B FOR THIS FIRST MOVEMENT FROM B TO C BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS AND THIS FULL BUILD OUT AND STILL REMAINING AT A FOR MANY OF THESE OTHER ONES, THERE WAS ONE DOWNGRADE TO B.

SO I'LL ALSO NOTE TOO THAT THIS BECOMES SIGNALIZED HERE AT CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE, I THINK 100TH STREET, NOT 101ST STREET.

SO THAT'LL BE AT A LEVEL C.

C IS STILL A VERY ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SO STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL CREATE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA.

ALSO, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WONDERING ABOUT THE ON RAMP AREA.

THE OVERPASS AREA AS CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD TURNS INTO CEDAR CREEK PARKWAY.

CDOT IS STUDYING THIS CORRIDOR, AND CIP FUNDING COULD BE POSSIBLE FOR INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS IF NEEDED, BUT OVERALL THAT IS ON CDOT'S RADAR AND THEY ARE STUDYING

[00:40:05]

THAT. WE ALSO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS PART OF OUR REVIEW FOR REZONING, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED PUD WILL GENERATE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR UDC.

SO WE DO HAVE CODES THAT RESTRICT CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF IMPACTS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS SITE WILL BE ABLE TO MEET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

STORMWATER IMPACT IS ANOTHER THING WE LOOK AT.

AND WITH STORMWATER, THE SUBJECT SITE HAS TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT DOES.

SO AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SAID THAT THEY DON'T PLAN TO MEET ANY STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PROPOSED PLANS INDICATE COMPLIANCE AT THIS POINT. THIS IS A VERY PRELIMINARY PLAN AT THIS POINT, THOUGH, TO IT DOES HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A FINAL APPROVAL.

SO A FEW THINGS.

NOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE REZONING CRITERIA, I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK AND TALK MORE ABOUT THE PLAN.

SO WE'VE PRETTY MUCH COVERED EVERYTHING REZONING WISE AT THIS POINT.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE REZONING CRITERIA BEFORE WE START TALKING MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PLAN ITSELF? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. GREAT.

SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE PLAN AND THE THREE COMPONENTS.

I'LL GO OVER THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICKLY HERE.

OOPS. THE APARTMENTS ARE 22 BUILDINGS OF 12 TO 14 UNIT BUILDINGS, WITH JUST UNDER 350 UNITS AND 9.62 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE CONVENIENCE STORE OF 6100FT², AND THE NURSING HOME WITH 80 UNITS JUST UNDER 70,000FT².

I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AREA OF THE PLAN HERE.

THIS IS THE AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT LARGER ON THE SCREEN.

AND I KNOW I'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT MASS AND SCALE OF THESE BUILDINGS COMPARED TO THE 2018 PLAN, AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THOSE SMALLER TYPE BUILDINGS, PROBABLY MORE COMPARABLE TO THE MANSIONS PROJECT AT PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD AND SIZE.

AND WITH THESE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS, THIS LARGER 14 UNIT BUILDING HERE, AND THEN THE SMALLER 12 UNIT BUILDING THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

SO THERE'S A MIXTURE OF ARCHITECTURE.

THE PLANS DO CALL FOR A PARKING DEVIATION, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF 28 PARKING SPACES.

SO THE PLANS INDICATE THAT 566 SPACES WILL BE BUILT.

INITIALLY, THERE WILL BE 41 DEFERRED SPACES, WHICH BASICALLY JUST MEANS WHEN YOU'RE DEFERRING PARKING, THAT YOU'RE LEAVING SPACE FOR IT ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE.

AND IT CAN BE BUILT WHEN YOU NEED IT.

BUT THEY DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME THEY'RE GOING TO NEED IT.

HOWEVER, THE SECOND WE DECIDE THAT EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AGREE THAT THEY NEED THAT PARKING, THEY GO AHEAD, GET THE PERMITS AND PUT THAT PARKING IN, AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PLAN.

THEY'VE ALREADY SAVED THE SPACE FOR IT.

SO THERE ARE 635 REQUIRED SPACES.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 607 IF THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING THAT 41 DEFERRED SPACES.

AND OVERALL, IT'S A REDUCTION OF LESS THAN 5% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING.

SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AT THIS TIME.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WHERE THOSE DEFERRED PARKING SPACES ARE PLANNED.

ONE HERE, ONE ALONG THIS INTERNAL PRIVATE STREET HERE, AND ONE ALONG THIS INTERNAL PRIVATE STREET HERE.

AND THAT BRINGS ME TO A GOOD POINT, TOO.

I HAVEN'T MENTIONED THIS SERPENTINE STREET AS IT COMES DOWN TO THE SOUTHWEST IS A PUBLIC STREET ENDING IN THIS CUL DE SAC.

AND THEN THIS IS A PRIVATE STREET GOING AROUND THROUGH THE APARTMENTS.

SO THE PUBLIC STREET IS TERMINATING IN A CUL DE SAC HERE IN ANTICIPATION OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS OR INQUIRIES IN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO PROHIBIT IT FROM HAVING ACCESS FOR THE TIME THAT IT WANTS TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE. SO I KNOW IT SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE TO HAVE A CUL DE SAC IN THIS SPOT RIGHT HERE, BUT THERE'S A REASON FOR IT.

THIS LEG OF IT IS ALSO PART OF THE PUBLIC STREET NETWORK.

STEPHANIE, WHAT DID THE GREEN DASHED LINE REPRESENT IN THIS DIAGRAM? LET ME ZOOM IN ON THIS ONE HERE.

THE GREEN DASHED LINE IS, I BELIEVE, SIDEWALK CONNECTION.

THANK YOU. SO THERE WILL BE INTERNAL SIDEWALKS AND HOPEFULLY A TRAIL CONNECTION.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER DURING THE FINAL PLAN STAGE.

SO PARKING INFORMATION WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOTED ON THE SUBMITTED PLANS.

THERE'S A DATA TABLE ON THE SITE PLAN SHEET AND A BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF BEDROOMS FOR THE UNITS.

[00:45:05]

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICANT'S PLANNING ON ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS.

THEY DO NOT PLAN ON HAVING ANY THREE BEDROOM UNITS.

SO HERE IS THE PARKING CALCULATION.

AND AGAIN IT SHOWS THAT 635 SPACES, 13 OF WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE SPACES.

NEXT UP, I HAVE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS.

I KNOW YOU SAW A PREVIEW OF THIS BEFORE.

THEY ARE AT THE VERY PEAK, 31FT ONE INCH TALL, ON THE TWO STOREY SIDE AND 41FT THREE INCHES ON THE THREE STOREY SIDE FOR THOSE THREE STOREY BUILDINGS.

AND I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A MEASUREMENT JUST TO GIVE YOU THE GENERAL VERY MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE VERY PEAK FROM THE VERY BOTTOM.

WE DO MEASURE HEIGHT BY CODE BASED ON THE AVERAGE ROOF LINE, SO IT ENDS UP BEING MORE OF LIKE THE MIDDLE OF THIS RIDGE HERE.

SO IF YOU SEE DIFFERENCES IN HEIGHT IN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WRITE IN OUR STAFF REPORT OR WHAT WE PUT IN A TABLE, IT'S BECAUSE I'M GIVING YOU THE LAYMAN'S MEASUREMENT HERE.

AND THE MORE CODE SPECIFIC ONE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE A LESSER DIMENSION.

THESE ARE OTHER ELEVATIONS OF JUST THE TWO STORIES COMPONENTS.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SOME SITE SECTIONS THAT ALSO SHOW SORT OF THE VIEWPOINTS BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS AND THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF.

YOU CAN SEE HERE WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS ONE FIRST.

THIS IS THE SITE SECTION FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THROUGH THE CITY PARK AREA AND TO A32 SPLIT APARTMENT, THEN A TWO STORY APARTMENT, THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE FUEL CANOPY.

SO THIS ELEVATION STAYS THE SAME THROUGHOUT.

AND THAT IS LOOKING FROM THIS RED LINE HERE.

THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE IS HERE THROUGH THIS YELLOW LINE, LOOKING TO THE WEST FROM THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST.

AND WHAT THAT ONE LOOKS THROUGH.

HERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

HERE'S THROUGH THE CITY PARK, AND THERE'S THE TOP OF A32 SPLIT APARTMENT BUILDING.

SO IN BOTH OF THESE CASES, WHAT'S SHOWN IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ACTUALLY TALLER ON ITS GRADE THAN THE THE APARTMENTS THAT YOU SEE HERE.

I KNOW WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS ALREADY, BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER OF THE CITY PARK THAT WILL REMAIN BETWEEN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS 750FT.

AT THIS POINT HERE, FROM THIS CLOSEST APARTMENT BUILDING TO THIS PROPERTY LINE, 530FT FROM THIS APARTMENT BUILDING TO THIS PROPERTY LINE, AND 340FT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE CLOSEST THAT THE APARTMENT BUILDING COMES TO A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

HERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS THOSE CONTOUR LINES.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE GRADE DIFFERENCES THROUGHOUT.

I THINK THAT SITE SECTION SPOKE NICELY TO THIS SLIDE AS WELL.

JUST SHOWING THAT OVERALL VALLEY WHERE THE CITY PARK AND THE CREEK COME THROUGH AND THE DIFFERENCES IN GRADE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S TALL, IT GETS LOWER, IT GETS LOWER, IT GETS TALL AGAIN.

THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT ON HERE SOME AREAS WHERE THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PRESERVE LANDSCAPING.

AND THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT YOU SEE IN THE GREEN FILL.

SO WHILE THEY DO HAVE TO DISTURB A LOT OF THE SITE JUST TO DO GRADING WORK, THEY DO INTEND TO PRESERVE SOME OF THOSE KEY AREAS TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH HERE, AS WELL AS AN AREA ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST.

HERE. THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER SMALL POCKETS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, BUT THEY WILL BE MEETING THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE CODE.

THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY DEVIATIONS FROM LANDSCAPE CODE.

AND AS SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUILT IN BUFFER WITH THAT CITY PARK.

NOW I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP HERE, THIS IS AGAIN RIGHT ALONG CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

THE CONVENIENCE STORE ITSELF IS 6100FT².

AND THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS THIS RED BOX HERE.

THE FUEL CANOPY IS FEATURED HERE JUST TO THE EAST OF THE BUILDING, WITH A PARKING AREA THAT WRAPS AROUND THAT SITE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE DEVIATIONS REQUESTED FOR THIS THAT I'LL GO INTO IN A MINUTE HERE.

FIRST, I WANT TO SHOW YOU JUST A SAMPLE ELEVATION.

AGAIN, THIS IS PRELIMINARY STAGE AND WE WOULD EXPECT A LOT MORE DETAIL AND SOME IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE AS WE GO FORWARD TO FINAL PLAN STAGE.

AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TENANT FOR THE C STORE OR THE FUEL.

[00:50:04]

THIS BUILDING IS 22FT TALL, EIGHT INCHES.

SO THE DEVIATION REQUESTED FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE IS A 1100 SQUARE FOOT DEVIATION.

RIGHT NOW, OUR CODE ONLY ALLOWS CONVENIENCE STORES TO BE 5000FT² OR LESS.

SO THIS PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE IS A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY ALLOW BY CODE.

I WILL SAY WE'VE HAD A COUPLE REQUESTS FOR DEVIATIONS RELATED TO C STORES IN THE PAST, AND I HAVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT DIFFERENT C STORES IN THIS PRESENTATION AS WELL.

THE OTHER DEVIATION THAT THEY ARE SEEKING FOR THIS PART OF THE PROJECT IS FOR THE GAS PUMP Q SPACE.

AND WHAT'S REQUIRED IS A 50 FOOT SETBACK.

AND IN THIS CASE THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS TO LOOK AT.

THERE'S 25 ON THIS SIDE OF THE FUEL CANOPY 27, 25 AND 32 BETWEEN THE PARKING AND THE CANOPY HERE.

AND THAT Q SPACE REALLY IS JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIRCULATION ON THE SITE.

AND IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF PARKING SPACES AND TO THE GAS PUMPS.

SO I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

THE KWIK TRIP ON 95TH STREET JUST EAST OF I 35.

JUST TO ORIENT YOU, I-35 COMES ALONG TO THE WEST HERE.

THE FORMER KOHL'S, WHICH IS NOW LIVING SPACES, IS TO THE SOUTH HERE IN MONROVIA STREET IS OVER TO THE EAST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FORMER BANK OF AMERICA.

THESE MEASUREMENTS SHOW 25FT TO THE CANOPY AND 45FT TO THE PUMP.

SO THOSE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE EITHER.

AND THEY RECEIVED A DEVIATION FOR THAT.

ON HERE AS WELL.

YOU CAN SEE THE QUICK TRIP ON 87TH STREET PARKWAY BETWEEN I-35 AND US 69.

AND THAT ALSO DOES NOT MEET THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

IT'S 22FT TO THE CANOPY IN THIS CASE AND 38FT TO THE PUMP IN THIS CASE.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT THESE TWO C STORES DID COME IN JUST UNDER 5000FT².

THERE'S A CASES ON PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY JUST WEST OF K SEVEN WITH THIS ONE.

THIS IS MCCORMICK, I BELIEVE, AND THEN I'M SORRY, DUNRAVEN.

AND THEN PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH.

AND THIS IS THE FUEL CANOPY AND THE C STORE.

THE C STORE WAS ALSO A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN 5000FT².

AND THIS MEASURED IN AT 48FT TO THE PUMP AND 32FT TO THE CANOPY.

SO ALSO NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

SO YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE A PATTERN HERE WHERE WHEN THE APPLICANT FEELS THAT THE DIMENSIONS WILL MEET THEIR NEEDS, CITY STAFF HAS BEEN AMENABLE TO A DEVIATION.

ONE LAST ONE CASES ON WOODLAND ROAD NORTH OF K10.

THIS ONE SHOWS 22.6FT TO THE PUMP AND OR TO THE CANOPY.

EXCUSE ME, AND 34.6FT TO THE PUMP ITSELF.

SO THAT'S THE LAST EXAMPLE I HAVE FOR MORE RECENT GAS STATIONS THAT DON'T MEET THAT.

AND, I'M SURE YOUR NEXT QUESTION IS, WELL, WHY DO WE HAVE A 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT WHEN WE'RE APPROVING LESS THAN 50FT IN ALL THESE CASES? AND THE ANSWER IS IT IS ON A LONG LIST OF CODE UPDATES THAT WE HAVE BEEN EVALUATING AND PLAN TO BRING FORWARD AT SOME POINT, AND HOPEFULLY THE NEAREST FUTURE, TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST SEEING FROM THE MARKET OF DIFFERENT SEA STORES AND GAS USERS, THEY DON'T NEED THAT FOR CIRCULATION.

AND WHEN WE DO SEE SITES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REVIEW THAT CIRCULATION WITH OUR TRAFFIC TEAM AND OUR ENGINEERS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY WILL WORK JUST FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, EVEN IT DOESN'T MEET CODE.

MOVING ON TO THE NURSING HOME COMPONENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST UNDER 70,000FT² WITH 80 BEDS.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THE SITE HAS PARKING THAT WRAPS AROUND THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE BUILDING.

THERE'S A TRASH ENCLOSURE IN THIS LOCATION HERE AND A DROP OFF ROUNDABOUT TYPE AREA AT THE FRONT DOOR.

THIS IS THE ELEVATION.

IT IS THREE STORIES.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE THERE THE PRELIMINARY RENDERING OF THAT BUILDING.

AND IT IS JUST UNDER 38FT TALL.

THERE IS A DEVIATION REQUESTED FOR THIS AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS THE FREEWAY SPECIAL SETBACK.

WE DO HAVE 100 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

AND BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT AND THE TRASH ENCLOSURE FALLS WITHIN THAT 100FT, IN THIS CASE, WE DO HAVE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS A DEVIATION REQUEST.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THAT 100FT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DEVIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY GRANTED, MOST COMPARABLY, OVER AT CEDAR CANYON WEST, THEY HAD A VERY SIMILAR DEVIATION THAT WAS GRANTED JUST SEVERAL MONTHS AGO BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND IT WAS THE SAME CONDITION WHERE A COUPLE TRASH

[00:55:03]

ENCLOSURES AND SOME PARKING WAS WITHIN THAT SETBACK.

WE DO WANT TO NOTE HERE, TOO, THAT TYPICALLY THAT FREEWAY SETBACK IS BECAUSE OF THE ACTUAL FREEWAY TRAFFIC LANES.

WE WANT TO HAVE THINGS SET BACK FROM THE THROUGH TRAFFIC.

AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE THE ON RAMPS AND OFF RAMPS HERE TO K-10 HIGHWAY.

SO WE'VE MADE EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTED DEVIATIONS BECAUSE THOSE AREN'T REALLY THE THROUGH TRAFFIC.

THAT'S BEING YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO THIS AREA HERE ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THERE'S ABOUT 280FT FROM WHERE A CAR IS TRAVELING THROUGH LANES ON K-10 TO THE PROPERTY LINE HERE.

THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF USES COULD GO HERE, IF NOT A CONVENIENCE STORE, IF NOT A NURSING HOME.

EVEN IF NOT APARTMENTS.

SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT SOMETHING FOR PUD TYPE DEVELOPMENTS.

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.

THE GOVERNING BODY ACTUALLY HAS TO APPROVE A LIST OF USES, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A ZONING CATEGORY THAT SAYS VERY NICE AND CLEANLY IN THE CODE THAT A PUD CAN HAVE THESE TEN PERMITTED USES AND THESE TEN SPECIAL USES.

SO AS PART OF THE PUD PROCESS, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY CREATES THEIR OWN LIST THAT THE GOVERNING BODY APPROVES SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA.

SO THESE 45 ACRES ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN LIST OF WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THEM AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS WORKING ON.

IN THEIR DESIGN STANDARDS DOCUMENT THAT THEY PROVIDED, THEY CALLED OUT WANTING TO USE THE PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES FOR NPO PP FOUR AND CP TWO, AND THEY WANT TO SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT THE LIST OF USES YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE.

SO THEY WANTED TO CURATE THEIR OWN LIST, BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOME OF THESE POTENTIALLY LESS COMPATIBLE USES ALLOWED ON THESE 45 ACRES.

SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO ALLOW THAT FALL UNDER THOSE ZONING CATEGORIES, AND THEN THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW. SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A CHURCH, AUTO SERVICE, FUNERAL HOME, SELF SERVICE, LAUNDRY, CEMETERY, HOSPITAL, EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SEE ON THIS HERE, THE POTENTIAL USES THAT THEY DO WANT TO SEE THAT ARE IN THOSE ZONING CATEGORIES ARE ON THIS LIST.

AND WE'LL HAVE TO KEEP WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON FINALIZING THIS LIST AND DECIDING WHAT BECOMES A PERMITTED USE VERSUS A SPECIAL USE LATER ON IN THIS PROCESS.

BUT THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE THINGS YOU COULD SEE.

IF IT'S NOT DEVELOPED AS PLANNED TODAY.

AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH FINAL PLANS AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO SOME OF THE USES YOU SEE ON HERE ARE BANKS, CONVENIENCE STORES, WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY ALREADY SEE ON THE PLAN DAYCARES, FITNESS CENTERS, GARDEN CENTERS, DRY CLEANING, MEDICAL CLINICS OR LABS, MULTIFAMILY NURSING HOME AGAIN ALREADY ON THE PLAN.

OFFICE, RESTAURANT, RETAIL, VETERINARY HOSPITAL.

SO AND THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT ALL 50 USES THAT WERE IN THE CODE ON ONE SLIDE, BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF TEXT ON A SLIDE.

THESE ARE JUST HIGHLIGHTS.

SO NOW I WANT TO BRING IT BACK AND WRAP UP A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

SO THE CURRENT ZONING AGAIN THE REZONING REQUEST IS FROM AG, CPO AND CP TWO TO PUD.

THE PROPOSED PLAN HAS THE THREE COMPONENTS OF APARTMENTS CONVENIENCE STORE AND NURSING HOME.

AND WITH THAT, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY NURSING HOME AND A CONVENIENCE STORE FOR A CANYON RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES, AND INCLUDES FOUR DEVIATIONS THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR. AND THE DEVIATIONS ARE RELATED TO PARKING, CONVENIENCE STORE SIZE, FUEL PUMP, ISLAND SETBACK, AND FREEWAY SETBACK.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATION.

AND I WANT TO LEAVE YOU ALSO WITH THIS SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE OPTIONS FOR ACTION.

AND I CAN TURN IT BACK TO THIS LATER AFTER YOUR DELIBERATION.

THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STEPHANIE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION BILL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR.

STEPHANIE, WHAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT WE COULD HAVE IN AN APPROVED PUD? FOR A PUD? I BELIEVE IT'S 16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WE WE COULDN'T GO PP.

FOUR PP. FIVE.

NOT THIS PLAN, BUT BECAUSE WE HAD A PLAN IN 2001 THAT WASN'T EVER BUILT.

IF WE APPROVED THIS ZONING TO PUD.

[01:00:03]

WHAT? WHAT IS THE DENSITY THAT THE LANDOWNER NOW COULD COME BACK TO US WITH? BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THE ZONING.

SO THEY'RE BASICALLY TIED TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ON THIS PLAN? IF SO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF THE PUD ZONING IS APPROVED, WHAT CAN THEY DO? RIGHT? IF THERE'S PLANS NOT BUILT LIKE THE 1 IN 2001 WASN'T BUILT, BUT THE ZONING STAYED, THE COMMERCIAL STAYED, AND THE OFFICE STAYED.

AND SO THEY STILL HAVE TO COME IN WITH NEW PLANS TO REFLECT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

SO THE PUD ZONING IS REFLECTIVE AND TIED TO THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE TONIGHT.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN WITH A NEW PLAN TO BE ABLE TO SHOW US WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

THEY CAN'T JUST COME IN AND DO 16 UNITS PER ACRE BECAUSE THIS PLAN SHOWS NINE UNITS PER ACRE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MAYOR? I MIGHT, MAYOR, I MIGHT CLARIFY, I THINK I UNDERSTAND, COMMISSIONER NICK'S QUESTION.

IF IT WAS STRAIGHT ZONING, WE TYPICALLY TALK ABOUT THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES ALLOWED.

THE PLAN IS A COMPONENT OF THAT.

IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL PUDS OR MIXED USE PUDS, THAT 16 UNIT PER ACRE IS IS THE MAXIMUM I THINK WE COULD CONSIDER FOR THIS FOR THE, THE THE DISCUSSION HERE TONIGHT.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAYBE GETTING AT IS COULD IN THE FUTURE THIS DEVELOPER OR ANOTHER DEVELOPER, IF THIS PROJECT DOESN'T GET BUILT, COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, I'VE GOT MY PUD ZONING, I'M GOING TO PRESENT A PLAN WITH 16 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY OR MORE.

NO, THAT WOULD BE THE MAX.

THE 16 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN PUD.

THAT'S PER CODE, RIGHT? OKAY. RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU.

SORRY THAT THAT WOULD ALSO PRECLUDE OUR P4 AND P5 AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT TO CORRECT.

WELL AGAIN WE'RE KIND OF MIXING ZONING DISTRICTS AND STANDARDS.

THE PUD IS KIND OF A SEPARATE ANIMAL INTENDED TO BASICALLY COMPLY WITH THE UNDERLYING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS.

BUT OF COURSE THIS IS CONTRARY TO THOSE DAYS AND CLASSIFICATIONS TODAY.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT QUITE AS THE GUIDE.

INSTEAD, WE HAVE THE CODE STANDARDS, OF WHICH 16 UNITS PER ACRE IS THE CODE.

BUT TO STEPHANIE'S POINT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAN COME BEFORE YOU AND GAIN APPROVAL BASED ON, BASED ON A NEW PROJECT ALTOGETHER.

GOOD. YEAH.

OKAY. ONE MORE. STEPHANIE, YOU MENTIONED IN ANSWERING THE MAYOR'S QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.

AND YOU SAID A TRAIL CONNECTION.

DO YOU DO YOU THINK THAT'S INTO THE PARK TO THE NORTH? BECAUSE I HOPE THERE'S A TRAIL THROUGH THAT SOMEDAY, FRANKLY, DOWN TO LAWRENCE.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, SO THAT WOULD BE THE TRAIL CONNECTION, BUT YET TO BE WORKED OUT AND DETERMINED WITH THE APPLICANT. YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF A TWO PART ANSWER.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR TIMELINE IS ON OUR PORTION OF THAT TRAIL CONNECTION.

AND THEN THERE'S SOME GRADE CHALLENGES WITH MAKING A CONNECTION DOWN TO WHATEVER FUTURE TRAIL THAT WE CONNECT, FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE GRADE IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGING, BUT STAFF HAS ALREADY BEEN TALKING TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT PROVIDING THAT TRAIL ACCESS CONNECTION AT SOME POINT.

YEAH. THANK YOU. AND THIS MAY BE UNFAIR TO TIM BUT STEPHANIE HAD TRAFFIC ABC DELAYS.

WHAT'S A WHAT'S A C INTERSECTION WE HAVE TODAY 101ST AND WOODLAND.

YES, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF A LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SEE, AND THAT'S, AS YOU LOOK AT A LEVEL SERVICE, D AND E ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT FULL BUILD OUT.

F IS FAILED.

BUT WE, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY SEES ABOUT WHERE WE'D WANT TO BE.

AND I THINK 101ST WOODLAND'S A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF PROBABLY A LEVEL OF SERVICE C DURING PEAK HOURS.

YEAH. YEAH.

THANK YOU. AND C, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IS WITH THE FULL TRAFFIC LIGHT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WITH FULL DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH SIDES.

THANK YOU. COURTNEY.

I ACTUALLY HAD WRITTEN DOWN A QUESTION THAT BILL WAS ADDRESSING BECAUSE PD IS NOT SOMETHING WE SEE VERY OFTEN.

AND THE. SORRY.

GET A DRINK. I WAS CURIOUS WHY WHEN WE DO THE WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT THE LIST IS FOR THE PUD.

WHY? IT'S HOW WE CHOOSE CPO RP FOR.

[01:05:01]

WHAT IS THAT? HOW DO WE COME UP WITH THAT? IS IT JUST WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO ADD TO THE PUD, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED THAT AS SORT OF THE BASELINE FOR WHAT THE USES THEY WANT TO PROVIDE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REFINE FURTHER AS WE LOOK AT THE FINAL PLAN STAGE, AND WE WORK WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE USES ARE AND BRING THAT FORWARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION. SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE GET AN RP FOR LIKE ADDED TO THAT LIST WHEN WE'RE BARELY HITTING AN RP THREE IN THIS PARTICULAR PRELIMINARY PLAN? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DOWNGRADE TO, OR IS THAT SO? IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL ZONING CATEGORIES OF CPO CFP2 AND RP FOUR? THEY'RE JUST TAKING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF USES FROM THE LISTS IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO THERE WOULDN'T BE RP FOUR ALLOWED.

IT'S JUST THAT MULTIFAMILY IS ONE OF THE USES ALLOWED.

AND SINCE THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO RP FOUR, I'M SURE THAT'S JUST THE ZONING.

THEY TRIED TO SAY, OKAY, IT'S SIMILAR TO THIS, SO I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE USES ON THE LIST UNDER THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

SO TRYING TO THINK OF AN EASIER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE SCOTT IS SAYING IF THIS DOESN'T GET BUILT, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO 16 UNITS WITH A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAN.

THEY'D HAVE TO GET IT APPROVED TO DO THAT.

BUT THEN THEY'RE ALSO ALREADY AT A PUD WITH THAT ALLOWS FOR THOSE THINGS.

THEY'D HAVE TO COME IN AND GET IT APPROVED.

I GUESS MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE, A PLAN THAT DOESN'T GET BUILT AND NOW YOU HAVE THIS PUD SET UP AND IT SAID, WELL, THIS IS ON OUR LIST OF THINGS, DO THEY BY RIGHT HAVE CAN UPGRADE THE DENSITY WHEN I GUESS I'M TRYING TO KEEP US FROM.

SO PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN WHAT WE WANTED THERE.

SO I THINK TO GIVE YOU SOME CLARITY, THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO COME IN AND JUST BUY RIGHT, BUILD 16 UNIT PER ACRE.

IF THEY GET A PUD ZONING, THEY HAVE TO COME IN WITH A PLAN.

AND JUST LIKE YOU SAW THIS EVENING, WE DO A VERY THOROUGH EVALUATION OF THE PLANS.

AND IF FOR SOME REASON, 16 UNITS PER ACRE, CREATES A TRAFFIC ISSUE AND WE'RE AT, YOU KNOW, LEVEL OF SERVICE.

D YOU KNOW, LIKE TIM JUST SAID, IT BECOMES LESS AND LESS ACCEPTABLE OR THERE'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IMPACTS OR BUILDING HEIGHTS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE WHERE IT'S A BIG DEPARTURE FROM WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TONIGHT.

STAFF MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT IT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT IT, AND THE COUNCIL MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT IT.

SO IT GOES THROUGH THAT SAME VETTING PROCESS THAT YOU SEE TONIGHT.

IT JUST DOESN'T TECHNICALLY HAVE TO GET REZONED, BUT IT STILL HAS TO GET APPROVED BASED ON THE MERITS OF THAT PLAN.

AND IT WOULD BE VERY HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED TO A PREVIOUS APPROVED PLAN.

IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WENT FROM PUD ON THIS SIDE VERSUS KEEPING THEM ALL SEPARATE? ZONING ON THE EAST SIDE OF K-10? THE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPER'S, APPLICATION FOR WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS EASIEST FOR THE WAY THAT THEY WANT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. SOMETIMES WE SEE PUD COME IN WHEN THE PROPERTY IS ALL UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP, AND THEY INTEND TO KEEP IT UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP.

AND WE SEE REZONING TO MORE INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES LIKE WE SAW IN CEDAR CANYON WEST, WHEN THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SELL IT OFF OR SPLIT IT UP, OR THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT PLAN FOR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO EXECUTE THAT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THIS ONE.

I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.

PERFECT. THANK YOU JOE.

THANK YOU. STEPHANIE, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR TIM OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT ACTUALLY SPECIFIC TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE PUBLIC ROAD.

SO THE THE ROAD THAT'S IN GRAY THERE AS WE TALK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WE'D ONLY HAVE ONE POINT OF ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH AND WEST, WHICH TYPICALLY WE DON'T ALLOW BECAUSE WE WANT TWO ACCESSES FOR FIRE, ETC. AND GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY, I DON'T THINK A ROAD WOULD COME IN FROM THE NORTH, I'M GUESSING.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE WE REALLY BOXING OURSELVES IN WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY DEVELOP THE REST OF THAT PROPERTY? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I'M SAYING? SURE. SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOES HAVE STANDARDS FOR ACCESS AND FIRE SAFETY, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS.

AT THIS POINT, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ARE PROVIDING FUTURE ACCESS AT THIS POINT HERE TO THIS PROPERTY.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, FURTHER WEST ALONG THIS AREA HERE DOES MEET FIRE CODE STANDARDS, AND IT MAY BE A MATTER OF PROVIDING SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, ACCESS STANDPIPES.

I'M ALSO NOT THE FIRE EXPERT HERE.

BUTCH IS HERE IF YOU HAVE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT, THIS HAS BEEN EVALUATED AS IT STANDS FOR THIS PLAN.

[01:10:04]

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS EVALUATION NOT JUST WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION, BUT FOR THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE WE CONSIDERED HOW ACCESSIBLE AND HOW DEVELOPABLE THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND WEST IS, ASIDE FROM THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, JUST GIVEN THAT IT JUST HAS ONE ACCESS POINT OR IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN WORK AROUND THAT BY ADDITIONAL FIRE SUPPRESSION EFFORTS. SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A CONVERSATION FOR THE FUTURE.

HONESTLY, WE'VE SET THIS UP TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CONNECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO STILL BE A POSSIBILITY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOW MORE SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S PLANNED, WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR THIS AREA WHEN IT COMES IN.

SO, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE EVALUATED EVERYTHING WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.

IT MEETS CODE, AND WE'VE SET IT UP FOR SUCCESS TO PROVIDE CONNECTIONS FOR FUTURE.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE QUESTIONS FOR STEPHANIE? OKAY, MR. HOLLAND.

ANY SLIDES. DO YOU WANNA.

OKAY. UNPLUG.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S MY. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CURTIS HOLLAND. I'M LEGAL COUNSEL FOR OTO DEVELOPMENT.

FOR THE RECORD, MY ADDRESS IS 900 WEST 48TH PLACE, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 64112.

WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR TEAM HERE IN CASE ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

AND FIRST OFF, WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE RICK ODA WITH ODA DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER OF THE OF THE SITE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.

BEHIND ME IS PATRICK RUDER WITH CLOVER ARCHITECTS.

I THINK YOU KNOW THAT FIRM VERY WELL.

HE'S, THEY ARE THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTS ON THE FIRM OR ON THE SITE, RATHER.

WE ALSO HAVE WITH SCHLEGEL ASSOCIATES, JAKE HADDOCK, ANOTHER WELL-KNOWN FIRM TO YOU.

AND THEN FINALLY WITH TRANS SYSTEMS, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, MATTHEW PARKER IS HERE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC.

I WOULD START BY SAYING THANK YOU, REALLY TO STAFF THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 30 PLUS YEARS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE HEARD A BETTER PRESENTATION ON AN APPLICATION THAN WHAT I JUST HEARD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE CONGRATULATE YOUR STAFF AND COMMEND THEM FOR SUCH A THOROUGH AND DETAILED REPORT.

AND FRANKLY, IT MAKES ALL OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY A LOT LESS.

BRIEF, IF YOU WILL.

I DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THAT STEPHANIE, SAID TO YOU ALREADY.

SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO VERY QUICKLY THROUGH MY PART, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO PATRICK.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE GREAT JOB THAT YOUR STAFF DID ALREADY, HE CAN GO QUICKLY AND THEN WE CAN GET TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OR YOUR QUESTIONS.

I WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE IF AFTER THE COMMENTS TO TO TAKE ANY OR AT LEAST MAYBE TO RESPOND TO A FEW OF THOSE COMMENTS IF, IF IT, IF I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD. AGAIN, STAFF DID A GREAT JOB.

I'M NOT GOING TO TOUCH ANYTHING.

HARDLY THAT THEY DID A THOROUGH ANALYSIS ON THE GOLDEN CRITERIA, AND COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR CODES IN TERMS OF EVALUATION, BOTH OF THE REZONING AS WELL AS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

AND, AS AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY ALSO DID A REALLY BANG UP JOB ON HEARING THIS.

WE WERE THERE FEBRUARY 5TH.

THEY HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTARY FROM BOTH US AS WELL AS SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, AND I THINK DID A GREAT JOB IN TERMS OF ANALYZING THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE THEM BOTH AS TO THE REZONING CRITERIA AS WELL AS TO THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STANDARDS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY.

AND AS YOU KNOW, AND STAFF MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY THEY MADE A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

SO WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH BOTH PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THERE WERE NUMEROUS EMAILS THAT CAME INTO INTO YOU ALL AND WE GOT A CHANCE TO READ THEM.

WE ALSO HAD A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THEM, AND I WOULD JUST MAKE A POINT THAT WE WE GAVE A PRETTY THOROUGH, DETAILED RESPONSE TO YOU BACK ON JANUARY 4TH THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL AS MORE RECENTLY, JUST FRIDAY.

[01:15:01]

AND THAT WAS THE RESULT OF AN EMAIL, A DETAILED EMAIL THAT CAME IN FROM THE HOMES ASSOCIATION TO OUR NORTH.

AND WE JUST FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS TO PROVIDE CLARITY, AND TO SORT OF CLEAR UP SOME OF THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS. AND FRANKLY, AGAIN, STAFF WENT THROUGH ALL THAT EARLIER TONIGHT, SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT TOO MUCH.

THIS IS A SLIDE THAT, THAT YOU SAW.

THIS IS A DOWN ZONING IN OUR OPINION, AS STAFF SHOWED YOU THIS SLIDE EARLIER, IT'S CPO ZONING, CP2 AND SOME AG.

I DID WANT TO POINT OUT JUST ONE THING ABOUT THE CP2, OUR CONVENIENCE STORE, WHICH WE'RE SHOWING THERE AND WE DON'T YET HAVE A USER IS IN THE CP2 ZONING.

SO THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE REZONING TO BUILD THAT FACILITY.

IT'S IT'S PART OF OUR PUD, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A REZONING.

AND THEN.

BACK TO THIS THIS SLIDE HERE AGAIN, THIS THIS DEALS WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

AND STAFF WENT THROUGH THIS ALREADY WITH YOU.

AND THIS SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HEARD THAT WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

WE, WE WE WERE, YOU KNOW, RELYING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE WERE RELYING ON THE EXISTING ZONING.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE COMP PLAN, IT CLEARLY SHOWED IT WAS OFFICE AND OR RETAIL.

IT WASN'T IT WASN'T EVER SHOWN TO BE SINGLE FAMILY.

IT WASN'T EVER SHOWN TO BE NOT DEVELOPED OR TO REMAIN FOREVER UNDEVELOPED.

BECAUSE THAT'S A COMMENT THAT WE HEARD ALSO IN SOME OF SOME OF THOSE EMAILS.

STEPHANIE MENTIONED THAT, THAT IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING ZONING AND AGAIN, A CPO AND C2, THAT THERE WERE, SOME DIFFERENCES AND REALLY SOME GREATER IMPACTS THAT COME WITH THOSE KINDS OF REZONINGS OR ZONING DISTRICTS, RATHER, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE OFFICE ZONING, THERE'S NO CAP ON HEIGHT. YOU COULD HAVE AN EIGHT STORY, YOU COULD HAVE A TEN STORY BUILDING, YOU COULD HAVE A REALLY TALL BUILDING THERE WITH THE LAND ITSELF DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TERRAIN AND GRADE CHANGE THERE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS ISN'T A GREAT OFFICE SITE, BUT JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A ZONING DISTRICT AND FROM WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO, AN OFFICE BUILDING, YOU COULD HAVE A VERY TALL OFFICE BUILDING.

SO AGAIN, THE IMPACT ON WHAT THEY WHAT THEY CAN SEE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT COULD BE THERE, IT'S MUCH LESS IN TERMS OF AN IMPACT.

WE FEEL, THAT THEY, THAT THEY WILL EXPERIENCE.

ULTIMATELY WE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC STAFF DID RATHER AND THE LOSS THE LEVELS OF SERVICE.

AND THOSE ARE GREAT LEVELS OF SERVICE REALLY.

A'S B'S, C'S ARE GREAT LEVELS OF SERVICE.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE GOOD LEVELS OF SERVICE.

ONE THING THAT WASN'T MENTIONED, BUT I DID MENTION IT IN MY CORRESPONDENCE, IS OPEN SPACE.

OUR OPEN SPACE IS AROUND 68% WITH OUR 68% WITH OUR PROJECT WITH AN OFFICE AND C2 ZONING DISTRICTS, THOUGH, THE OPEN SPACE IS IS 35% AND 25%.

SO WE ARE PROVIDING A MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE WITH THIS PROJECT THAN YOU COULD OTHERWISE WITH WITH THE EXISTING ZONING, THE LAND USE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU HERE, STAFF MENTIONED IT.

IT IS, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TODAY SAYS EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS OFFICE, AND IT'S SHOWN IN THE BLUE HERE.

AND THEN WE KNOW THAT THAT YOU'RE UNDERGOING AN UPDATE TO THAT PLAN.

AND LOOKING AT THAT.

AND THEN FROM THE THERE WAS A JOINT PLANNING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE COMP PLAN LAST MAY.

AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS AND QUOTES WE HAVE HERE IS THAT AND THIS SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT SINGLE FAMILY DOESN'T MAKE GOOD USES ADJACENT TO OR HIGHWAYS. AND THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY A GREAT OFFICE SITE.

IT'S BEEN ZONED FOR OFFICE FOR 20 PLUS YEARS.

THERE'S NO OFFICE THERE, FOLKS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALTERNATE TYPES OF USES THAT COULD BE BUILT THERE ON THIS LAND.

BECAUSE WE DON'T JUST WANT LAND TO BE UNDEVELOPED.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR OTHER KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AND TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AND QUOTES.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LOCATION OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FLANKING STATE HIGHWAYS HAS PROVEN APPROPRIATE TO BUFFER LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES FROM THE HIGHWAY.

YOU ALREADY ALL KNOW THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALREADY ALL KNOWS THAT IT'S PART OF YOUR POLICIES.

AND WHEN YOU EVALUATE THESE KINDS OF APPLICATIONS, YOU LOOK AT THOSE THINGS.

SO WE DO THINK WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU TONIGHT IS VERY APPROPRIATE.

I DO ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OR INSTANCES OF THIS KIND OF SIMILAR ZONINGS THAT WERE SEEKING TONIGHT IN TERMS OF A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT NEXT TO HIGHWAYS.

AND SO I HAVE HERE ON THE MAP, THIS COMES FROM YOUR, FROM YOUR ZONING BOOK, YOUR ZONING MAP, RATHER.

[01:20:06]

AND YOU CAN SEE IN PARTICULAR, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THIS PROJECT RIGHT HERE.

SOME OF YOU ARE ON THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME BEFORE YOU.

THERE ARE TWO PROJECTS THERE, WATER CREST AND EDGEWATER.

AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET IS THE PARKER SUBDIVISION.

AND YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT.

IT'S ALONG I-4 35.

THE PROPOSED REZONING WAS FOR RP FIVE.

IN THAT CASE.

AND IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

THE CITY APPROVED THE RP FIVE.

IT WAS A BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.

AND BY THE WAY, IT TURNED OUT FANTASTIC.

THERE WERE COMMENTS AFTER IT WAS BUILT THAT IT DIDN'T END UP IMPACTING PARKHURST AT ALL, REALLY, AND TURNED OUT TO BE A VERY GOOD PROJECT.

BUT YOU CAN SEE UP AND DOWN FOR 35, YOU CAN SEE SOME RP FOUR ZONING HERE, WHICH IS A HIGHER DENSITY THAN WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH THIS PROJECT HERE TONIGHT.

I ALSO WANTED TO BRING IN ANOTHER.

THEIR EXAMPLE. THIS IS ALONG K-7 HIGHWAY.

AND AGAIN SOME OF THE SOME OF YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OR COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.

IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS PROJECT RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS WATERCRESS LANDING.

THIS IS COPPER CREEK APARTMENTS.

AND IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM THE WATERCRESS LANDING FOLKS HERE ABOUT THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE RP FIVE ALONG K-7, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER.

AND SO WE WE WE COMPROMISED IN THAT CASE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IS WE PUT A ROWE OF RP THREE RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE, ALONG WITH SONY HERE AND THOSE THAT RP THREE.

THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU TONIGHT.

IT WAS A MANSION STYLE HOMES, TWO STORY HOMES, BIG HOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

SO THAT WAS AS A AS A COMPROMISE.

THE CITY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO PUT RP THREE NEXT TO THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

WHERE WOULD SONY IS? AND NOW, GRANTED, WE WENT A LITTLE HIGHER DENSITY AS WE WENT FURTHER WEST TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY.

AND SOME OF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THAT, BUT IT ULTIMATELY GOT APPROVED.

YOU HAVE RP FOUR HERE AND THEN RP FIVE UP ALONG THE HIGHWAY.

SO AGAIN, SOME EXAMPLES OF USING OR HAVING MULTIFAMILY BE UP AGAINST HIGHWAYS LIKE WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT.

AND AND NOT HAVING SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH AGAIN, AS STAFF MENTIONED, ISN'T SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF IN THE PAST.

STEPHANIE MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE AND BUFFER BETWEEN THIS PROJECT HERE AND THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISIONS.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER, THIS IS A SLIDE KIND OF LIKE HERS WITH A LITTLE COUPLE OF EXTRA DISTANCES.

WE WE THREW IN THE CHIEFS FOOTBALL FIELD HERE TO SHOW YOU THAT IT'S A COUPLE FOOTBALL FIELDS WIDE IN TERMS OF THE DISTANCE AND THE BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR HOMES.

AND THIS PROJECT HERE.

AND THIS IS A PARK AREA TOO AS WELL.

SO I WANTED TO SHOW THAT TO YOU.

AND THEN, WE DID HEAR AND HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES ARE THE VIEWS.

AND I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT TONIGHT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT, ANYTHING.

FRANKLY, I THINK THEY THOUGHT IN SOME OF THE SOME OF THE COMMENTS I READ THAT THIS WAS FOREVER GOING TO BE A SCENIC AREA, THAT THIS WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED, THAT THE MARKETING MATERIALS THEY HAD RECEIVED WHEN THEY PURCHASED THEIR HOMES INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THIS PRISTINE, SCENIC VIEW FOREVER AND EVER.

AND AND I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

THAT'S NOT US. WE WEREN'T PART OF THAT.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY HAD TO KNOW.

AND IF THEY DID, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.

AND THIS LANDOWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, JUST LIKE THE LANDOWNER HERE DID, AND THE LANDOWNER HERE DID, AND ALL THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS THAT YOU SAW IN THE EARLIER MAPS, INCLUDING THE LANDOWNER TO THE EAST, CANYON WEST APARTMENTS THAT WAS REZONED HERE RECENTLY.

SO I WANTED TO JUST POINT THAT OUT.

AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE UPSET BECAUSE THEIR VIEW MIGHT CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE AS MUCH AS THEY THINK THEY WILL OR WILL.

AND AND WE HAVE AS AN EXAMPLE, WE TOOK SOME I THINK THESE CAME FROM SOME REAL ESTATE, INTERNET SITES WHERE YOU COULD SEE WE CIRCLED SOME OF THE HOMES IN UP HERE IN THE, YOU SEE YELLOW, RED AND GREEN.

THESE ARE WHAT THE BACKS OF THOSE HOUSES LOOK LIKE.

AND NOT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANYTHING EVER.

BUT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL TREE COVERAGE HERE.

AND YEAH, IT LEAVES FALL OFF IN THE WINTERTIME, I GET THAT.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO SOME CEDAR AND EVERGREEN TREES HERE WHERE YOU'LL ALSO GET SOME, SOME TREES YEAR ROUND COVERAGE HERE.

AND SO YOU MIGHT HEAR THAT, THAT OUR VIEWS ARE GOING TO BE SPOILED FOREVER.

AND I, I GET IT, NOBODY WANTS CHANGE.

BUT WE ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE DOING AN APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS PROJECT.

[01:25:06]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BY STAFF ABOUT THE OLD 2018, PROJECT THAT WAS THAT WAS DENIED.

AND I THINK I HAVE A SLIDE ON IT.

YEAH, MAYBE THAT'S NOT IT.

YEAH. THAT'S IT.

AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT PROJECT AND THIS PROJECT, WE WERE WELL AWARE OF THAT DENIAL.

AND IT WAS AN ART, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT PROJECT AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT.

THAT WAS AN RBP4 PROJECT.

IT WAS, HIGHER DENSITY.

IT HAD OVER 13 UNITS PER ACRE.

IT WAS, FOUR, THREE AND FOUR STORIES.

SO ADD AN EXTRA STOREY ON TOP OF THEIR, WITH THEIR BUILDINGS.

THE THE DESIGN OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING WAS A LITTLE MORE CONTEMPORARY.

AND OURS IS A LOT IS MORE TRADITIONAL.

IT FITS IN NICELY AND YOU'LL SEE PICTURES OF THAT WITH THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE AREA.

WE THINK IT COMPLEMENTS THOSE OTHER HOMES.

IT'S REALLY PRETTY CLOSE TO THE MANSIONS AT CANYON CREEK, WHICH IS JUST TO THEIR EAST.

AND AGAIN, IT'S A IT'S A LOWER DENSITY PROJECT.

IT'S A LITTLE OVER NINE ON RP THREE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GO UP TO 12.

RP TWO, BY THE WAY, IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

SO WE'RE JUST BARELY OVER THE RP TWO DENSITY WITH THIS PROJECT.

IT'S A LOT LESS DENSE.

IT'S LOWER IN HEIGHT.

THE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN IS MORE COMPLEMENTARY TO WHAT THE EXISTING HOMES ARE NEARBY.

SO WE JUST THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT, AND WE THINK THAT THIS DESERVES YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL AGREE AND WILL APPROVE IT.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUD AND WHY WE WENT TO PUD, AND I JUST I THINK THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLY ON WITH STAFF, AND MAYBE IT WAS A SUGGESTION BY STAFF.

IN ANY EVENT, WE DECIDED IT WAS GOOD FOR US.

WE WERE OKAY WITH THE PD.

IT DOES ALLOW FOR SOME GREATER DESIGN STANDARDS AND MORE TAILORING TO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO ON THE SITE.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WHAT WE'RE SHOWING ON THE SITE PLAN.

THE DENSITY IS 9.62 OR 3 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S TWO STORY WITH, YOU KNOW, A WALKOUT LEVEL ON THE DOWNHILL SIDE WHERE THE GRADE CHANGES AND WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME OF THOSE PICTURES.

BUT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE THE PUD IN THIS CASE.

SO, WITH THAT, I PROBABLY SPOKE TOO MUCH.

AND, I THINK I'LL JUST, AT THIS POINT TURN IT OVER TO PATRICK, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

AND REALLY, OUR TEAM IS HERE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF US.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOLLAND, COURTNEY. SO THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED TO STEPHANIE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSED TO YOU WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE PUD AND YOU MADE THE LIST.

HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THOSE THINGS LIKE THE RP FOR THE MPO THOUGH? SO YEAH, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT.

AND ASKING THAT QUESTION GIVES ME A CHANCE TO THAT RP FOR I THINK WAS PROBABLY A, AN ERROR, A TYPO, IF YOU WILL.

WE'RE NOT SEEKING RP FOR DENSITIES HERE IN THIS AREA.

WE'RE SEEKING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU FLAT OUT.

IT'S A IT'S AN RP THREE EQUIVALENT.

IT'S ACTUALLY LESS IT'S IT'S MID-RANGE RP THREE.

BUT I THINK FOR THE USES THAT I CAN I CAN HAVE PATRICK SPEAK TO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WAS WHAT OUR THOUGHTS WERE THERE.

OKAY. YEAH.

AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YEAH, WE'RE INTENDING TO DO AN RP THREE ESQUE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE WITH THAT PUD.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THERE'S A STIPULATION THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE THAT WORDING FROM RP FOR TO RP THREE IN THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS, I BELIEVE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, SINCE OUR OVERALL PUD IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO GO OVER THAT 9.62 UNITS PER ACRE.

OKAY, SECOND QUESTION WAS, ARE YOU ALL HAVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY? YOU WERE NOT THE DEVELOPERS FOR THE 2018 PROJECT OR WERE YOU? WE WE AREN'T THE PROPOSED.

WE WEREN'T THAT DEVELOPER.

YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT WAS A CHANGE IN.

YEAH. I'M SORRY. YEAH, IT'S I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR DIFFERENT DEVELOPER AND SOMEONE WHO LEARNED FROM THE EARLIER, ISSUES THAT WERE THAT WENT ALONG WITH THAT ONE. SO. YEAH. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU OWN THE WHOLE PIECE.

RIGHT. WE WILL.

WE DON'T OWN IT TODAY, BUT WE WILL.

EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON THE PLAN WE WOULD OWN AND IS THE INTENT FOR, YOU ALL TO BUILD ALL THE COMPONENTS IN THIS, THE NURSING HOME AND THE C STORE? PROBABLY NOT THOUGH.

DO YOU WANT TO GET IN ON THIS RECORD? YOU WOULD LIKE TO. HI.

HI, I'M RICK OTTO.

NICE TO MEET YOU. GIVE MY ADDRESS.

SO YOU HAVE IT, 15200 WEST 105TH TERRACE, LENEXA, KANSAS.

WE ARE GOING TO BUILD OUT THE APARTMENTS, MAINTAIN IT AND MANAGE IT.

THE SENIOR LIVING, WE DO HAVE IT, THAT ONCE WE GET THIS APPROVED, WE HOPE TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET A LITTLE HARDER.

AND THEN, THE C STORE WOULD.

WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO OWN THE BUILDING AND LEASE BACK, DO A LAND LEASE, OR WE'LL SELL THE LOT COMPLETELY.

[01:30:04]

WE REALLY DON'T KNOW ON THAT PART, BUT WE WILL ACT AS A DEVELOPER FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHTY. QUESTION, PLEASE.

QUESTION. I'M SORRY.

HAVE YOU GUYS INVESTIGATED THE LITTLE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHWEST THAT JOE WAS TALKING ABOUT? AND WHO OWNS THAT? AND I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT CURRENTLY ZONED? IS THAT, AG EGG? BECAUSE IT IS. IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT'S, AN APPENDAGE THAT MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO GET DEVELOPED IN.

YEAH. SO WE DID EVALUATE THAT AS PART OF THIS.

THERE'S I THINK IT'S ABOUT A 50 TO 60 FOOT GRADE CHANGE THERE.

SO IN TERMS OF DEVELOPABLE LAND, AS PART OF OUR PROJECT, IT WAS NOT WORTH CONSIDERING.

SO SOMETHING CAN BE DEVELOPED THERE.

IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO USE THE WHOLE STRIP.

THEY'D PROBABLY BUILD SOME SORT OF BRIDGE.

WOULD BE MY GUESS TO GET FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. HOW LONG HAS THIS PROJECT BEEN IN PLANNING? OH, GEEZ. WHEN DID WE START LOOKING AT THIS ONE? YEAH, PROBABLY ABOUT, 8 TO 10 MONTHS WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THIS, APPROXIMATELY.

AND IN THOSE 8 TO 10 MONTHS, HOW OFTEN DID YOU MEET WITH THE HOA OR THE RESIDENTS OF THE VARYING COMMUNITIES THAT WERE AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT? I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE OFFICIAL INTERACT MEETING.

OKAY. AND THEN I WALKED.

I TRIED WALKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD A COUPLE OF TIMES TO TALK TO PEOPLE, AND SOME PEOPLE WANTED TO, AND VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE WOULD TALK TO ME.

I KNOW THAT'S WHY WE REACHED OUT TO THE HOA AND WE SENT NOTICES.

EVERYBODY BUT THE WE'RE SO FAR AWAY FROM ANYBODY, OUR NOTICES, WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TO NOTICE YOU WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RANGE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE GOT AHOLD OF THE HOA'S TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

WERE THERE ANY CHANGES THAT YOU MADE TO YOUR INITIAL PLAN AFTER YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE HOA? YEAH, I THINK THE ONLY THING THE THE ONE THING THAT CHANGED WAS THE MISTAKE OF THE TWO, TWO, THREE STORY ON THE SENIOR LIVING, WHICH IS SO FAR AWAY IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE HIGHWAY. THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT WE DID MAKE ON THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU PATRICK.

ALL RIGHT. PATRICK REUTER WITH CLOVER ARCHITECTS, ADDRESS 8813 PENROSE LANE, SUITE 400 LENEXA, KANSAS.

AGAIN, I'LL BE PRETTY BRIEF SINCE I'VE CROSSED OUT A LOT OF MY NOTES HERE FROM STEPHANIE'S PRESENTATION.

ONE THING TO NOTICE ON THE OVERALL VICINITY MAP THAT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IS THERE IS ONE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE NORTHWEST OF CANYON CREEK POINT.

HERE. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 160FT WIDE.

AND THEN AGAIN, BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS MIRRORING A LESS DENSE VERSION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AS THIS RP FOUR ZONING HERE.

SO OUR APARTMENTS THEMSELVES ARE CONSIDERED MORE OF AN RP THREE ZONING ON THEIR OWN, AND THE MIX OF USES, AS KURT MENTIONED, WITH THE C STORE AND SENIOR LIVING, WE WANTED THE TO PURSUE A PUD.

SO THAT WAY WE HAVE THE COHESIVE DESIGN CRITERIA.

SO THAT WE HAVE WE HAD THE DESIRE TO KEEP A COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT JUST HAVE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PIECES AND ZONINGS THAT AREN'T RELATED TO EACH OTHER, THAT WE WOULD HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER THE QUALITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ACCESS WISE, AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, FULL TURN INTERSECTION ON THE NORTHERN PART OF OUR PROPERTY AND THEN RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ON THE SOUTH AGAIN, THAT DOES LEAVE THAT PUBLIC ROAD WITH THAT CUL DE SAC FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT FUTURE PARCEL, SHOULD IT EVER HAPPEN.

LET'S SEE, THE APARTMENTS ARE WHAT WE CALL MANSION STYLE DESIGN OR BIG HOME TYPE BUILDINGS, AS THEY DO RESEMBLE A LARGER HOUSE IN TERMS OF SIZE.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY, SMALLER THAN THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S TO THE NORTHWEST.

THAT'S 160FT WIDE.

OUR BUILDINGS ARE BETWEEN 120 TO 140FT IN WIDTH.

OVERALL, 346 UNITS WITH A SEPARATE CLUBHOUSE AND POOL.

AS KURT MENTIONED, OUR APARTMENT DENSITY IS 9.62, WHICH IS JUST SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN AN RP TWO AT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE DIFFICULT TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SITE.

AGAIN, THE BUILDINGS ARE INTEGRATING THEMSELVES INTO THAT, TRYING TO NESTLE INTO THE HILLSIDE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH OUR TWO THREE SPLIT DESIGN FOR THAT TWO STORY WALK OUT FEEL. OVERALL GREEN SPACE REQUIRED BY PUD IS 60% OR 68.3.

[01:35:01]

AND THAT MAINTAINS A MAJORITY OF THAT WOODED TREE LINE TO OUR NORTH TO GIVE OUR RESIDENTS THAT WOODED LOOK AND FEEL.

SO OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE A COHESIVE AND WALKABLE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE A TEN FOOT WALKING TRAIL THAT ACTS AS A CENTRAL SPINE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED, AND THAT IS PLANNED, AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, TO CONNECT TO THE FUTURE TRAILS.

AS SOON AS WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ON WHERE THOSE ARE, AND WE WORK THROUGH GRADING, BUT THOSE FUTURE ACCESS POINTS ARE CONSIDERED.

ALONG WITH THE CLUBHOUSE HAS A POOL, WE HAVE A FITNESS FACILITY FOR RESIDENTS AND OTHER AMENITIES.

WE HAVE SEVERAL OPEN GREEN SPACES, DETENTION BASINS AND SEATING AREAS CLUSTERED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE TRAILS ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH THE TEN FOOT CENTRAL SPINE, OFFER AN OVER ONE MILE LONG SCENIC WALKING TRAIL, ALL WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND TERMS OF BUILDING DESIGN.

AS WE MENTIONED, THESE ARE DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, TWO BUILDING TYPES, 14 UNIT AND A 12 UNIT BUILDING.

THIS IS THE 14 UNIT BUILDING HERE.

THE MATERIALS CONSIST OF STONE, STUCCO, ASPHALT SHINGLES AND DARK GRAY HARDIE SIDING ACCENT ELEMENTS.

EACH OF THE BUILDING IS. EACH OF THE UNITS IN THE BUILDING IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THEIR OWN ATTACHED GARAGE.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE GARAGES OFF ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING HERE.

THE 14 UNIT BUILDING HAS 16.

GARAGES AND THE 12 UNIT BUILDINGS HAVE 12 GARAGES, SO EACH UNIT HAS 1 OR 2 CAR GARAGE.

AGAIN, THE STYLE IS MORE TRADITIONAL THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS SITE.

THE PREVIOUS ZONING IN 2018.

AGAIN LOOKING TO BE MORE HARMONIOUS WITH THE STYLE THAT'S AROUND HERE.

FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SONOMA HILL DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED ACROSS 435 ON ALONG 87TH STREET.

THERE'S A SIDE VIEW OF THOSE 12 UNIT WALK OUTS AGAIN, NURSING HOME AND THE C STORE GETTING USING SIMILAR MATERIALS, COLORS, SCHEMES AND PALETTES TO CREATE THAT COHESIVE DESIGN.

REAL QUICKLY I KNOW STEPHANIE HIT ON THIS SITE SECTIONS.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM BOTH THESE SECTIONS THAT BECAUSE OUR APARTMENTS ARE DESIGNED LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

ANY OF THE VIEWS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY WENT THROUGH THAT WE GRABBED FROM ZILLOW OR REDFIN, FROM THE REAR OF NEIGHBOR'S HOMES, THERE ARE SOME HOMES THAT SIT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER UP ON THE HILL. OUR SECTION CUTS THROUGH THE NEAREST ONES.

SO THERE WAS A VIEW FROM ONE PERSON'S BACKYARD THAT WE SAW THAT WOULD SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THESE BUILDINGS.

AGAIN, OUR FINISHED THESE FINISHED FLOORS OF THE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WERE ABOUT 10 TO 15FT ABOVE OUR APARTMENTS, MEANING THAT ANY HOMES THAT WOULD SEE OUR SITE, IF THEY'RE NOT OBSCURED BY THE DENSE TREE LINE IS JUST LIKE LOOKING DOWN ONTO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO IN TERMS IN TERMS OF DENSITY AND SCALE.

AND WITH THAT, WE STAND FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT, BILL.

ONE SECOND. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD.

CHRIS. A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

WHAT'S YOUR ANTICIPATED AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT FOR YOUR UNITS? WE IMAGINE THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE CLOSE TO SOME OF THE SAME PRICING WE HAVE OVER AT SONOMA HILL ACROSS THE STREET HERE.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT, 1900 TO 2000 FOR A ONE BEDROOM AND 2400 TO 2600 FOR A TWO BEDROOM.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE MARKET BEARS.

YES. OKAY.

YES. ONE OTHER QUESTION.

THE EXISTING TREE HEIGHTS, USING YOUR PROXIMITY DIAGRAM, THOSE WERE EXISTING TREES OR TREES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD OR OR, YOU KNOW, PLANT.

YEAH. PRIMARILY EXISTING TREES.

WE HAVEN'T DONE A FULL TREE INVENTORY STUDY YET, BUT THERE WILL BE A MIX OF EXISTING, AND THEN WE'LL BE PLANTING NEW TREES AS WELL WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. PATRICK, COULD YOU PULL UP ONE SLIDE OR TWO SLIDES BACK? IT SURPRISES ME. WE DON'T HAVE, YOUR, THERE YOU GO.

IT SURPRISES ME.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SENIOR LIVING HIGHTHE.

WELL, HOW'S THAT COMPARED TO, WHAT? WE GOT THE CONVENIENCE STORE THERE.

YEAH. SO WE DIDN'T TAKE A SECTION THROUGH THE SENIOR LIVING.

IT'S COMPARABLE TO THIS SECTION, OBVIOUSLY.

BEING THAT SENIOR LIVING BUILDING ALSO HAS ABOUT A TEN FOOT GRADE CHANGE ACROSS IT.

SO IT'S MOST LIKELY GOING TO END UP BEING A23 SPLIT.

WE DO SHOW THAT THREE STORY ELEVATION SINCE THAT IS THE HIGHEST POINT OF THAT BUILDING.

BUT THE GRADING IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SECTION ON THE BOTTOM.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S EVEN FURTHER AWAY, THAN THE C STORE IS TO THOSE NEIGHBORING HOMES AS YOU GO ACROSS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS 1 TO 1 AND A HALF STORIES TALLER

[01:40:04]

THAN THE C STORE, WE DON'T IMAGINE IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SMALL IN THE DISTANCE.

IT IS.

IS IT, DOES IT START ON GROUND HIGHER? IT'S SIMILAR TO THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHERE IT'S.

I'M SORRY, IT'S REVERSE.

BASICALLY SIMILAR TO THE APARTMENTS.

HOWEVER, THERE THE STEPPING DOWN THE TWO, THEN THE THREE, THE SENIOR LIVING BUILDING WOULD DO THE SAME THING WHERE THE TWO STORIES ON THE HIGHER PART OF THE GROUND STEPS DOWN TO THE THREE STORY.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY IT'S 20 FOOT HIGHER THAN THE CONVENIENCE STORE? I WOULD SAY CLOSER TO 15, PROBABLY.

MOST LIKELY. PATRICK.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE THE ELEVATION.

OH, THE ACTUAL TOPOGRAPHY.

THE BUILDING. PARDON ME.

OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING TOP OF THE BUILDING.

I WOULD SAY IT'S ABOUT 15FT TALLER.

THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE USUALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 14FT TO TOP A ROOF, PLUS A PARAPET.

AND WITH THE MORE RESIDENTIAL STYLE OF A SENIOR LIVING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SMALLER FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHTS TYPICALLY.

SO A STORY. STORY AND A HALF APPROXIMATELY.

THANK YOU. BUT THAT WOULD ALSO BE AN ADDITIONAL 600FT OF DISTANCE TO THAT POINT.

CORRECT. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE SCALE OF THIS.

YEAH. CORRECT.

YEAH, YEAH.

I GO BACK TO ONE OF THE DIMENSION SITES WE HAVE REAL QUICK.

SO FOR FOR, YEAH.

FOR CONTEXT. SO I GUESS IF YOU SWORN THIS DIMENSION AROUND, YOU'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 1000FT OR SO TO THE C STORE AND YOU'RE PROBABLY ADDING ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, 1 TO 200FT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT SENIOR LIVING BUILDING ON THE SOUTH THERE.

WHAT ABOUT FROM THE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT FROM THE EAST? I ACROSS CANYON CREEK.

SEE THAT? 385 AND, OH.

PARDON ME. YEAH. FROM NOT FROM THE EAST.

PARDON ME FROM THE, OH.

FROM THE NORTHEAST.

LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT 800 TO 1000FT AWAY WITH THE WOODED TREE LINE THERE.

I, I DOUBT YOU WOULD SEE THAT BUILDING.

I JUST WANT TO I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.

THE OUR APARTMENTS ARE LIKE, LET'S CALL THEM RP THREE ARE FURTHER AWAY THAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET.

THERE ARE RP FOUR TO THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE'RE MUCH FURTHER AWAY AND OUR C STORE, ONE OF OUR C STORE, BUT THE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY THAT WE'VE GOT IS ALSO FURTHER AWAY THE NE OF THE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT YOU APPROVED ON THE EAST SIDE THAT THEY MAY BE YOU KNOW, IT WAS JUST APPROVED.

SO WE'RE OUR DISTANCES FROM ALL OF OUR PRODUCT ARE MUCH FURTHER AWAY THAN WHICH IT WAS JUST APPROVED ON THE EAST SIDE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM? OKAY. WE WILL NOW ALLOW COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION, PRIOR TO THE MEETING, INDICATING IF THERE WERE ANY REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED.

WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM FIRST.

I BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN, WE WILL NOT LIMIT TIME.

WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR, ANYTHING ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? BUT WE WILL KIND OF WRAP THINGS UP IF IT STARTS TO GET REPETITIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE, REVIEWED ALL OF YOUR EMAILS AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PACKET.

SO, WHEN YOU COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES. AND SIGN IN FOR JENNIFER.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES, MA'AM.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

JENNIFER. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS TRACY THOMAS.

MY WIFE AND I.

WE LIVE AT 26197 WEST 96 TERRACE.

THAT IS THE CANYON CREEK POINT SUBDIVISION, WHICH WOULD BE, DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED AREA.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH YOU.

THIS EVENING, MAYOR, IF I MAY, BEFORE I START, YOU WILL NOTICE A LARGE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE DRESSED IN BLACK.

TONIGHT, WE ARE IN SOLIDARITY, IN OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PLAN.

AND IF I MAY, IF YOU ARE HERE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE REPRESENTED HERE WITH A LOT OF PASSION, AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR OPPOSITION TO YOU.

[01:45:02]

OUR LIST OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE MANY.

YOU CAN SEE MY LIST HERE.

CERTAINLY, THE DEFORESTATION IS A BIG ONE.

I'LL GET INTO THAT.

SO, REZONING.

YES. WE, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE REZONING.

AND TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT THE PETITIONER STATED, WE WERE VERY WELL AWARE OF THE REZONING WHEN WE ALL, PURCHASED OUR LOTS IN THIS AREA.

WE'RE LIKE ALL OF YOU, WE STUDY THE ZONING IN THE AREA.

WE LOOKED AT THE VISION 2020, THE VISION 2030 PLANS, AND THE CITY'S MASTER PLANS BEFORE WE MADE ANY CONSIDERATION, TO INVEST IN, IN THIS AREA.

CERTAINLY, THERE'S A VERY DIRECT IMPACT ON THE WILDLIFE, THE NOSE, THE NOISE.

I BELIEVE OTHERS WILL SPEAK MORE ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, THE WATER QUALITY.

I'LL MENTION THE CONSERVATION AREA, THE IMPACT ON BOTH SIDES OF K-10.

WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, IF YOU DREW A HALF MILE CIRCLE AROUND THE INTERSECTION OF K-10 AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, THERE ARE THREE CORNERS OF THAT INTERSECTION THAT NOW HAVE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS.

ON THE BOOKS, A TOTAL OF 900 PLUS APARTMENT UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.

THAT'S A TREMENDOUS INCREASE TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE CERTAINLY HEARD FROM K-10 NORTH, BUT FROM K-10 SOUTH, WHEN THOSE 300 PLUS UNITS, SHOULD THEY COME INTO BEING, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT. THEY'RE GOING TO DIRECTLY IMPACT IMPACT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF K-10 AS WELL.

SO WE DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.

UPPER LEFT HAND IMAGE.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT.

I AM A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED.

ALL THE IMAGES DID HAVE YOU COUNT THE BUILDINGS.

THERE'S 28 OF THEM, BUT SEVERAL OF THE NOTES MENTIONED 22 APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, UNLESS THIS DIAGRAM IS INCORRECT, THERE ARE 28 PROPOSED, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH THE, CONVENIENCE STORE AS WELL AS THE THE THE SENIOR LIVING CENTER.

THIS IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

YOU SEE THE GRAPHIC FROM GOOGLE MAPS ON THE UPPER RIGHT IMAGE OVER 45 ACRES.

THE FOOTBALL FIELD, TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS WERE REFERENCED EARLIER.

TAKE 34.5 FOOTBALL FIELDS.

AND THAT'S THE GEOGRAPHY THAT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH DEFORESTATION AT OR VERY NEAR THE 100% LEVEL.

I WOULD THINK THAT'S A FACT THAT MAKES EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM CRINGE IN THEIR CHAIR, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR OPINION IS ON THIS PARTICULAR, DEVELOPMENT. LIKEWISE, WE DID CONSULT WITH JENNIFER DELISLE.

SHE'S AN INFORMATION MANAGER FROM THE KANSAS NATIONAL.

PARDON ME, NATURAL HERITAGE AND INVENTORY FROM THE FROM THE KANSAS BIOLOGICAL SURVEY WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS.

THE QUOTE, IS DIRECTLY FROM HER.

SHE REFERENCES. THE WESTERN PART OF THIS PARCEL WAS SURVEYED IN 1994.

YOU HAVE THE QUOTE.

IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE RECORD, BUT SHE, CERTAINLY STATES THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL FOREST VERSUS THESE ANY NEW WOODLANDS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED SINCE EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT, THESE REMAINING PARCEL OF ORIGINAL FOREST ARE IRREPLACEABLE RESERVOIRS OF BIODIVERSITY AND CONTAINED PLANTS NOT FOUND ON NEW WOODLANDS.

NOW, I DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO TURN THIS INTO A LASER POINTER.

CAN YOU ALL SEE MY MOUSE? OKAY. AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THERE IS A CONSERVATION AREA RIGHT HERE, A WETLANDS, TYPE OF AREA.

MY PURSE, MY PERSONAL REFERENCE WOULD BE ABOUT RIGHT THERE.

I WOULD BE ABOUT 700FT STRAIGHT NORTH OF THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE AND HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE PETITIONER WHEN YOU START, IF THIS PROPOSAL WERE TO BE APPROVED AND YOU START THE EXCAVATION AT OR NEAR THE 100% LEVEL ON OVER 45 ACRES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS JUST BULLDOZERS AND THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

IF THERE'S BLASTING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE.

THAT'S CONCERNED, WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE CONCRETE EXPERT.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT ON BLASTING IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY NORTH ON THE ON THE CANYON CREEK, AREA.

BUT THE EXPERT DID SAY WHETHER YOU'RE 200FT OR 1500FT AWAY FROM A BLASTING AREA, IF YOU CAN FEEL IT, YOUR FOUNDATION CAN FEEL IT TOO.

AND THAT IS NEVER A GOOD THING.

THAT IS A BIG AREA OF CONCERN AS WELL.

[01:50:03]

I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THIS IS A PAGE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, PERCEIVED VALUES.

THIS WAS IN THE PLANNING DOCUMENT, AND THIS IS A LETTER THAT WAS, SUPPLIED BY THE PETITIONER, IN SUPPORT THAT, THAT, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON, PROPOSED ON, ON THE ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ANY OF OUR HOMES.

WE WOULD BEG TO TO DIFFER.

THE APPRAISER WHO WROTE THIS DOCUMENT, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS DOCUMENT, 2021, HAD BEEN ON THE JOB APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS.

HE MENTIONS HIS 26 YEARS IN SCOTTSDALE AND PARADISE VALLEY, WHICH ARE IN THE PHOENIX AREA.

CERTAINLY IN MARICOPA COUNTY.

THAT'S PHOENIX.

YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE JOHNSON COUNTY APPRAISER DID REFERENCE LEAWOOD APARTMENTS.

A JOHNSON COUNTY APPRAISER WOULD KNOW HOW TO SPELL LEAWOOD, KANSAS.

SO WE HAVE TO ASSUME THIS.

THIS ALSO MUST BE AN AREA IN ARIZONA.

THIS IS AN APPLES AND ORANGES COMPARISON.

LIKEWISE, IN THE IN THE IN THE PACKET WAS A DOCUMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH THAT SUPPORTED THEIR, OPINION THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO, NO IMPACT ON OUR VALUE.

RIGHT. IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, IT STATES THAT, HOMES NEAR APARTMENTS ARE SMALLER AND OLDER.

THEY'RE SMALLER, WITHIN LESS THAN A HALF MILE AND OLDER OF THE PARTICULAR APARTMENTS THAT WERE THESE WERE MEASURED IN SALT LAKE COUNTY, DIFFERENT MARKET, DIFFERENT PLACE, DIFFERENT TIME.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH, WESTERN LENEXA? WE WOULD SUBMIT NOTHING.

IN FACT, IF THERE IS A PEER REVIEWED DATA OUT THERE TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON NEARBY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WE HAVE YET TO SEE IT.

WHAT WE DO KNOW, THIS IS CANYON CREEK POINT RIGHT HERE.

99 HOMES, FIVE YEARS.

MOST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, FILLED UP WITHIN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, CONCLUDING APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO.

IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE LOT PRICES ON THE EAST SIDE OF CANYON CREEK POINT SHADED IN YELLOW HERE AS COMPARED TO THE LOT PRICES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHADED IN GREEN.

THE AVERAGE LOT PRICES IN YELLOW 100,000.

THE AVERAGE LOT PRICES IN GREEN 178,000.

WHAT'S DIFFERENCE? THESE ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE MANSIONS AT, CANYON CREEK.

THESE WE HAVE THE, THE WOODED AREA TO LOOK AT.

SO THE, THE DEVELOPER KNEW WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO MARKET, AND HE WAS SUCCESSFUL AT IT.

AND WE AS PURCHASERS OF THOSE LOTS, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS A DIAGRAM.

THESE ARE DATA POINTS OFF THE AMES WEBSITE.

YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

THIS TALKS ABOUT, APPRAISED VALUES IN JOHNSON COUNTY, AS YOU WOULD LOOK, THE HIGH, LOW PRICE OF CANYON CREEK POINT, THAT GREEN AREA THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU AS COMPARED TO THE AREA RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE MANSIONS AT CANYON CREEK, 43% DIFFERENCE.

THE DIFFERENCE IS EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED IN APPRAISED VALUES BETWEEN THOSE FARTHER AWAY AND THOSE CLOSER TO THE, THE MANSIONS AT, AT CANYON CREEK, A 70% DIFFERENCE.

THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT COMES OUT OF REALTOR.COM.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A RESIDENCE OR A PROPERTY ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS WEBSITE.

THEY PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DATA.

THIS IS FROM AN ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THINGS THAT DRAGGED DOWN THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT LIST.

HIGHER, HIGHER RENTER CONCENTRATION, ALMOST A 14% DECREASE IN VALUES OF HOMES.

LIKEWISE, IN 2014, THE DEVELOPER OF CANYON CREEK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS, SENT THIS PARTICULAR LETTER TO RESIDENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, IN 2014, THERE WAS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF CANYON CREEK.

HOMEOWNERS WERE CONCERNED, AS WAS THE DEVELOPER.

AND THIS IS A LETTER FROM THE DEVELOPER.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT, THE DEVELOPER ALSO CONCURS.

WITH RESIDENTS THAT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON VALUES.

LIKEWISE, THE DEVELOPER STATED THAT A SUBDIVISION OF LOW PRICED STARTER HOMES IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR LAND AT THE WESTERN GATEWAY TO THE

[01:55:04]

CITY OF LENEXA.

LOWER PRICED HOMES OR APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

I WOULD SUBMIT THE DATA WOULD PROBABLY STAND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

ANOTHER WEBSITE POINT TO HOMES, TALKED TO COM MAJORS, RENTER AND VACANCY RATES VERSUS HOMEOWNER PROPERTIES.

AND THESE ARE JUST THREE CITIES THAT WE SELECTED OUT OF JOHNSON COUNTY.

YOU SEE, LENEXA IS AT 41% AT 4.2% VACANCY, SECOND TO OLATHE WITH A 5.7% VACANCY.

YOU'RE PROBABLY ALSO AWARE THAT, OVER 700 RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, HAVE SIGNED A PETITION STATING THEIR, HIGH LEVEL OF OPPOSITION TO THIS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ARE OVER 700 PEOPLE.

WE LIVE IN THE AREA.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN THE GALLEY, BEHIND ME.

SO, PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISIONS, HERE IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD ALSO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE SIGHTLINES THAT WERE JUST PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.

YOU CAN SEE UP HERE, WHERE THESE PARTICULAR GRID LINES WERE LAID, IF WE WERE TO MOVE THESE GRID LINES AROUND TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD WE WOULD ALL BE LOOKING DOWN ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT GRAPH. THE IMAGE HERE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, THIS IS A DRONE PICTURE THAT'S TAKEN AT THE 60FT LEVEL.

THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE IS TAKEN HERE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, LOOKING TO THE WEST SOUTHWEST.

THERE'S NO 60 FOOT TREES.

AND AS YOU LOOK AT THE PARTICULAR LEGEND THAT YOU WOULD SEE HERE ON THIS A300, IT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'S SOME TREES THAT ARE, A LOT HIGHER.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THIS IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

MR.. THOMAS, CAN I STOP YOU TO GO BACK JUST TO THAT, IF I CAN? YEAH. YES, MA'AM.

A DRONE UP AT 60FT IN THE AIR WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN A HOMEOWNER STANDING ON THEIR DECK.

SO EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHY YOU WOULD PRESENT A DRONE PICTURE THAT FAR UP IN THE AIR TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT A VIEW WOULD BE FROM ONE OF YOUR HOMES.

I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT.

OKAY. IT WAS STATED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AS YOU LOOK AT THIS LEGEND, RIGHT HERE, IT WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOME OF THESE TREES AND IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WERE SOME TREES AT OR NEAR THE 60FT LEVEL. BOIL IT DOWN TO THE BRASS TACKS.

OUR VIEW IS THE PETITIONER IS CORRECT.

OUR VIEW WOULD GO AWAY.

OKAY. AND WHATEVER IS IS PUT IN THIS PARTICULAR, DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE THE WHOLE THING.

YEAH. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER BURSON.

HE APOLOGIZED, SAYING IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHEN, REALTORS PROMISE, RAINBOWS AND GOLD TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. WELL, HERE IS OUR RAINBOWS AND GOLD STORY.

THIS IS FROM A WEBSITE, THE CANYON CREEK POINT.COM CANYON CREEK POINT.

COM WEBSITE.

THIS IS A WEBSITE THAT WAS USED TO PROMOTE THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT TO US.

THERE WAS A SENTENCE IN HERE THAT READ WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE.

CITY OWNED PARKLAND AND NATURAL CONSERVATION AREA SURROUND THE COMMUNITY, ALLOWING SWEEPING VIEWS OF NOTHING BUT NATURE, ASSURING RESIDENTS THAT THOSE VIEWS WOULD REMAIN FOREVER UNSPOILED.

THIS SAME LINE, WORD FOR WORD, APPEARED IN PRINT ADS IN THE KANSAS CITY STAR AND IN OTHER TRADE JOURNALS AS WELL.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAD TO GO ON.

YOU KNOW, MY WIFE AND I, WE MOVED FROM, LEAWOOD, TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE ZONING, THE VISION 2020, 2030 PLAN, THE CITY'S, MASTER PLAN, IT ALL CREATED A VERY SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER COMMUNITIES.

I WOULD ALSO SUBMIT TO YOU HAD THAT 2018, APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WAS DETAILED EARLIER.

HAD THAT COME TO FRUITION, THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A CANYON CREEK POINT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF US WOULD BE IN THIS ROOM TODAY HAD THAT HAVE COME TO, TO COME TO FRUITION.

SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE WITH IS, YES, WE ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE REZONING.

[02:00:03]

MADAM MAYOR, WITH YOUR EXPERTISE IN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR.

DESIGN. WHATEVER WIGGLE ROOM THERE MIGHT BE THERE FOR, FOR COMPROMISE.

YOU KNOW, IF I WAS THE ONE THE PURCHASED THIS TRACK OF LAND, KNOWING FULL WELL THE ZONING THAT IS IN PLACE AND I'M UNABLE TO MARKET THAT TO THIRD PARTY.

WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? THAT'S MY FAULT.

AND, YOU KNOW, NOW THEY'RE COMING TO YOU ASKING FOR A REZONING.

SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE TRENDS IN APARTMENTS.

YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ON VALLEY PARKWAY IN, IN CEDAR CREEK BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF K-10 AND, AND CEDAR CREEK PARKWAY, IT'S APARTMENTS.

IT'S RETAIL, IT'S OFFICE SPACE.

THOSE. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE TREND WHERE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE GOING.

PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNE WITH NATURE.

THERE'S RESTAURANTS, THERE'S RETAIL SITES.

WE HAVE NONE OF THAT HERE.

EXCEPT A CONVENIENCE STORE.

I GUESS I CAN GO DOWN THERE AND GRAB A CUP OF COFFEE IF I WANT TO, BUT THAT HARDLY COUNTS.

A COUPLE OF THINGS.

COUNCILWOMAN. WILLIAMSON WAS WAS IT YOU THAT HAD THE QUESTION OF THE PETITIONER AS TO HOW MANY, HO'S WERE CONTACTED? ONE CONTACTED? WAS THAT YOU? YES, I ASKED THAT QUESTION.

OKAY. THAT NUMBER WOULD BE ZERO.

CANYON CREEK POINT HAD ZERO, COMMUNICATION POINTS WITH THE PETITIONER ON THIS.

WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON DECEMBER THE 20TH LETTING US KNOW THAT ON DECEMBER THE 27TH, MR. OTO WAS HOSTING A MEETING.

AND IN HIS EMAIL, HE STATED THAT HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.

BUT WE ALL WENT THERE ON DECEMBER 27TH.

WE'RE LIKE YOU, WE'RE ON HOLIDAY BREAK.

IT'S A GOOD THING THAT THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS, WEATHERED OUT DUE TO SNOW.

OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE HAD ONE BUSINESS DAY TO PUT TOGETHER ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES BEFORE THAT, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

SO WHATEVER THE REASON IS FOR THE EXPEDITED PLANS ON ON THREE OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF K10 AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE CHASING THE BATTERY PLANT MARKET OR WHAT, BUT SOMEWHERE IN THERE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME NEGOTIATION.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME GIVE AND TAKE.

SO, I HOPE I'VE DONE A GOOD ENOUGH JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT.

YES. THE THE RESIDENTS, WE HAVE AN EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH LEVEL OF, OF CONCERN.

WE'VE EXPERIENCED, EVERY, EVERY EMOTION THAT YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF.

WE'RE ANGRY, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED, WE'RE CONCERNED.

AND, YES, WE'RE SCARED.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE TONIGHT.

MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

YES. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS DINESH COUNCIL.

I'M A RESIDENT OF CEDAR CREEK, AND LAST YEAR I CAME OVER WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TALKING ABOUT REVIEWING AND APPROVING THESE, CEDAR CREEK WEST DEVELOPMENT.

AND I MENTIONED MY CONCERN WAS THE TRAFFIC.

I ONLY MENTIONED ONE ASPECT OF THIS TRAFFIC.

AND I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN HERE RIGHT NOW.

MAY I BE PERMITTED TO ASK THE STAFF A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? OKAY FOR STEPHANIE? OUR ENGINEER WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THERE TRAFFIC RELATED QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER.

WHAT'S THE INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THAT AREA? THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE OCCUPYING THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.

DO YOU KNOW? MAYOR, YOU MIGHT THAT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE CALCULATED THROUGH THE HIS TRAFFIC STUDY.

I DON'T KNOW NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THE NEW.

YEAH. THE NEW RESIDENTS.

HOW MANY PEOPLE.

[02:05:02]

SO IN THE IN THE 22 OR 28 BUILDINGS, I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S BODIES.

YES. SO THE COMBINATION OF 12 AND 14 UNIT BUILDINGS, HOW MANY TOTAL IS IT? 2000, 5000.

1000. SOMEBODY MUST KNOW, MAYOR.

I CAN ADDRESS IT. OKAY, I'LL ADDRESS IT.

AND THEN IF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WANTS TO CONFIRM MY MY, BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY, FULL BUILD OUT OF BOTH SIDES, I THINK HAS A TRAFFIC PROJECTION OF ADDITIONAL 7500 VEHICLES PER DAY.

OKAY. SO 7500 VEHICLES PER DAY.

7500. THAT'S CORRECT.

IF I COULD PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE THERE.

CURRENTLY, THERE'S ABOUT 2500 VEHICLES PER DAY ON THAT ROAD ON CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

THIS WOULD PUT IT UP AROUND 8 TO 10,000 VEHICLES PER DAY, DEPENDING ON DEVELOPMENT.

FOUR LANE ROADWAY CAPACITY LIKE CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, RULE OF THUMB IS ABOUT 30,000 VEHICLES A DAY WILL KEEP YOU UNDER ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE.

87TH STREET, QUIVIRA.

BOTH CARRY 3030 PLUS THOUSAND VEHICLES A DAY.

SO FULL BUILD OUT, ULTIMATE BUILD OUT IN 2030 YEARS.

WHATEVER. WHEN THIS ALL DEVELOPS, YOU COULD HAVE TRAFFIC SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE ON QUIVIRA 87TH STREET.

AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT HELPS WHEN YOU SAY VEHICLES PER DAY, TIM, YOU MEAN TRIPS PER DAY? TRIPS PER DAY. SO THAT MIGHT BE ONE PERSON MAKING MORE.

THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

HOW MANY HOW MANY CARS OR OR VEHICLES WOULD BE IN THAT AREA OR ADDED BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? 7500 VEHICLES PER DAY.

75 BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE, I MIGHT DEFER TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

HE DID THE STUDY.

I DON'T WANT TO GET THE NUMBERS WRONG.

I'M ASKING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND VEHICLES.

THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.

OKAY? I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE ULTIMATELY.

HOW MUCH I DON'T KNOW.

NO. NOBODY KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE OCCUPYING THIS DEVELOPMENT.

NO WE DON'T. AND YOU WANT TO DO IT, SIR? CAN WE ASK THAT, SIR? SIR, CAN WE ALLOW THE DEVELOPER MAYBE TO MAKE A GUESS? I'M SORRY. DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER ALL OF THEM AT THE END OR NOW? LET'S GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THEM NOW.

JUST THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY ANTICIPATED RESIDENTS.

YES. EXCUSE ME. WITH 350, UNITS APPROXIMATELY, WE ANTICIPATE ABOUT 1.15 PEOPLE PER APARTMENT UNIT IN THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES.

OKAY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU GUYS CAN VOTE.

THIS COMES RIGHT OFF OF OUR BOOKS.

I GOT THE IDENTICAL UNITS ACROSS THE STREET AND THEY'RE 1.15 UNITS.

WE GET ABOUT 1.1 ON SINGLE BED ON ONE BEDROOMS, AND WE USUALLY GET ABOUT 1.2 PEOPLE ON TWO BEDROOMS. THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT CENTER.

AND YOU HAVE A BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

THE 80, THE 80 ROOM SENIOR LIVING WOULD PROBABLY HAVE MOST 90 PEOPLE BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY ONE PERSON PER THERE, BUT THEY DON'T PUT TOO MUCH TRAFFIC OUT THERE.

YOU HAVE BUSINESS AND OFFICE OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? DID YOU? WELL, I COULDN'T HEAR THAT PART OF THE QUESTION, SIR.

OKAY. HOW ABOUT DO YOU KNOW THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES? HE ASKED A COMMENT.

YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE QUESTIONS ONE BY ONE HERE.

PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE'LL ADDRESS OKAY.

SO NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES.

WHAT ELSE. CORRECT.

THAT'S THE BASIC.

NOW MY CONCERN IS I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SHOW YOU ON WE DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION OKAY.

NEVER MIND. THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE ME MENTIONED 900 ADDITIONAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF K-10.

YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY APPROVED CANYON CREEK WEST.

NOW THERE'S THIS ONE.

OKAY. ON THE OTHER SIDE.

AND THE CEDAR CREEK, THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT COMING UP.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ZONING AS WELL.

CHANGE. OKAY.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 350 APARTMENTS AND CONVENIENCE STORES AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC HAS TO GO ON ONE RAMP TO GO TO K-10 GOING EAST.

THAT'S THE ONLY TRAFFIC.

ALL THIS TRAFFIC FROM THIS ONE WOULD BE WOULD BE DUMPED ON THE CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

IT'S GOING TO TURN RIGHT, GO UNDER THE BRIDGE, MAKE A LEFT TURN, GO ON THE RAMP.

MY CONCERN IS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC? IS THAT GOING TO BE GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THAT? NOBODY'S LOOKED AT IT.

THE STAFF SAID SIMPLY, OH, K10 IS STUDYING THE IMPACT AT THE K10 BRIDGE.

[02:10:03]

GOD KNOWS WHEN AND IF EVER K10 WILL EVER DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT BRIDGE.

THE BRIDGE HAS TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC.

THE WIDTH IS SO MUCH, JUST SO MUCH.

YOU CANNOT ADD ANOTHER LANE IN THERE UNLESS YOU TAKE THE WHOLE BRIDGE OUT.

MAKE A WHOLE NEW DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERCHANGE.

IT'S GOING TO BE A REAL MESS FOREVER.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR? YES. CAN WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYBODY SIGN IN ON A CLIPBOARD? SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE. SIGNED IN.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

THERE IS ONE ON THAT PODIUM AS WELL.

THERE'S ONE ON EACH PODIUM.

JUST NAME. ADDRESS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

GOING OVER TO KARLIN. YEAH.

OKAY. HELLO.

MY NAME IS GORDON PINSKY.

I'M A RESIDENT OF LENEXA.

I LIVE AT 25406 WEST 96TH TERRACE, AND I'M IN CANYON CREEK DEVELOPMENT.

NOT TO CRITICIZE THE STAFF, BUT YOU GUYS ARE GREAT.

YOU REALLY ARE. I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO.

AND YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF CREDIT, BUT YOU DO A GOOD JOB.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO CRITICIZE THAT, BUT ONE THING YOU DID, YOU TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS.

CANYON CREEK ACTUALLY IS ONE SUBDIVISION.

THE PARK, THE LAKE AND THE RIDGE, EXCUSE ME, ARE DIFFERENT, RELEASES BY THE DEVELOPER, AND IT'S ALL CONTROLLED BY ONE HOMES ASSOCIATION. I WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THAT HOMES ASSOCIATION BACK BEFORE IT WAS EVEN A HOMES ASSOCIATION.

I'VE BEEN HERE SEVERAL TIMES.

AND AGAIN, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK, YOUR HONOR.

AND I APPRECIATE WHAT ALL OF YOU GUYS DO.

YOU DON'T GET PAID ENOUGH.

OKAY. THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTION.

I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO BE EMOTIONAL.

AND LET'S RAISE A SUBJECT THAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT.

AND I THINK IT'S OVERRIDING.

I WAS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE THE 2018 BECAUSE I WAS, PRESIDENT OF THE HOME ASSOCIATION AT THAT TIME, AND WE WERE VERY MUCH INVOLVED. THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS DIDN'T EXIST.

AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO STATE MY OPINION BECAUSE AS PRESIDENT OF THE HOMES ASSOCIATION, I COULDN'T MAKE IT BE SEEN THAT I WAS SPEAKING FOR THE ENTIRE ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE HADN'T VOTED.

AND THERE'S LIMITS, ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF KANSAS, ON WHAT WE CAN DO.

AND WE CAN'T EVEN HOLD A MEETING WITHOUT 30 DAYS NOTICE.

BUT WE COULD FACILITATE THE HOMEOWNERS TO MEET.

AND AT THAT TIME, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT MY OPPOSITION WOULD BE.

I MIGHT GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF MY BACKGROUND.

I SPENT 40 YEARS IN CONSTRUCTION.

I FINISHED AS THE MARKETING DIRECTOR FOR ONE OF THE 10TH LARGEST SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES, PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING, WHICH IS LOCATED IN LENEXA, KANSAS.

WE ARE THE LARGEST OR WERE THE LARGEST FRAMING AND DRYWALL CONTRACTOR IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE EMPLOYED MORE CARPENTERS THAN ANYONE ELSE, AND I WAS THE MARKETING DIRECTOR FOR ALL 60 OF OUR BRANCHES.

I CREATED PLANS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT MARKET TRENDS CHANGE, AND WHAT IS A NEED FOR APARTMENTS TODAY MAY SWITCH WITHIN FIVE YEARS, AND WHAT HELPS IS TO HAVE PLANS.

AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE FIVE YEAR PLANS AND YOU CAN HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, BUT THEY DON'T HOLD UP TO REALITY.

LIKE YOU KNOW, PATTON ONCE SAID, THERE ARE THE THE GREATEST GENERAL, THE GREATEST PLAN FAILS THE FIRST TIME YOU CONTACT THE ENEMY.

RIGHT. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE DIGITAL WORLD IS GOING TO GO.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TRANSPORTATION IS GOING TO BE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO IT'S GREAT.

WE HAVE A PLAN AND IT'S WONDERFUL THAT THE COUNCIL, IF I GOT IT RIGHT, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS AND THE CODES VERSUS THE PLANS AND YOU COMPARE WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BEFORE AND YOU CAN LOOK AT, EXCUSE ME, PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AND ALL.

THAT'S FINE. LENEXA HAS SOMETHING AMAZING, A TOOL THAT YOU COULD USE AS A GUIDE.

NOW, IT'S NOT A PLAN.

IT'S NOT RULES. IT'S NOT A CODE.

IT'S CALLED VISION 2040.

AND I WASN'T CERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT I WAS AGAINST AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BACK IN 2018.

AND I KEPT LOOKING AT IT, WONDERING, WELL, I SEE HOW IT'S ZONED AND MAYBE THEY WILL BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M SIMPLY GOING TO FACILITATE OUR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

AND AS TIME GONE ON, AS I'VE GOTTEN OLDER AND I'VE SEEN THINGS DEVELOP, AND BY THE WAY, I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE.

I MOVED THERE IN 2017.

AND FOR THE ATTORNEY, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT 20 YEARS, BUT I KNOW ABOUT 17 YEARS.

AND NOT JUST THAT AREA.

THERE WAS NOTHING ANYWHERE.

OKAY, SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS THOSE THINGS AREN'T DEVELOPED, BUT 2040 IS VERY 2040 IS VERY IMPORTANT.

YOU HAD OVER 3000 CITIZENS, GAVE YOU THEIR OPINIONS, YOU SPENT LOTS OF TIME.

[02:15:05]

AND IT'S WONDERFUL THAT LENEXA DOES THAT.

AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT WHAT THE USE OF THAT IS.

AND I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT IT NEVER GETS REFERENCED.

NOW, I KNOW WHAT THE CODES ARE AND I UNDERSTAND THE CODES.

I UNDERSTAND THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT.

THAT'S THE WAY A CITY HAS TO OPERATE.

BUT SOMEBODY OUGHT TO STAND BACK AND GO TO 30,000FT AND SAY, ARE WE DRIVING TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD NODES? ARE WE TRYING TO BUILD INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES? ARE WE TRYING TO GET THE GOAL? AND I JUST DON'T SEE THAT BEING DISCUSSED.

ONE OF THE CRITICAL THINGS IN 2040 WAS TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE MAJOR ARTERIAL ENTRANCES TO NEIGHBORHOODS, AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THE BEST PLACE YOU SHOULD CONCENTRATE? COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOT APARTMENTS, NOT RESIDENTIAL.

NOW, IT ALSO SAYS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OF RESIDENCES.

MULTIFAMILY SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEXES, TO HAVE NURSING HOMES, TO HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS.

THAT'S THAT'S ALL IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE CITY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SORT OF LOOK INWARD, OKAY, INSTEAD OF LOOKING OUTWARD.

THE OTHER THING THAT I FIND INTERESTING IS THAT THERE ISN'T A LOT OF APARTMENTS THAT ARE BUILT RIGHT AT AN ARTERIAL ENTRANCE NOW WHERE WE LIVE, WHERE WE ALL LIVE RIGHT HERE WEARING THE BLACK JACKETS, IS BETWEEN K7, K10 AND GOING NORTH IN THAT AREA. IT'S A PRETTY LARGE AREA.

LOTS OF DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL, A HIGH SCHOOL, A COUPLE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S NOT THERE? A GROCERY STORE, A RESTAURANT, A DAYCARE CENTER, SERVICES OF ANY KIND, ALL THE THINGS YOU WOULD HAVE IN A CP2.

AND BY THE WAY, USING MY MARKETING BACKGROUND, LET ME POINT OUT, YOU CAN PUT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY FROM A, AN ARTERIAL ENTRANCE.

LOOK AT THE MANSIONS OF CANYON CANYON CREEK.

THEY'RE VERY SUCCESSFUL.

I JUST BY THE WAY, TODAY I DROVE ALL THE WAY OUT TO LEE'S SUMMIT, AND I STOPPED AND LOOKED AT EVERY SINGLE INTERSECTION.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY APARTMENTS EVER RIGHT THERE.

YOU KNOW WHY THEY WERE COVERED WITH CP1 CP2.

THEY WERE COVERED WITH RESTAURANTS, OFFICE BUILDINGS.

IT'S BECAUSE FOR THOSE TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THEY NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, NOT NECESSARILY PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

WHEN YOU PUT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THERE, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE NOT WELDED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND COME OUT OKAY.

AND THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, WE'VE ALL LIVED IN APARTMENTS AND THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO LONG TERM. DON'T CHASE THE CURRENT NEED OR AND LOOK, THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB FOLLOWING THE RULES AND FOLLOWING THE PROCESS THAT'S ALWAYS DONE.

I'M SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

GO BACK AND LOOK AT 2014 AND SAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING? BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS TAKING A CP2 DESIGNATION AT AN ARTERIAL INTERSECTION AND YOU'RE WIPING IT AWAY.

THE ONLY OTHER ARTERIAL WE HAVE IS OVER BY K SEVEN.

GOODNESS, WE'VE GOT THE HOSPITAL THERE.

THAT'S GREAT. WE GOT CASES.

WE GOT SOME STUFF THERE. THAT'S IT.

AND IF THAT'S ALL WE EVER HAVE, THEN WE CAN FORGET ABOUT WHATEVER THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO SEE FOR THE FUTURE IN THE VISION 2040.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I NEVER REALLY ROSE UP AGAINST APARTMENTS AND I'M NOT AGAINST APARTMENTS.

I REALLY THINK THERE'S A REASON TO HAVE THEM.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE GOT SOME SCHEDULED FOR, CEDAR CANYON WEST IS THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED.

I LOVE THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT OVERUSING CANYON CREEK AND AGAIN, BUT CEDAR CANYON WEST, THAT'S FINE.

THERE'S A GREAT VALUE IN DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY OF TYPES OF OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MEETING AT A, AT THE GROCERY STORE OR MEETING AT THE DAYCARE CENTER.

GOT TO BE NICE TO HAVE AT LEAST A DAYCARE CENTER.

OKAY. WE HAVE NOTHING.

WE HAVE NOTHING IN THAT ENTIRE AREA.

AND YOU'RE TAKING AWAY A CP2.

AND I UNDERSTAND NOTHING WAS BUILT THERE FOR 20 YEARS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE REASON TO TAKE IT AWAY.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY A DEVELOPER MAY NOT WANT TO JUMP IN RIGHT AWAY, BUT SOMETIMES WITH A REASON TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM US.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET THIS EMOTIONAL, BUT SOMETIMES I DO.

I MIGHT ASK YOU TO WRAP IT UP, PLEASE.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO WRAP IT UP, AND I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE TIME TO TALK ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT REALLY QUICK, SINCE WE DID TALK ABOUT THE ENTRANCE RAMPS COMING OFF OF K-10, CAN SOMEBODY I DON'T KNOW IF THE TRAFFIC CAN DO THIS, BUT CAN SOMEBODY PUT A NO PARKING SIGN THERE BECAUSE THE SEMI TRUCKS STILL PARKED THERE AT NIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE, OLATHE SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE STOP SIGN UP.

I'M SORRY TO STEAL THE TIME, BUT THAT WOULD BE NICE TO DO TOO.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.

[02:20:01]

OKAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO LAST CALL, PLEASE.

THANK BEST FOR LAST.

MY NAME IS STEVE BENNETT, AND I AM, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS IN OUR AREA.

AND I'M REALLY GOING TO SPEAK MORE TOWARDS WHAT I SEE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHAT I THINK ARE SOME CHALLENGES, AND ALSO ABOUT THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR, ETC..

GIVE ME A HAND HERE, SIR.

DID YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? MY NAME IS STEVE BENNETT.

I LIVE AT 25 891 WEST 96TH TERRACE, AND I'M IN THE CANYON CREEK POINT DEVELOPMENT.

SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU TAKING THE TIME.

I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF MANY, COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND I ALWAYS ADMIRE YOU ALL PUTTING UP WITH OUR COMMENTS, ETC..

WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CITY.

LENEXA HAS DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB AT OUR ENTRYWAYS, PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY.

THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I MOVED HERE.

I SAID, THIS IS REALLY COOL.

WE GOT ALL THIS LANDSCAPING ROCK, SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND IT WAS JUST A WAY THAT I FELT LIKE WE'RE MOVING TO AN AREA THAT HAD A LOT OF NATURE, AND CERTAINLY THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS THAT.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT MYSELF.

SO YOU KNOW WHY I'M SPEAKING ABOUT SOME OF THE FACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ETC..

I'VE BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION FOR OVER 35 YEARS.

I'VE GOT A DEGREE FROM KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

AND I ALSO HAVE WORKED FOR ONE OF THE LARGEST DEVELOPERS IN THE MIDWEST, COMING IN FRONT OF YOU, HELPING DEVELOP PLANS SIMILAR TO WHAT ODOT HAS DONE, ETC.. SO THIS IS NOT MY FIRST RODEO.

SECONDLY, I MANAGED CONSTRUCTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT FOR KWIK TRIP.

PROBABLY THE LEADER. I THINK MOST OF YOU WOULD AGREE, PROBABLY THE LEADER IN THE GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE BUSINESS.

SO I CAN ALSO SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONVENIENCE STORE THAT'S BEING SHOWN AND SOME OF THE VARIANCES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES.

I FEEL LIKE THAT, PRESENTS.

AND THEN LASTLY, I DO TEACH, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, LANDSCAPING.

AND WE HAVE A UNIQUE CLASS AT JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE CALLED THE GREEN BUILDING CLASS.

AND WE ONLY HAVE THREE STUDENTS LEFT.

SO THEY COULDN'T COULDN'T LAST FOR THE WHOLE THING.

BUT PART OF WHAT WE TEACH IS HOW TO BUILD FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WITH NATURE, AND NOT DISTURBING AS MUCH AS THE LANDSCAPING AS WE CAN AND THE WILDLIFE, ETC., AND GREENHOUSE GASES, YOU CAN SAY WHETHER IT'S REAL OR NOT REAL, BUT OBVIOUSLY WHAT WAS THE 67 TODAY? AND THE AVERAGE IS 41 DEGREES.

SO SOMETHING'S CHANGING.

SO WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW CAN WE DEVELOP AND KEEP AS MUCH OF THE NATURE AND THE GREEN SPACE AS POSSIBLE AND KEEP AWAY FROM THE HARD SURFACE.

SO THAT'S IN PART WHY WE'RE THERE.

AND THE MAYOR WAS NICE ENOUGH TO ALLOW TO GIVE A FEW COMMENTS TO HIM TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT COUNCILS DO.

HOPEFULLY WE HAVEN'T TURNED THEM OFF.

TONIGHT. COMING AGAIN? SO I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THINGS THAT I SEE FROM FROM MY PROFESSION AND COMMENT ON THOSE.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED AND WHY I THINK THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES WITH ACCEPTING THOSE TO MAKE THIS PLAN WORK.

AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN SAID, PREVIOUSLY, THIS PARTICULAR SITE HAS SOME UNIQUE CHALLENGES.

IT'S GOT A LOT OF GRADE TO IT, A LOT OF ROCK.

IT'S GOT GROUNDWATER.

IT DOES HAVE WETLANDS DOWN IN THERE THAT IF YOU NEED THE DEFINITION OF WHAT FEMA CONSIDERS A WETLAND, IT'S AN AREA THAT HOLDS WATER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

PRETTY VAGUE.

WE HAVE IT THERE AND WE HAVE GROUNDWATER THAT'S SEEPING, INCLUDING AT THE INTERSECTION.

I MENTIONED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL, AND HOPEFULLY THE PUBLIC WORKS GROUP WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

WE GET WATER THAT COMES UP RIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION, AND IT'S FINE WHEN IT ICES OVER AND WE'RE GOING ONE DIRECTION, BUT NOW WE'RE GETTING TURNING MOVEMENTS AT THIS INTERSECTION.

AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD SITUATION.

AND THE DEVELOPER, IF HE GOES FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN, IS GOING TO HAVE SOME CHALLENGES ON THIS SITE BECAUSE WE'VE ALL WALKED IT.

SO FIRST, ON SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CLARIFICATIONS, YOU KNOW, THE PLAN THAT I SAW FROM THE DEVELOPER WAS CLEARLY TAKEN IN THE WINTER TIME BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T DO JUSTICE TO ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPING.

I REPRESENT DEVELOPMENT, SO WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

BUT WE DID UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT THIS HAD ZONING THAT PROFESSIONALS LIKE YOURSELF AND THE CITY CAME UP WITH, THAT WE WERE AWARE OF WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WENT ON, WHEN WE BUILT OUR HOMES HERE.

[02:25:02]

BUT NOW YOU'RE CHANGING IT.

AND THAT IS TROUBLING FOR US.

AND THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER.

WELL, NOTHING'S HAPPENED FOR 20 YEARS.

STAFF EVEN MADE THAT COMMENT.

WELL, YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

FIVE YEARS.

THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED THERE.

WE'RE NOW GETTING DEVELOPMENT TO COME.

AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A BUSINESS PERSON, YOU WILL GET DEVELOPMENT.

YOU WILL GET BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO BUILD AN OFFICE BUILDING THERE, BECAUSE NOW IT'S STARTING TO GROW AND WE HAVE A PANASONIC PLANE THAT'S GOING DOWN THE ROAD.

SO DON'T TAKE NOTHING'S HAPPENED FOR FOR 20 YEARS REALLY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THINGS HAVE REALLY TAKEN OFF THERE.

AND THIS IS THE GATEWAY TO OUR CITY, TO COME IN.

THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, THE TERRAIN THAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT, IT WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISTORTED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED.

THEY SHOWED PICTURES OF WHAT WAS ON THE WEBSITE.

THAT'S FROM OUR BASEMENT LEVEL.

THOSE AREN'T FROM THE LEVEL ON OUR FIRST FLOOR.

ON OUR FIRST FLOOR WE'RE UP.

SO THOSE PICTURES THAT WERE SHOWN, THEY SAID, LOOK AT ALL THESE TREES.

WE CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT.

WE'RE SITTING IN OUR BASEMENT LOOKING OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE, BASEMENTS THAT, THAT DAYLIGHT ON THAT SIDE.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISTORTED TO SAY THAT'S OUR VIEW.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE TREES.

NO FIRST FLOOR IS UP.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS.

SECONDLY, THAT PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY GAVE IS AT THE LOWEST POINT ON THE SITE WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE CAUSE.

THEY TOOK IT RIGHT THROUGH THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

THAT'S THE LOWEST LOCATION.

WHEN YOU COME OFF OF K-10, THAT'S THE HIGHEST POINT, AND IT GRADUATES DOWN WHEN YOU GET TO THE EDGE OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

THAT'S THE LOWEST POINT, AND THAT IS ALSO THE LOWEST BUILDING ON THE SITE.

YOU HEARD THEM TALK, OR YOU HEARD IT MENTIONED THAT AT ONE TIME THAT THE, ASSISTED LIVING WAS TWO STORIES.

IT WENT TO THREE STORIES.

AND IN FACT, WHEN WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER, HE PRESENTED HIS TWO STORIES ONE WEEK LATER WHEN HE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.

IT'S THREE. SO WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT PUDS AND ONCE YOU GET A PUD, IF HIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T GO, HE CAN GO BUILD ANYTHING ELSE.

YES, HE HAS TO COME BACK TO THE STAFF FOR APPROVAL, BUT IT CAN BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAN WHAT IT IS NOW.

AND WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY.

I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TAKING THE ASSISTED LIVING YET, AND I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TAKING THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

SO ALL THAT MEANS IS IT COULD CHANGE WHEN YOU CHANGE THE ZONING.

THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT IF THIS IS THREE STORIES, THIS IS THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE SITE.

IF YOU ALL HAVE DRIVEN THAT, YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO THE HIGHWAY, RIGHT.

THE HIGHWAY IS THE HIGHEST ELEVATION.

SO YOU KNOW, THIS POINT UP HERE ON THE CORNER IS THE HIGHEST POINT.

IF WE TOOK A CROSS-SECTION THROUGH THIS AND I HEARD THEM SAY 15FT, IT'S THREE STORIES.

HE SAID, IT'S 14FT.

IT'S THREE STORIES HIGH THERE WITH THIS ASSISTED LIVING.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S ON THE HIGH POINT WHEN WE GO TO THE HIGHWAY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. SO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE DEVELOPMENT IS REALLY AT THE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GET ON THE HIGHWAY RIGHT IN THIS AREA.

OKAY. THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERLAY OF ALL THE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT TO DO THIS.

AND I'M PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT DEVELOPMENT IS DEVELOPMENT.

TREES ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT.

BUT I THINK YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE MASSIVENESS OF SEEING THOSE TREES.

THERE'S A LOT OF TREES ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THIS REDUCTION OF 72% OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE HIGHWAY TO THAT DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT AREA IS ALL BEING CLEARED OF TREES THAT NORMALLY WOULD NOT BE REMOVED, THAT WOULD REMAIN THERE BECAUSE OF THE 100 FOOT SETBACK THAT HE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO GO DOWN 72% FROM THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT.

WE PUT THESE REQUIREMENTS IN WHY WE PUT THE REQUIREMENTS IN TO HAVE THE BEST DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE BEFORE YOU DECIDED THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE, AND THAT'S A STANDARD IN EVERY CITY. THAT 100 FOOT SETBACK.

TO DEVIATE FROM THAT, ALL THAT DOES IS REMOVE MORE TREES, MORE VISIBILITY TO THE HIGHWAY, ETC.

I ALSO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT IT'S OKAY TO HAVE APARTMENTS NEXT TO THE HIGHWAY.

WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM, BUT WE CAN'T PUT SINGLE FAMILY.

THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY ALL UP AND DOWN K-10 NOW DO I WANT TO BE THAT PERSON? MAYBE NOT, BUT THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY EVEN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AT CEDAR CREEK.

THEY HAVE HOUSING WITHIN THAT 100 FOOT AREA.

YOU GO DOWN EITHER DIRECTION.

THERE'S SPOTS OF HOUSING THAT'S AGAINST THE HIGHWAY.

THIS AREA JUST NOW IS BEING DEVELOPED THAT WILL ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.

SO US CONTINUING TO COMPARE A PAST DEVELOPMENT, WHY ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS THIS ONE THAT'S HERE TODAY.

[02:30:04]

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE COMPARING.

IT WAS A REALLY BAD APPLE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU BEFORE.

AND LOOK HOW MUCH BETTER WE ARE TODAY.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE.

PAST DEVELOPMENT. I CARE ABOUT THIS ONE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE HEIGHT OF THE ONE BEFORE HAD A FLAT ROOF.

IT IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS WHAT WE'RE BUILDING HERE WITH THE PITCH ROOFS, SO IT'S NOT LOWER, ETC.

IT'S HIGHER.

IT'S OVER 40FT HIGH.

ON THE DEVELOPMENT, ON THE SENIOR LIVING PORTION.

YES. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THE SIDE THAT FACES OUR DEVELOPMENT IS REALLY THREE STORIES HIGH BECAUSE IT HAS THE WALK OUT.

RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY SEEING THREE STORIES FROM THE GROUND LEVEL UP.

WE USE A PLAY OF WORDS.

IT'S ONLY TWO STORIES BECAUSE WE DON'T COUNT THE BASEMENT.

WELL, ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS WHAT WE SEE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THREE STORIES, 42FT UP IN THE AIR.

OKAY, STORM DRAINAGE.

RIGHT NOW, IF YOU TAKE THE CITY OF LENEXA GETS 37IN OF RAINFALL IN A YEAR, DO YOU REALIZE THAT THAT'S 1.6 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER ON A 45 ACRE SITE? THAT'S A LOT OF WATER THAT'S GOING TO GO DOWN INTO THIS CREEK.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVEN'T GOT YOUR COVERALLS TO WALK IN THAT HEAVILY WOODED AREA, THAT CREEK IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET WIDE, PROBABLY 24IN DEEP, AND IT'S MANMADE TYPE ROCK, DIRT, ETC..

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ALL THIS WATER GOES THERE? NOW THEY HAVE DETENTION, LIKE WE ALL DO, TO SLOW IT DOWN, BUT THAT WATER IS EVENTUALLY GOING THERE.

AND IF YOU LOOK, THE DISCHARGE POINTS STOP.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT WATER DISCHARGES TO GET TO THE CREEK? THE CREEK IS CLEAR HERE.

SO HOW DOES THAT WATER GET THERE? IT'S RUNNING ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS MORE EROSION.

MY STUDENTS WILL TELL YOU THE SILT BUILD UP, ETC.

IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP FROM GETTING IN OUR STREAMS BECAUSE WE TREAT ALL THAT WATER OUR WHOLE BIG DEAL.

PUTTING EROSION CONTROL IS TO KEEP SILT FROM GETTING IN OUR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, AND YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW ALL THIS WATER TO SOMEHOW GRAVITATE DOWN TO THAT CREEK.

THERE'S NO PROVISION.

IT'S RUNNING ON THE GROUND TO GET TO THE CREEK AREA.

THIS IS THE CREEK AS IT IS NOW.

THIS IS IT.

OKAY. DO WE WANT TO HAVE THIS FROM ALL THAT WATER THAT'S GOING TO GO DOWN THERE? THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE EROSION CONTROL, BECAUSE HE HAS NO ABILITY TO CORRECT THAT OR PUT IT UNDERGROUND, NOR DO WE WANT THAT.

WHERE IS THAT PICTURE ON THE RIGHT LOCATED? OFF THE INTERNET, THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT WILL GET EXPANDED.

OKAY. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT THAT WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT CONDITION.

YEAH. SO SO WHAT I IF YOU WANTED ME TO GO TO SOME OTHER PLACE IN LENEXA TO SHOW ROGER COURT, I'M SURE I COULD FIND.

THAT'S NOT REALLY A FAIR COMPARISON, SIR.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP IS ABOUT CDOT.

CDOT HAS A RESTRICTION ON SO MANY FEET TO THE FIRST DRIVEWAY.

WHAT I'VE HEARD, NOBODY HAS REALLY GONE TO CDOT TO CONFIRM THAT.

OKAY? THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING ACCESS POINTS TOO CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY.

AND IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN THIS SITE, IT COMES DOWN A HILL, GOES ON A CURVE RIGHT WHERE THESE TWO OPPOSITE INTERSECTIONS OCCUR BETWEEN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AND THIS NEW ONE CONVENIENCE STORE ON EACH SIDE.

OKAY. SO WHEN YOU COME DOWN THERE, CDOT IS EVENTUALLY DOES ANYBODY THINK WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADD A LANE TO K-10.

WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO ADD A LANE TO QUINTIN.

THE QUESTION IS IS WHEN.

AND WE KNOW IT'S SOONER THAN LATER BECAUSE THE PANASONIC PLAN.

SO WE KNOW IT'S COMING RIGHT.

WHEN THAT ROAD GETS ADDED A LANE ON EACH SIDE, WE NOW MOVE CLOSER 50 SOME FEET CLOSER TO THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'RE ALREADY GIVING THEM A VARIANCE DOWN TO 25FT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE HIGHWAY.

IT'S GOING TO MOVE CLOSER.

THESE ACCESS POINTS ON THE DECEL AND ACCELERATION ARE GOING TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

NOBODY'S TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WHICH I HAVE READ, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CDOT WHATSOEVER ON ITS IMPROVEMENTS.

HE CLEARLY SAYS THAT IN HIS PROPOSAL ON PAGE THREE.

SO A COUPLE THINGS ON TRAFFIC STUDY.

I COULD NOT FIND WHERE HE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE MEYERS LAKE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S STILL BEING BUILT.

SO DO WE TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT? THEY TALKED ABOUT A STUDY THAT TRIED TO PROJECT.

I COULDN'T DETERMINE FROM READING IT THAT IT REALLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING JUST NORTH OF THE MEYERS LAKE ITSELF.

I ALSO KNOW THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON THE SOUTH SIDE, 99TH 100 STREET.

DOES IT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT I COULDN'T TELL.

THERE'S ALSO A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY, NEW HOUSES GOING IN.

[02:35:05]

THEY'RE NOT BUILT NOW, BUT THEY'RE BUILDING THEM.

RIGHT. SO DID THEY TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT? ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC? LET'S SEE.

OH SO ON THE ASSISTED LIVING.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, ODO AND I SAID THIS TO HIM WHEN WHEN WE MET WITH HIM, WE COULD HAVE A LOT WORSE DEVELOPER.

I SAID THAT TO HIM.

DIDN'T MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY.

IT COULD BE A WORSE DEVELOPER.

EVERY DEVELOPER HAS SOME BAD THINGS ABOUT THEM ON THEIR WEBSITES, ETC.

IT COULD BE A LOT WORSE.

OUR ISSUE IS THIS SITE BEING DEVELOPED THE WAY IT IS.

IT WASN'T ZONED FOR THAT AND WE'RE MAKING THINGS FIT TO MAKE IT WORK ON A DIFFICULT SITE OR WE WOULDN'T BE GIVEN FOUR VARIANCES.

I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU ALL MANY, MANY TIMES IN OTHER CITIES.

I'M LUCKY TO GET ONE VARIANCE, LET ALONE FOUR, TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK.

SO WE'RE DOING A LOT OF THINGS TO MAKE IT WORK HERE.

AND THEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE OTHER SIDE ON CEDAR CREEK.

THEY'RE DEVELOPING A BUNCH OF APARTMENTS OVER THERE.

THERE'S A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WHOLE INTERSECTION IS GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS TRAFFIC.

I AM SURPRISED THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER ON BOTH SIDES TO HAVE TO PUT A LIGHT IN, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO CONVENIENCE STORES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER.

IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE TRAFFIC ON THE EAST SIDE WILL PROBABLY DRIVE CLEARER FURTHER EAST TO EXIT.

WOULD YOU ALL DRIVE TO A CONVENIENCE STORE AND THEN DRIVE FURTHER AWAY? WOULD YOU TURN AROUND THE CLOSEST PLACE BACK ON THE CANYON CREEK TO EXIT? HIS TRAFFIC STUDY WAS BASED ON THAT TRAFFIC ALL GOING TO THE EAST.

THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT CONVENIENCE STORE.

AND THEN I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE CURVE IN THE ROAD AND THE ELEVATION TO THE HIGHWAY.

WHEN YOU COME AROUND THERE AND HAVE TWO OPPOSITE DEVELOPMENTS, TWO CONVENIENCE STORES, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A NIGHTMARE AT THAT INTERSECTION AND TO NOT GIVE SOME ADVANCE CONSIDERATION OF A NEED TO HAVE A LIGHT, I THINK IS BEING SHORT SIGHTED.

YOU ALL WOULD MAKE ME IF I WAS STILL WITH KWIK TRIP.

HAVE TO PUT A LIGHT IN AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY. SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIANCES.

ALL RIGHT 72% DECREASE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE HIGHWAY.

THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT WAS PUT IN THERE TO BE 100 FOOT AWAY.

WE TALKED ABOUT APARTMENTS IS THE ONLY THING COULD GO THERE.

THOSE POOR APARTMENT PEOPLE, THEY'RE GETTING THAT MUCH CLOSER TO THE NOISE IN THE HIGHWAY.

THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT 100 FOOT SETBACK OCCURS.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE GOT THE 100 FOOT SETBACK.

WHY ARE WE DOING IT OVER HERE? INCREASE OF 20%, 22% IN THE SIZE OF THE GAS STATION.

OKAY. I REPRESENT USED TO REPRESENT QUIKTRIP.

OUR WE ALL KNOW THEIR NEW STORE, RIGHT? AND THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE.

CONVENIENCE STORES ARE GETTING BIGGER.

THEY GOT OVENS AND COOKTOPS.

WELL, THE NEW STORE FOOTPRINT USED TO BE 31 3100FT².

WHEN THEY PUT THE COOKTOPS, ETC.

IN QUICK TRIPS TO MAKE FOOD, IT WENT TO 5000FT².

THEY ARE THE LEADER IN THE INDUSTRY.

IF THEY CAN BUILD IT AT 5000, THIS GUY CAN BUILD IT AT 5000.

AND YOU HEARD HIM SAY HE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A TENANT YET.

THE TENANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO GO FROM 50FT TO 25FT AT THE KEY POINT TO ACCESS AROUND THE PUMPS, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT HERE IN A MINUTE.

MR. BENNETT, I THINK STEPHANIE EXPLAINED THAT SUFFICIENTLY IN HER PRESENTATION.

PARDON ME. I THINK STEPHANIE EXPLAINED THE VARIANCES ON THE PUMP LANES SUFFICIENTLY IN HER PRESENTATION.

I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE THE TURNING MOVEMENTS.

WE DO TURNING MOVEMENTS ON ALL OF OUR STORES.

YOU'VE GOT PARKING STALLS THAT ARE PARKED ADJACENT TO THAT END.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACKING OUT.

YOU'VE GOT A PETROLEUM TRUCK THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND THAT CANOPY AT THAT SAME LOCATION.

WE DO NOT PUT ANYTHING LESS THAN 50FT.

I KNOW STAFF SHOWED SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT.

WE CAN GO TO ANY OF YOUR STORES HERE IN LENEXA AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S 50FT.

SHE GAVE EXAMPLES OF QUICK TRIPS.

HE DID GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF AN OLD QUICK TRIP, DECREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 50 TO 25FT, A 50% DECREASE REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES.

OKAY, COVERED THAT.

SO HERE'S I JUST TRIED TO SHOW HOW THOSE LANES ARE GOING TO MOVE OUT EVEN CLOSER WITHOUT THAT 100FT AND REDUCING IT TO 25% OF THE DISTANCE.

THIS IS WHERE THOSE DIESEL LANES ARE GOING TO MOVE.

WHEN THEY ADD A LANE, THEY HAVE TO WE KNOW IT'S COMING.

THE OTHER THING IS THIS IS A PUBLIC ROAD THAT GOES TO A ROUNDABOUT RIGHT AT THE END, DEAD END CUL DE SAC, BUT IT'S MEANT TO EXTEND ON DOWN.

SO ONCE YOU APPROVE THIS PLAN, THEN YOU HAVE WIPED OUT A WHOLE BUNCH MORE TREES AS THAT ROAD CONTINUES ON, BECAUSE HIS ROAD IS SO FAR AND CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY.

[02:40:05]

THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE TO BE AWARE OF AND HAVE SOME FORESIGHT ON WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING.

ALL THESE TREES ALL ALONG HERE, WHEN THIS ROAD GETS EXTENDED, WILL MAINTAIN REMOVING ALL THOSE TREES THAT ARE ALONG THAT AREA THAT I SHOWED IN THE FIRST PICTURE.

TALKING ABOUT PRESERVING TREES.

NO WE'RE NOT. WE'RE REMOVING MORE TREES BY ADDRESSING GIVING THAT VARIANCE.

SO HERE'S AN OVERLAY SHOWING THE AREA OF TREES THAT WILL ALL COME OUT BECAUSE OF THAT POTENTIAL VARIANCE OF THE HUNDRED FOOT GOING DOWN TO 25 OR 28.

THEY TALKED ABOUT DEFERRED PARKING.

WE ALL SHOULD TRUST DEVELOPERS TO PUT IN DEFERRED PARKING WHEN IT'S TIME, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A WAY TO EXERCISE THAT TO MAKE SURE THEY ADD PARKING.

SO MY POINT ABOUT THE PARKING AND THE FIRE TRUCKS ARE I'VE GOT A PICTURE HERE.

THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HE REFERRED TO.

THAT'S GOING TO BE JUST LIKE IT.

SO THAT'S THE ROAD.

THIS WIDTH IS NOT THE FULL 26FT THAT YOUR PUBLIC STREET IS.

IT'S MORE NARROW.

AND YOU GET ANY CARS THAT ARE PARKED ALONG HERE.

THAT FIRE TRUCK IS GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE GETTING BY IT, LET ALONE IF THEY'RE ON BOTH SIDES.

IN ADDITION, THIS PARTICULAR SITE HAS SOME VERY STEEP GRADING.

SO IMAGINE VEHICLES COMING DOWN THAT STEEP GRADING IN THE SNOW AND THE WINTERTIME AND TRYING TO GET AROUND VEHICLES, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THIS IS HOW MANY YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR THIS APARTMENT, BUT IT'S OKAY NOT TO HAVE THAT MANY.

YOU CAN PARK ON THE STREET.

SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET, LET ALONE WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED WHEN THE CHIEFS GAME WAS ON, PEOPLE COMING TO THE APARTMENTS TO VISIT AND HAVING PARTIES.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET A TRAFFIC.

A FIRE TRUCK PASSED IT.

HE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING SIGNS UP, NO PARKING.

WE KNOW THAT DOESN'T WORK.

TO PUT UP NO PARKING.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME THAT PEOPLE PARK.

FIRE TRUCKS ARE MAKING THAT FIRST TURN DOWN THAT FAR END TO GET AROUND WITH ANY KIND OF A CAR PARKED ON THE SIDE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A DEMONSTRATION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO CARS AND TRYING TO GET BY THE TRAFFIC AROUND IT, THE FIRE MARSHAL WILL TELL YOU IT'S BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS, AND THAT'S TRUE.

BUT HE'S NOT PLANNING ON MAKING THE PUBLIC PARK ON THE STREET THE WAY THE DEVELOPER IS.

THAT'S WHAT HE'S BASICALLY SAYING.

YOU HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET.

WE ALSO QUESTION WHETHER YOU COULD HAVE STORAGE IN THE GARAGES.

AND THE ANSWER WAS NO.

HOWEVER, I FOUND OUT IF IT'S TWO CAR GARAGE, THEY CAN USE ONE FOR STORAGE, WHICH MEANS ONE LESS CAR TO HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET ACCORDING TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PUMPS.

I KNOW YOU DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, MAYOR, SO I'LL HIT IT FAST.

THEY'RE WANTING TO REDUCE TO 25FT IN THIS SPACE, 25FT AT THIS SPACE.

AND EVEN THE 27FT IS TIGHTER THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY DO.

AND IF YOU NEED ME TO SEND YOU THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, THEY'RE A LOT MORE THAN WHAT'S SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.

AND DOES EVERYBODY REALIZE THAT IT'S 215FT LONG? THE REASON WHY HE NEEDS THAT VARIANCE IS TO PUT IN EIGHT PUMPS.

THAT'S A LOT OF PUMPS FOR THIS AREA, EIGHT PUMPS 215FT LONG.

WHEN THEY SHOWED THE FOOTBALL FIELD, THE FOOTBALL FIELD, PRETTY MUCH THREE QUARTERS OF IT COVERED THE LENGTH OF THIS GAS STATION.

THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE.

AND KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S A GAS STATION ACROSS THE STREET, AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE PLANNED DOWN AT PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY THAT'S ZONED FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE AT THAT INTERSECTION AS WELL.

AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CEDAR CREEK, THERE'S POTENTIALLY A GAS STATION GOING TO GO IN.

THAT'LL BE FOUR GAS STATIONS.

GAS STATIONS ARE BECOMING A DYING BREED, RIGHT? WE'RE ALL GOING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

WE'RE DOWNSIZING.

WE'RE NOT INCREASING.

I HEARD PEOPLE SAY WE NEED TO INCREASE IT.

WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK TO DOWNSIZE IT BECAUSE ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

SO THESE AREAS ARE TIGHT.

AND I DID A LITTLE LAYOUT.

SO A QUICK TRIP THERE.

NEW STORES 5000FT².

PRETTY BIG STORE RIGHT.

YOU ALL HAVE BEEN IN THEM.

THEY'RE A GOOD SIZED STORE.

THIS IS 1100 MORE SQUARE FEET IF YOU LOOK AT THESE AREAS.

THIS IS A QUICK TRIP PLAN.

STAFF QUICK TRIP PLAN 52 52FT 50FT THIS WIDTH HERE 43FT. ONE THING THAT DIDN'T SHOW ON THIS PLAN THEY GOT TO PUT THE TANK SOMEWHERE.

WE PUT TANKS NEAREST TO THE GAS PUMPS.

WHEN YOU PUT GAS TANKS THERE AND YOU BRING IN A LOADED PETROLEUM TANKER, IT DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO MAKE THOSE TURNS ON THAT OTHER PLAN.

WHAT IT BASICALLY MEANS EVERYBODY HAS TO CLEAR OUT FOR THEM TO DRIVE THROUGH.

THE QUICK TRIP PLAN PUTS A DIVIDEND HERE.

SO WHEN THAT FUEL TRUCKS PARKED HERE ON THE SIDE, HE CAN STILL FUEL TO GET BY.

THAT'S NOT SHOWN ON THEIR PLAN.

THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM.

[02:45:01]

THIS IS A SHOT OF YOUR STORE AT COLLEGE AND PFLUMM IT HAS EIGHT PUMPS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

IF YOU LOOK, THIS IS AN AERIAL.

WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE NORTH END AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE SOUTH END.

AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS LANE HERE.

IT'S EIGHT PUMPS.

SO AT THE NORTH END WE HAVE PARKING STALLS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY HAVE.

THESE CARS HAVE TO PULL OUT AS THE CAR THAT'S IN THE PUMP IS PULLING OUT, LET ALONE A TANKER COMING AROUND THE CORNER.

THERE'S A LOT OF TURNING MOVEMENTS.

THIS IS ANOTHER SHOT TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH CLEARANCE THIS IS IN THE CITY OF LENEXA.

IT'S AT PFLUMM AND.

COLLEGE. IF YOU WANT TO GET A GOOD PICTURE OF HOW BIG THIS IS GOING TO BE, THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT.

HERE'S ANOTHER SHOT.

LOOKING AT THAT END, I LAID OUT RADIUSES FOR A TANKER TRUCK AND FOR CARS AND IT IS ROUGH, SO PLEASE DON'T MAKE FUN.

IT'S MY SCRIBBLES.

STACKING ON GAS PUMPS IS ALWAYS A BIG DEAL WHERE THE TANKER SITS, HOW IT'S FUELING, WHETHER IT'S ON THE END OR ON THAT OUTSIDE LANE, BECOMES AN ISSUE. HE'S GOT US PARKED SOMEWHERE TO FUEL IT.

ALL RIGHT, SO HERE'S THAT LITTLE FANCY LAYOUT PLAN.

SO YOU HAVE CARS HERE.

THIS IS THEIR PLAN.

SO YOU HAVE CARS HERE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BACK OUT INTO THIS 25 FOOT, NOT 50.

AND THEN DRIVE OUT.

YOU HAVE A CAR A THAT COMES OUT THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE OVER HERE AND CONFLICT WITH THAT CAR BACKING OUT.

YOU ALSO HAVE A TANKER OR CARS THAT ARE GOING TO TRY TO COME AROUND THE CORNER TO PULL OUT.

EVEN CAR C, IF HE PULLS OUT, IS HAVING TO DRIVE OVER THERE.

YOU'VE GOT THREE DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS, ALL IN A KEY AREA.

THIS IS THE TANKER TRUCK COMING IN, COMING AROUND.

CAN HAS TO SWING OUT WIDE TO GET THROUGH HERE.

DOWN HERE AT THE SOUTH END ON THAT QUICK TRIPS GOT 50FT AND 43FT ACROSS TO THE PUMPS VERSUS THE 27FT.

THEY WERE SHOWING HUGE DIFFERENCE.

THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE FOR THAT TANKER TRUCK TO COME IN AND MAKE THEIR SWING TO GO AROUND.

THEY CAN'T TURN A 90 DEGREE.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS RIGHT.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS COLLISION AT THE END OF THE PUMPS.

THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL AREA THAT CONVENIENCE STORES HAVE IS THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AROUND THE PUMPS, PRIMARILY AT THE ENDS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ALL THE MOVEMENTS OCCUR TO REDUCE IT IN HALF.

IT'S JUST NOT GOOD PRACTICE.

OKAY, I MENTIONED ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

THE COVERED THAT GOING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

THAT'S THE COMING AGE.

MY LAST SLIDE BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY'S GETTING TIRED.

THIS WAS PRESENTED TO US AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THESE ARE YOUR POINTS ON WHY YOU WOULD CONSIDER A REZONE.

AND AT THAT STAFF AND EVERYBODY SAID WE DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY OF THEM.

WELL I DISAGREE.

IS IT CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU ALL BE THE JUDGE.

IS IT CHANGING THE CHARACTER? I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.

NEARBY ZONING AND USE.

THEY'RE WANTING TO CHANGE THE ZONE.

THEY'VE GOT A BAD SITE THAT THEY'RE WANTING YOU TO CHANGE THE ZONE TO MAKE IT WORK AND PROVIDE FOR DIFFERENT VARIANCES TO MAKE IT WORK.

SOMETHING'S WRONG WHEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE THAT MANY VARIANCES TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

POTENTIAL DETRIMENT TO SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE ANSWER IS YES.

I PUT QUESTION MARKS ABOUT THIS.

NUMBER FIVE, HOW LONG THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT.

REMEMBER, IT MIGHT BE 20 YEARS OLD, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING OUT THERE THEN.

IT'S ONLY BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

MISTER NIX, YOU'RE OUR WARD MEMBER.

YOU'VE SEEN THAT AREA.

THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THERE BEFORE.

SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO SAY NOTHING'S BEEN BUILT, WE GOT TO MAKE THIS PLAN WORK, REALIZE THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

PEOPLE WILL COME HERE.

WE'RE OKAY PUTTING IN AN OFFICE BUILDING BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS GOING.

THEY USED THE COMMENT SEVEN STORIES.

WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT WAS ZONED THAT WE KNEW THAT WE COULD ACCEPT THAT, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE APARTMENTS.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY.

YOU CAN PUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE.

IT'S NO WORSE THAN PUTTING APARTMENTS NEXT TO IT.

WHY ARE THEY INFERIOR TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? AND WE ALL KNOW THAT PROPERTY VALUES HAVING A APARTMENT COMPLEX NEXT TO YOU.

YOU ALL ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOURSELF.

DOES THAT LOWER YOUR PROPERTY VALUE IF YOU'RE NEXT TO IT? IT'S ASININE TO THINK THAT IT'S ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT.

AND TOTO LIVES IN KANSAS.

HE DOESN'T LIVE IN ARIZONA OR UTAH, OR THAT REPORT WAS ESTABLISHED.

I SURMISED YOU IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT IN THAT AREA THAN IT IS HERE IN KANSAS.

UTILITIES TO THE SITE.

YOU KNOW, THE STORM WATERS GOT MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

TRAFFIC IMPACT IS A BIG DEAL.

CERTAINLY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS STORMWATER.

[02:50:01]

DOES IT MEET THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS? NO. THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO CHANGE IT.

AND WE GOT TO ASK OURSELVES PUD DOES ALLOW ALL THOSE THINGS THAT CAN GO IN THERE.

THEY CAN COME BACK IN.

THAT PLAN DIDN'T WORK.

COULDN'T GET ANYBODY. HE'S ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYBODY FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING.

FIRST. WE HEARD THAT, AND IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT HE COULD GO FROM TWO STORIES TO THREE STORIES IN ONE WEEK WHEN HE'S PRESENTING TO US.

AND SECONDLY, HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

OKAY. CAN'T GET ANYBODY CHANGES.

THE PLAN FOLLOWS THE PUD, COMES BACK IN FRONT OF THE STAFF IN FRONT OF YOU ALL TO APPROVE IT.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN? AT THAT POINT IT'S ZONED FOR THAT.

USE BAIT AND SWITCH.

NOT SAYING HE'S TO DO THAT, BUT IF HE CAN'T GET SOMEBODY TO GO IN THERE, HE'LL DO WHAT HE HAS TO TO MARKET HIS SITE.

SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK ON A VERY DIFFICULT SITE.

I APPRECIATE IT.

IF YOU DO ASK QUESTIONS OF THEM, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO RESPOND AS WELL.

JUST LIKE THEM.

IT MAY NOT BE THAT WAY, BUT WE'D LIKE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

SINCERELY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

YES. GOOD EVENING.

AND 25110 WEST 1/14 COURT, OLATHE, KANSAS.

FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU, MAYOR SAYERS AND THE LENEXA CITY COUNCIL FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT CAME UP BEFORE I SPEAK.

IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN FROM THE PRESENTATION IS THAT THIS LANDSCAPE IS NOT GUARANTEED.

SO IF SOMEONE SOLD A HOME TO SOMEONE IN CANYON CREEK AND SAID, LOOK AT THESE BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH, BUT THEN THAT CAN GO AWAY.

BUT FROM THE SLIDES THAT I'VE SEEN WITH THE VIEWS, THERE'S TREES IN THERE.

SO WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TODAY IS THAT THOSE TREES CAN GO AWAY TOO.

SO I JUST WANT THAT CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS HERE, ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE THAT THOSE TREES, THAT IS PROTECTING THEM BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS AND THEIR HOMES? I THINK WE CLARIFIED THAT EARLIER, THAT THE SPACE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CITY OWNED PARKLAND THAT HAS A DEED RESTRICTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD TONIGHT IS SAFETY.

SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THOSE IN LENEXA, NOR THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

AND THE DEVELOPER HAS ARGUED THAT, QUOTE, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ALONG K-10 HIGHWAY AND SOMETIMES ARE ARE WRECKS.

IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR PROJECT.

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE, BECAUSE K-10 IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT, AND THE DEVELOPER EVEN CONTRADICTS THIS BY STATING IN THE SAME LETTER THAT 85% OF THE TRAFFIC FROM THIS PROJECT WILL USE ENTER AND EXIT VIA K-10.

SO WHY DOES THIS REALLY MATTER? WE KNOW FROM THE 2005 KDOT, K-10 TRANSPORTATION STUDY THAT WE KNOW K-10 NEEDED TO EXPAND WITHIN 5 TO 20 YEARS.

THAT'S BEEN SAID TONIGHT.

WE KNOW THAT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

SO AT A RECENT PUBLIC MEETING WITH KDOT AND THIS INFORMATION IS ON THEIR WEBSITE, KDOT DID MENTION THEY'RE STILL EVALUATING K-10 AND THE POTENTIAL PROJECTS.

AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN FUNDED YET.

THE EARLIEST ESTIMATE.

AND SO WHEN I'M THINKING ESTIMATE THIS IS JUST LIKE THEY SAID IN 2005, K-10 AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD WOULD NOT EVEN BE ON THEIR PLAN UNTIL 2030 TO 2040. THEY ALSO SAID OUTSIDE OF K-10 AREA, CURRENT PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY FUNDED ARE BEING PUSHED BACK BECAUSE OF THE JUST THE NATURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW STATEWIDE.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SOME SORT OF PLAN, MAYBE IT'S 2030, MAYBE 2040, THAT PLAN HASN'T BEEN PROMISED AND IT COULD CHANGE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO DID REMARK THAT WHILE KDOT IS JUST KDOT AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T REALLY RELY ON WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS.

AND WHILE WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RELY ON THEM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, WE CAN RELY ON THEIR STUDIES AND ALSO RELY ON ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE WHAT'S ACTUALLY SAFE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WHAT'S DIFFERENT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT TO THE ONES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN BEFORE, ON THE OTHER PARTS OF LENEXA, IS THAT K-10 AND CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD IS CONSIDERED A HIGH CRASH LOCATION.

IT'S BEEN A HIGH CRASH LOCATION SINCE 2005, AND THEIR UPDATED INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE EVEN SHOWS THAT THEY NEED TO ENHANCE SAFETY PERFORMANCE WITH THIS SPECIFIC INTERSECTION AS BEING A FATAL CRASH INCIDENT LOCATION.

AND THAT INCLUDES AREAS K-7.

SO ANOTHER AREA TO INTO LENEXA AND ALSO THIS CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD AREA.

[02:55:05]

SO REALLY NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE WE KNOW AS A COMMUNITY OF LARGE WE USE THIS FROM OLATHE.

I USE THIS INTERSECTION.

I COME NORTH TO LENEXA TO VISIT.

WE WILL HAVE SEMI TRUCKS FUELERS THAT WILL COME TO THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

WE'LL HAVE TRAFFIC FROM THE NURSING HOME.

AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR STUDENTS THAT COME FROM LENEXA SOUTH TO OLATHE USE FOR OLATHE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SO THEY ARE USING THIS SAME ROAD.

WE KNOW THAT, THESE RISKS HAVEN'T CHANGED.

AND WE ALSO KNOW AS THE TIME HAS CHANGED, THAT THERE'S BEEN INCREASED RISKS, INCLUDING INCREASE IN INJURY RELATED ACCIDENTS FROM 2009 TO 2018.

SO THE LAST THING I DO WANT TO MENTION IS THAT THE DEVELOPER DID REFERENCE TWO KANSAS SUPREME COURT CASES INVOLVING REZONING, AND NOTES THAT REZONING SHOULD, QUOTE, NOT BE BASED ON THE COMPLAINTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WHILE I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, WHEN READING ONE OF THE CASES THAT THEY MENTIONED, WATERSTRAAT V CITY OF LEAVENWORTH, THE REST OF THE SENTENCE SAYS THIS IS BASED ON THE FINAL RULING TO BE GOVERNED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE BENEFIT OR HARM INVOLVED TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS CASES, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURT CASES, THAT DISCUSS SECURING THE HEALTH AND THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE FOR ANY REZONING.

THIS COURT HAS SHOWN IT'S NOT SAFE AS AN INTERSECTION.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT A RECENT CDOT STUDY SHOWED THAT 85% OF LENEXA RESIDENTS SAY THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY WHILE DRIVING ON K-10.

THIS IS MORE CONCERN FOR THEIR SAFETY THAN WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW AT ALL ON THE SAME SURVEY.

SO I DO ASK THAT PLEASE CONSIDER THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST WITH LENEXA, BUT THOSE THAT TRAVEL ALONG K-10 OLATHE DOWN SOUTH, BECAUSE THIS WILL HAVE A VERY LARGE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU MISS. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND START WORKING ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD, PLEASE.

I WILL MENTION THE COUPLE THAT I HEARD, FOR THE DEVELOPER, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

THEN WE'LL FOLLOW WITH COUNCIL MEMBER DELIBERATION.

THE FIRST QUESTION REGARDING THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, 22 OR 28.

CAN WE PLEASE CLARIFY THAT? TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

THERE ARE 28 APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

OKAY. THE SECOND ONE WAS.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW, THIS, WOOD BLASTING BE UTILIZED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES.

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT OF IF WE'RE GOING TO BLAST OR NOT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT TYPICALLY, WE GOT ANOTHER ENGINEER OVER THERE IN THE CORNER TO TALK ABOUT THIS BLASTING FOLLOWS THE STRATA OF THE ROCK.

THE ROCKS ARE ALL EXPOSED BECAUSE OF THE CANYON AND THE CLIFF THERE.

SO TYPICALLY NOTHING COMES ACROSS THE CANYON BECAUSE IT DISSIPATES.

IF IT WAS DOWN LOWER AND WE WERE DOWN BELOW THE CANYON, IT COULD TRAVEL THROUGH, BUT WE WON'T BE BLASTING BELOW THE CANYON AREA AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT.

AND IF I'M WRONG, YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL OTHER ENGINEERS HERE IN THIS SITE FROM THE STAFF THAT WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

OKAY. THIS ONE I'D LIKE TO HAVE SCOTT, MAYBE JUST SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT PETITIONS AND THE LEGALITY AND DISTANCES OF LEGAL PETITIONS.

SURE. SO THE SO THE CODE ALLOWS FOR.

YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE PROTEST PETITION.

MAYOR, PLEASE, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A, IF IT'S A VALID PROTEST PETITION, WHICH IS TAKEN FROM A DISTANCE OF OUR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS 200FT AROUND THE PROPERTY.

IF MORE THAN 20% OF PEOPLE IN AREA WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT BOUNDARY OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THEY CAN TRIGGER A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE GOVERNING BODY.

IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THAT SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING OF THE CITY PROPERTY.

MAINLY THERE THERE ISN'T THE REALLY THE ABILITY TO EVEN GENERATE THAT KIND OF PROTEST PETITION.

SO WHILE THE PETITION SUBMITTED CERTAINLY SPEAKS TO THE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY, EXTRAORDINARY VOTE OF THE GOVERNING BODY IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU. OUR SECOND SPEAKER HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND NUMBER OF CARS.

I APOLOGIZE, WE GOT A LITTLE TWISTED ON THAT.

HAVE WE HAD A MINUTE TO HAVE A LOOK? LIKE I SAID, WE'RE BASING OFF OF, SONOMA HILL, WHICH IS ALMOST AN IDENTICAL PROPERTY THERE.

WE RUN ABOUT 1.2 CARS MAX PER UNIT.

THIS IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOUR CODE ASKS FOR SCOTT.

HOW MANY IS IT?

[03:00:01]

THE CODE. IT'S WAY MORE THAN WHAT WE WANT IT.

WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING STALLS.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR SOME. IT STILL HAS LOTS OF VACANT STALLS, BUT.

OKAY. AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE PLENTY OF, VACANT STALLS.

AND IF THEY DO PARK ON THE STREETS, WE WOULD TOW THEM AT PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEY ASKED THE SAME QUESTION, AND BUTCH GOT UP AND TALKED AND SAID THAT HE'S DRIVEN THROUGH OUR SITES.

HE'S NEVER SEEN ONE PARKED ILLEGALLY ON THE STREETS, AND IT'S NOT AN ISSUE AT ANY OF OUR SITES.

SO PARKING NOT AN ISSUE.

THANK YOU. THERE WERE SOME REFERENCE TO THE CDOT STUDIES WE REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO, THE ONGOING, STUDY THAT'S BEING, CONDUCTED BY HNTB AS SORT OF A LARGER VIEW OF THE CORRIDOR.

THERE IS A WEBSITE FOR THAT PROJECT WHERE YOU CAN GO AND SEE THE MATERIAL THAT THEY HAVE PREPARED TO DATE.

BUT THEY ARE NOT FINISHED PRESENTING THAT MATERIAL.

SO WE CAN'T COMMENT ON THE, CAPACITY THAT CDOT IS, IS CURRENTLY PROJECTING.

MR. PINSKY REFERENCED NEIGHBORHOOD NODES, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO, REFERENCE QUITE OFTEN IN THIS, CHAMBER AS WE CONSIDER, ANY TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, WE ALWAYS LOOK TO 2040 AND MAKING SURE THAT WE, MAINTAIN THOSE NODES.

THIS WAS NOT AN AREA WHERE ONE OF THOSE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMP PLAN.

SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU, SCOTT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THAT ANY FURTHER.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

AND IN FACT, ALL UP AND DOWN PRAIRIE STAR, WE HAVE HAD TO FIGHT, I THINK, FIGHT TO KEEP SOME AMOUNT OF NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES. ROOFTOPS ARE ALWAYS FIRST TO AN AREA AND THEN THE SERVICES COME LATER.

AND SO I HOPE THAT, AS THE MARKET MEETS THE DEMANDS OF THE ROOFTOPS, THAT WE GET THE DAYCARES AND THE DRY CLEANERS AND THE SERVICE RETAIL.

BUT CITIES DON'T PURSUE THOSE THINGS.

WE REACT TO THE PROPOSALS THAT COME TO US.

AND SOMETIMES WE ARE, PUT IN A POSITION WHERE WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT ALL AWAY HERE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA, THE WHOLE NODE WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS PUD IN THE IN THE ALLOWED USES, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME MORE OF THOSE SERVICE ORIENTED RETAIL, USES.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS MR. BENNET. IN THE SCOPE OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY BY YOUR TEAM, MR..

OTO, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND ANY FURTHER ON THAT.

I'M MATTHEW PARKER, WITH TRANSIT SYSTEMS. MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 2400 PERSHING ROAD IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.

SO THE QUESTION WELL, THERE ARE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN ELEMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WERE CONSIDERED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

STEPHANIE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF SUMMARIZING SOME OF THE SCENARIOS THAT WE DID ANALYZE.

AN ADDITIONAL ONE THAT SHE DIDN'T MENTION WAS WHAT WE CALL A FUTURE SCENARIO, WHERE NOT ONLY DO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTING TRAFFIC, THE TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED AND OTHER SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE KNOWN ABOUT IN THE AREA.

WE TAKE ON TOP OF THAT, BACKGROUND GROWTH AND TRAFFIC THAT IS A RESULT OF JUST GROWTH IN THE AREA.

THE CITY HAS A TRAFFIC MODEL FOR THE FUTURE THAT WE UTILIZE THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, SPECIFIC LAND USES THAT ARE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT DOES ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME CHANGES WHEN PROPERTY DEVELOPS.

DON'T NECESSARILY USE WHAT WAS INTENDED AT THE TIME.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO SOME ADJUSTMENTS FOR THAT.

ALL OF THAT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FUTURE.

SHE DIDN'T PROVIDE THE RESULTS FOR THAT.

BUT IN THE FUTURE THE LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE PROJECTED TO BE LEVEL OF SERVICE D OR BETTER.

AND THAT'S LIKE A 2043 PROJECTION TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THOSE.

SO. THANK YOU, MR. HOLLAND. JUST JUST A QUICK POINT.

I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC, BUT IT'S ZONED OFFICE AND C2, AND THOSE ARE BOTH A LOT HIGHER TRAFFIC GENERATORS THAN APARTMENTS WOULD BE. IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE ESPECIALLY IN THE AM, IN THE MORNING, IN THE AM AND THE PM PEAKS.

THEY CERTAINLY ARE. OFFICE USES GENERATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN APARTMENTS.

IT'S WELL KNOWN.

ASK ASK THE CITY'S ENGINEER IF I'M WRONG.

AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN THE.

THE OTHER POINT IS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IS, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT 75% OF THE TRAFFIC BEING GENERATED BY THIS PROJECT IS COMING FROM THE C-STORE AREA, NOT NECESSARILY THE

[03:05:07]

APARTMENTS. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? YEAH. SO JUST PUT THAT IN CONTEXT FOR YOU.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE C-STORE.

THAT IS THE WE PUT THAT THERE AS THE HIGHEST DENSITY, HIGHEST TRAFFIC USER THAT COULD POSSIBLY GO THERE.

WE ARE TALKING TO SOMEONE AND THAT WAS THEIR MODEL THEY WANT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO GO THERE.

IF NOT, IT WOULD BE ANY OF THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD BE.

BUT WE JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO SHOW FROM A TRAFFIC POINT OF VIEW, THE WORST.

AND IT STILL FALLS INTO A C CATEGORY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE 8 TO 10,000.

THAT STREET HOLDS 30.

DON'T SEE THIS AS AN ISSUE.

THANK YOU. AND WE WILL STILL HAVE FINAL PLAN ON IT.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO START COUNCIL MEMBER DELIBERATION, PLEASE.

WE'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE AND HAVE EVERYBODY SAY WHATEVER THEY NEED TO SAY.

ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE DO NEED TO DISCLOSE, EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THAT.

I DID HAVE COFFEE WITH MR. OTO. JUST AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, I WAS THE BRAND NEW MAYOR.

WE WERE GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

WE DID REFERENCE DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL, BUT DID NOT SPEAK SPECIFICALLY OF THIS PROJECT.

WITH EX PARTE OR WITH QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BOTH PLEASE OKAY.

AND NO EXPERT COMMENTS WHICH ARE COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC.

SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK TRULY WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT AND FOR YOUR LETTERS.

WE TRULY WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.

SO I AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK TO ME, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE I SEE WITH THIS IS THE REZONING FROM THE COMP PLAN.

SO THAT'S ITEM NUMBER EIGHT OR ITEM H.

AND IT'S SPECIFIC TO ONE THING.

AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS.

BUT THAT'S TIMING.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE COMP PLAN UPDATE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

IN FACT OUR NEXT MEETING I THINK THE NEXT KICKOFF MEETING IS GOING TO BE IN ABOUT FIVE WEEKS WHEN WE HAVE AN OPEN HOUSE.

SO I FEEL TO MAKE SUCH A MAJOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM OFFICE TO APARTMENTS WHEN WE'RE FIVE WEEKS FROM AN OPEN HOUSE IS AN AFFRONT TO US, AND IT'S A FRONT TO YOU.

I THINK WE DESERVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THIS PARCEL, BUT UNDERSTAND THE BROADER CONTEXT OF UNDEVELOPED LAND IN LENEXA WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, HOW IT'S ALL GOING TO WEAVE TOGETHER.

SO I DON'T FEEL RIGHT MAKING A CALL FOR A REZONING ON THIS PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.

WITH SO MUCH COMP PLAN AND COMP PLAN UPDATE YET TO BE DONE.

SO, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN I'D LIKE TO DELIBERATE AFTER THAT.

IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT YOU DIDN'T DO ANY THREE BEDROOMS? YEAH. PLEASE.

WHAT I SAID, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS IN THIS PLAN? WE TYPICALLY OUR MODEL DOESN'T GO TOWARDS THREE BEDROOMS. IT TYPICALLY GOES THROUGH ONE AND TWO BEDROOM, UNITS.

THERE IS WE FIND THAT WE HAVE A BETTER RATE, THE TENANTS THAT WE GO AFTER, SENIORS, DIVORCEES IN THE AREA WANT THIS, THIS TYPE OF A COMMUNITY.

AND WE HAVE VERY LOW TURNOVER WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

SO WE DON'T FIND THE THREE BEDROOMS WORK CONDUCIVE WITH OUR MODEL.

OKAY. I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH WAS IF 5000 SQUARE FOOT IS TYPICALLY BEEN LIKE THE SIZE FOR A C STORE.

YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU HAD SOMEONE YOU WERE TALKING TO WHO WANTED A LARGER FOOTPRINT THAN THAT.

IF WE WERE TO STAY WITHIN THAT DEVIATION, OR NOT, GIVE THE DEVIATION FOR A LARGER FOOTPRINT AND WENT BACK TO THE 5000, WOULD THAT ALLOW FOR THE 50FT SETBACKS ON THAT SITE PLAN? I THINK WHAT WE'D HAVE TO PROBABLY AND I'M NOT I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM, BUT I'M GUESSING WE'D BE BETTER OFF MAYBE LOSING ONE PUMP, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS PUT BUILD THE BUILDING OUT AND HAVE A TENANT ON THE END FOR MORE COMMERCIAL.

AND I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR BEFORE.

SO THEY WERE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT 6100 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE OF THAT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO BE. BUT THESE LARGER STORES AREN'T AREN'T UNCOMMON.

OKAY. AND THEY DO HAVE THE THEY DO HAVE THE THE SWIRL TO GET THE THE IF YOU LOOK ON THAT THE INSETS TO FORCE THE TRAFFIC TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT EASIER.

[03:10:03]

SO WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER DISTANCES BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE AIM THE TRAFFIC.

I'M GETTING INTO THE WEEDS HERE.

I UNDERSTAND ONE LAST QUESTION ABOUT WHEN YOU CONSIDERED THE PARKING, IN THE APARTMENTS.

THOSE PARKING SPACES DID NOT INCLUDE THE GARAGE PARKING.

THEY DO, THEY DO.

SO ALL THE GARAGES ARE CONSIDERED SPACES.

YEAH. SO EVERY UNIT HAS AT LEAST ONE GARAGE ATTACHED.

SOME OF THE BUILDINGS, AS YOU SAW, HAVE FOUR EXTRA GARAGES BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH TWO THAT DO WANT A SECOND CAR.

SO WE KIND OF THEY FACILITATE TOWARDS THAT.

OR LIKE SOMEONE SAID, MAYBE A STORAGE.

WE DON'T LIKE THAT WE CHARGE EXTRA IF THEY DO THAT BECAUSE WE WANT THOSE TO BE USED FOR PARKING.

BUT THIS IS WHY WE HAVE AT 1.2 CARS WHERE I BELIEVE 1.5 PARKED.

SO WE GOT PLENTY OF ROOM FOR GUESTS.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION WAS, WAS THE PARKING SPACES CREATED FOR AND ALL OF THE PARKING SLOTS OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGES, OR WERE THE GARAGES INCLUDED? NO, IT'S ALL PART OF THE 600 PARKING OR THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE.

AND KEEP IN MIND, WE'VE BUILT LOTS OF COMPLEXES AND I'M ONLY GOING OFF OF OUR EXPERIENCE SO WE HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE, BUT WE DO LAND BANK IT BECAUSE EVERYONE ONCE IN A WHILE WE GET LITTLE AREAS HERE OR THERE.

WE WANT TO PUT A FEW CARS IN.

SO THAT'S WHY WE LIKE TO HAVE THE LAND BANKING TO GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY FOR LATER.

AND WE'VE DONE IT.

OKAY. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR IN THE PUD THAT YOU ALL WOULD BE WILLING TO COME DOWN TO AN RP THREE IN YOUR REQUESTS.

I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS IT IN THE PUD LIST? YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO COME DOWN TO AN RP THREE AS FAR AS UNITS GO? YES, YES, THAT'S LISTED IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA.

OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THING REGARDING I HAVE A LOT TO SAY.

OKAY. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS WONDERING, BUT I WANTED TO ASK PATRICK.

USE YOUR MIC, PLEASE. AND I'M NOT USED TO THIS YET.

I'M SO NEW TO THIS. I'M TRYING TO LEARN THE ROPES HERE, AND, AND A LOT OF MY COMMENTS TO YOU GUYS OUT THERE, I WASN'T ABLE TO COMMENT BECAUSE THE EX-PARTE. SO I WISH I COULD HAVE REACHED OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BUT I WE SAW A LOT OF YOUR EMAILS AND, APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS, BUT, BUT I WANTED TO ASK, PATRICK, IN REGARDS TO MYSELF AND THE BACKGROUND IN ARCHITECTURE, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PRETTY OBVIOUSLY A PRETTY DIFFICULT SITE.

HAVE YOU GUYS PRETTY MUCH MAXED OUT WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THIS IN REGARDS TO YOU REALLY CAN'T EVEN GET TO RP FOUR BECAUSE THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS, RESTRAINTS AND AND CONSTRAINTS, I GUESS.

AND CAN YOU CAN YOU RESPOND ON THAT? YEAH. I OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT AN RP FOUR FOR THIS.

WE STARTED WITH RP THREE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WANTED THE DENSITY TO BE.

WE, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS PLAN THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE SITE WAS RP FOUR, AND IT WAS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, A WORKABLE PLAN.

SO WE KNEW THAT RP FOR COULD WORK.

THE SITE COULD BE DENSER, YOU KNOW, WE COULD LOOK AT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUILDING HERE, WHETHER IT HAS A PARKING GARAGE OR OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THE DENSITY, AND POTENTIALLY LOSE GREEN SPACE.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANTED TO DO.

WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, THE PUD ALLOWS UP TO 16 UNITS PER ACRE.

WE'RE AT 9.62, TRYING TO BE CONSCIOUS OF BOTH THE GREEN SPACE AND HOW WE UTILIZE THE GRADES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT, SOME OF THE THE NEIGHBORS HAD HAD SPOKE ABOUT WAS ONE OF THE, NOTICES THAT THEY HAD ON A WEBSITE AND STUFF LIKE THAT ABOUT THE CITY SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND, THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC LANDS LANDSCAPE, AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT WAS EVER GOING TO GO AWAY.

WELL, FROM MY TAKE FROM THIS PLAN, THAT'S STILL NEVER GOING AWAY BECAUSE THE CITY OWNED PARK LANDSCAPE, WHAT SOME OF THIS, SOME OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF YOU OR TO THE WEST OF YOU, THAT'S STILL AGRICULTURE.

WHO KNOWS WHATEVER'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S WAY DOWN THE ROAD.

THIS IS NOT PART OF THIS THING.

SO I WANT TO KIND OF CORRECT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

AND THE GREAT THING ABOUT CITY OF LENEXA AND WHAT I'VE NOTICED OVER MY 20 SOME YEARS LIVING HERE IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST ROBUST STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, FROM OUR RAIN TO RECREATION AND AND PLANNING FOR PARKS AND PLANNING TO USE KIND OF UNDEVELOPABLE AREAS FOR THAT KIND OF GREEN SPACE, GREEN SPACE BUFFER.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE HERE.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF COMMENT ABOUT THAT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I LOVE ABOUT LENEXA IS THOSE KIND OF QUALITIES THAT WE.

YOU KIND OF HAVE THOSE ENVISIONED.

PEOPLE BEFORE ME HAD THOSE KIND OF VISIONS.

SO BUT I WANTED TO MAYBE COMMENT A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF THROW THOSE THINGS OUT THERE FOR NOW.

[03:15:06]

GO AHEAD. AS FAR AS EX PARTE.

I SENT I SENT EVERY EMAIL THAT I GOT TO THE PACKET DISTRIBUTION SO EVERYBODY COULD SEE IT.

I WAS APPROACHED BY MY FRIEND MIKE BOEHM, AND WE SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH TRACY THOMAS ABOUT IT AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AND IN THAT CONVERSATION, EVEN THOUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 8 TO 0, APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, I ASSURED HIM THAT THIS WAS NOT A DONE DEAL, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A UNANIMOUS, VOTE, AND ALSO ASSURED HIM THAT, PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

I'VE, I'VE WORKED FOR AND WITH SIX MAYORS AND FOUR CITY MANAGERS AND ALL THAT TIME, THAT'S THE WAY LENEXA DOES IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

WE LET EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR SAY.

AND YOU SAW THAT TONIGHT.

THAT THAT WE DID THAT.

SO THOSE WERE MY COMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING AND OTHER PUBLIC FORUMS. A PORTION OF THIS, PLAN DOES NOT CONFORM TO OUR CURRENT ZONING AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMMERCIAL PART, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SWITCHING OVER TO PUD IT IT REALLY IS STILL COMMERCIAL.

SO A PORTION OF IT DOES CONFORM.

THE PART THAT DOESN'T CONFORM WILL NATURALLY NEED A REZONING.

AND I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THE REZONING.

PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES MAKE DECISIONS ON ZONING AND THE LINES THAT WE DRAW ON MAPS, AND WE SHOULD BE VERY SLOW.

LIKE JOE SAID, WE SHOULD BE VERY SLOW TO CHANGE THAT.

THIS WHOLE AREA WAS PLANNED YEARS AGO.

THE CITY COUNCIL'S AT THAT TIME INVESTED MONEY IN PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY, CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD.

THEY INVESTED MONEY IN A FIRE STATION IN OVER 100 ACRES OF PARKS, TRAILS, LAKES AND ALL OF THAT HAPPENED EVEN BEFORE RESIDENTS WERE OUT THERE, LENEXA AND YET UNBORN OUT THERE TO EVEN REQUEST SERVICES SUCH AS THAT.

SO WE SHOULD BE SLOW TO CHANGE IT.

PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY, CANYON CREEK BOULEVARD, WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT WAS WAS BUILT, WAS BUILT TO CARRY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CARS AND.

AREAS ALONG THOSE ROADS WERE EARMARKED FOR RESIDENTIAL, FOR COMMERCIAL AND FOR OFFICES.

YEARS AGO, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAD A SLOGAN PLAN TO WORK AND THEN WORK THE PLAN.

IF WE APPROVED THIS REZONING, WE ARE NOT WORKING THE PLAN.

I THINK IT WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC WITH APARTMENTS AND AND, OFFICES.

THEY MAY BE SIMILAR.

OFFICES MAY BE MORE, BUT IT'S ALWAYS.

IT'S IN THE PEAKS.

IT'S IN THE PEAKS. I THINK YOU HAVE APARTMENTS ALL DAY LONG.

MAYBE NOT ALL DAY, BUT 18 HOURS.

YOU KNOW, MORE THAN JUST THE PEAKS.

EIGHT IN THE MORNING AND FIVE, FIVE, 30, 6:00 AT NIGHT.

IT WAS MENTIONED THAT WE APPROVED APARTMENTS AND CONVENIENCE STORES EAST OF HERE.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE? WE ALSO APPROVED WERE OFFICES AND BUSINESS PARKS.

AND SO ALL OF THAT, AND THAT WAS 120 ACRES WHERE WE COULD PLAN SOMETHING SO THAT EVERYBODY KNEW IN A BIG CHUNK WHAT WAS COMING AND WHAT WE WERE DOING.

SO IF WE THOUGHT OFFICES COULD WORK ON THE EAST SIDE, WELL, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD THINK OFFICES CAN WORK ON THE WEST SIDE.

WE HEARD TONIGHT AND WE'VE HEARD FOR QUITE A WHILE THAT, BECAUSE OF COVID, THE OFFICE MARKET HAS CHANGED AND SO WE SHOULD CHANGE OUR ZONING.

[03:20:04]

THE STAFF REPORT EVEN SAYS THAT DENIAL OF THE REZONING WOULD KEEP OFFICE ZONING IN PLACE, WHERE OFFICE USES APPEAR TO BE LESS VIABLE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

BUT JUST TWO WEEKS AGO, WE HAD, ASHLEY, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT, COME IN AND TELL US THAT RECENT SURVEY SHOW THAT 66% OF COMPANIES SURVEYED ARE REQUIRING MORE IN-OFFICE ATTENDANCE FOR EMPLOYEES.

I THINK THE CASE COULD BE MADE THAT OFFICES ARE COMING BACK.

ONE OF LENEXA STRENGTHS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE ARE A DESIRABLE LOCATION, WHICH ALLOWS US TO TAKE OUR TIME IN DEVELOPING OUR CITY ON HOW WE WANT IT TO LOOK, HOW WE WANT IT TO FEEL, AND HOW WE WANT IT TO DEVELOP.

AND THAT SHOULD ALSO INFORM US ON THE GO SLOW IN CHANGING OUR PLANS.

WE HEARD TONIGHT AND WE'VE HEARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, INTERRUPTED BY COVID THAT ARE SOON TO BE UPDATED.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL SUGGEST THAT THIS AREA BE CHANGED TO APARTMENTS FROM OFFICE AND. THAT OTHER THAT THE NEW PLAN ANTICIPATES OTHER AREAS THAT WILL BE EARMARKED FOR APARTMENTS.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS A RECOMMENDATION, A SUGGESTION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT, THAT MAY NOT MAKE IT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT.

WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY GETTING TO THAT POINT, BUT IT'S STILL JUST A RECOMMENDATION.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES.

WE SHOULD LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT.

I SUSPECT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME UP HERE ON THE CITY COUNCIL WHO MAY NOT WANT TO TAKE THAT MORE APARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR LENEXA SOMEBODY TONIGHT, A THE, FROM THE HOMES ASSOCIATION, I THINK IT WAS TRACY, SAID THAT WE'RE OUR HOPE.

I THINK I HEARD THIS CORRECTLY.

I THINK IT'S NUMBERS WRONG.

THAT APARTMENTS RENTERS MAKE UP 40% OF LENEXA.

I THINK IT'S NORTH OF 50%.

AND WE ALREADY HAVE 400 ACRES.

WE ALREADY HAVE 400 ACRES EARMARKED AND AND OR ZONED FOR APARTMENTS.

WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE CHANGED THE KIEWIT BUILDING TO APARTMENTS AND WE CHANGED THE REFLECTIONS DEVELOPMENT TO APARTMENT.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THOSE WERE ALL IN IN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF CITY CENTER.

CITY CENTER NEEDS THE DENSITY BOTH OF THOSE WERE IN.

I THINK THAT'S FEAR OF INFLUENCE OF CITY CENTER.

IF WE WANT MORE APARTMENTS, WE ALREADY HAVE MANY ACRES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE REZONING OR REWORKING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

LET'S LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT LIKE JOE SUGGESTED.

SO NO OFFICE BECAUSE OF COVID.

BUILD MORE APARTMENTS.

DEVIATE FROM THE CODES.

THERE'S NO HURRY TO FILL UP THE LAND.

WE'RE LENEXA.

WE'RE A VERY DESIRABLE LOCATION.

PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES WANT TO LOCATE HERE.

THERE IS NO HURRY.

RESPECTFULLY, WE SHOULD NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY. MELANIE? YEAH.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO START, FIRST OF ALL, BY.

I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE STAFF FOR THE THIRD WORK THAT THEY DID TODAY.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL TO TO LOOK AT.

BUT ALSO, I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE AUDIENCE AND EVERYONE WHO CAME IN TONIGHT TO, TO DEFEND THIS COURSE THAT YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT.

AND AT ONE POINT, THERE WAS A BABY IN THE AUDIENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BABY WAS, BUT, LIKE, THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.

THAT WAS REALLY COOL. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BRING THE WHOLE FAMILY.

IT CAN BE A WHOLE FAMILY EVENT.

AND TO BRING YOUR STUDENTS TOO.

I REALLY LIKE SEEING THAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN THE NEXT THING, I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO VALIDATE THE CONCERNS AND THE CONFUSION AND THE FRUSTRATIONS.

I WASN'T HERE IN 2018 WHEN THAT FIRST PROPOSAL CAME ABOUT.

[03:25:01]

BUT YEAH, JUST SEEING THE ENERGY IN THE ROOM TONIGHT AND JUST HEARING YOUR CONCERNS, READING YOUR EMAILS.

OH, NO. EXPERT FROM ME.

JUST THE EMAILS. YES.

YEAH. AND THEN SEEING ALL THAT, REALLY, WE REALLY HAD AN IMPACT ON ME.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO SHARED THEIR, THEIR WORDS AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES.

I GUESS I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, IF THAT'S OKAY.

SO I HEAR PEOPLE'S CONCERNS.

I KIND OF HEARD A VARIETY OF, OPINIONS.

I HEARD THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO KEEP IT AT A SINGLE HOUSING SORT OF DEVELOPMENT OR KEEP IT AS OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, AND I HEARD FROM MANY PEOPLE THAT THEY JUST WANT THAT AREA TO BE COMPLETELY LEFT UNTOUCHED, UNDEVELOPED.

BUT I'M CURIOUS IF THIS LAND IS PRIVATELY OWNED, IT CAN'T BE GUARANTEED THAT IT'S GOING TO BE LEFT UNTOUCHED.

NO. OKAY.

OKAY. SO I THINK I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, AND I CAN SEE HOW SOME PEOPLE FELT MISLED IN THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR LOTS OR THEIR HOMES, AND YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS PRISTINE VIEW FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND THEN THAT WAS NOT COMMUNICATED THAT THE LOT BEHIND MICE IN THE, IN THE CREEK, THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED.

SO BUT I'M CURIOUS IF THERE IS I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMIND ME ABOUT THIS PROCESS.

IS IS IT IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THAT THERE IS A COMPROMISE? BECAUSE I HEARD THAT MAYBE A COMPROMISE MIGHT BE REMOVING, THE GAS STATION OR THE NURSING FACILITY, OR MAYBE MAKING THE NURSING FACILITY, SHORTER IN HEIGHT.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT TOWNHOMES INSTEAD? JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR ANYONE IN THE CITY, IF YOU WANTED TO ANSWER THAT, I CAN TAKE A STAB AT IT.

WE'RE OUR TASK TONIGHT.

YOUR TASK TONIGHT IS TO IS TO APPLY THE CRITERIA AND THE CODE TO THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU.

YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REMAND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FOR THEM TO LOOK AT.

BUT I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE TASK IS TO LOOK AT THE PROJECT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND, AND WEIGH THOSE CRITERIA AGAINST THIS PROJECT.

IT IS ALSO WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW THAT IF YOU AS A, AS A MAJORITY CONSENSUS GOVERNING BODY, WISH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT SOME COMPROMISES.

I HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION, FRANKLY, FROM THE APPLICANT.

AND YOU I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION YOU WOULD HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT TO SAY, MY CONCERNS ARE THIS ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOK AT CHANGING THIS ELEMENT OF THE PLAN? I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR THAT DISCUSSION TO OCCUR.

OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.

AND WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR THOSE CHANGES TO TRY TO PRODUCE SPECIFIC OUTCOMES.

CORRECT. SO WE WOULDN'T BE NOT PROVIDING BUILDINGS IN THE VIEW OF CERTAIN HOMES.

WE WOULD NOT BE CREATING TRAFFIC BECAUSE THOSE THINGS CANNOT BE CHANGED IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE, EVEN IF WE REMAND IT AT THIS POINT.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YEAH. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

I GUESS RIGHT NOW I'M SITTING IN A POSITION OF POTENTIALLY SENDING THIS BACK AND, I DON'T HAVE A I'M.

I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF INCREASING AVAILABLE HOUSING IN LENEXA.

IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE.

BUT IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT WHEN THERE IS, THIS LEVEL OF OPPOSITION.

AND I FEEL THAT WE CAN FIND A COMPROMISE.

THANK YOU. CHELSEA.

THANK YOU.

I WANT TO ECHO WHAT MANY OF MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THE PASSION THAT IS IN THIS ROOM.

I DID READ EVERY EMAIL THAT WAS SENT.

I DID DRIVE UP TO THE SITE.

I WALKED AROUND.

I WALKED AROUND THE HOMES.

I TOOK PICTURES.

AND I TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE VOICED IN THE EMAILS.

[03:30:04]

I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR AN EXTREMELY DETAILED AND THOROUGH REPORT.

IT ANSWERED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, AND IT WAS JUST REMARKABLE.

THE DETAIL, AND HOW COMPREHENSIVE IT WAS.

AND BY THE WAY, NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO REPORT.

SOME OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT, AS MELANIE INDICATED, I HEARD A LOT OF CONTRADICTIONS TONIGHT AS WELL.

WHETHER IT BE THAT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE SPACE.

WHETHER THEY WOULD PREFER TO SEE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS.

WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE NOTHING DEVELOPED AT ALL.

THERE'S A LOT OF INCONSISTENCY, AND PART OF ME FEELS AS THOUGH I DON'T THINK ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY WOULD SATISFY EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.

THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE OPPOSITION, TO A PROJECT.

AND LENEXA IS GROWING.

THERE IS A MARKET FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

THERE ARE STUDIES THAT INDICATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES NEXT TO AN INTERSTATE ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE.

AND I DO SEE THAT THIS IS A BIT OF A DOWN REZONING.

BASED ON WHAT OUR CURRENT LAND USE MAP IS.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CURRENT UTILITIES, AND AS MARCUS INDICATED, WE DO HAVE ONE OF THE BEST STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY CONCERNS THAT MAY ARISE FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. I JUST FEEL THAT I THINK THERE'S JUST ALWAYS GOING TO BE OPPOSITION TO THIS.

AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD PLEASE EVERYONE.

AND I'M INCLINED TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST.

CHRIS. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT SENT EMAILS AND COMMENTS.

I READ EVERYONE GAVE IT A CONSIDERATION.

I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MIKE BOEHM, ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WAS ONLY EX-PARTE.

CONVERSATION. CAN YOU PULL YOUR MIC DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, PLEASE? THANK YOU. IS THAT BETTER? YEP. I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS, REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE COUNCIL'S POWER TO APPROVE THIS PUD.

I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY IS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS LAND.

LIKE CHELSEA AND OTHERS HAVE SAID, IT IS A PROBABLY A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY, TO DEVELOP AND CERTAINLY WOULD NOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING IN LIFE THAT MAKES EVERYONE HAPPY.

SO, TAKING A STEP BACK, TRYING TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND CONSIDERATE.

I DON'T LIVE THERE, SO OBVIOUSLY I DON'T.

I CAN'T SAY I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL.

I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE, PRESENTED.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR LAND AS LONG AS IT'S, WITHIN REASON AND LEGAL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT STAFF HAS OUTLINED QUITE WELL, THE BOUNDARIES WITHIN WHICH WE HAVE TO OPERATE THAT THIS PROJECT MEETS THOSE CRITERIA.

THANK YOU. COURTNEY, ARE YOU READY? OKAY. I HAVE LIKE SIX PAGES OF NOTES GOING ON HERE.

I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN WRITING ALL NIGHT.

TRY NOT TO REPEAT YOURSELF.

RIGHT. THERE ARE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT HAVE SWAYED MY OPINIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT IT.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT I HAVE SOME GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT I EMPATHIZE WITH EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE THAT IS HERE IN

[03:35:03]

OPPOSITION. I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING BUILT BEHIND YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY TEAR OUT ALL THE TREES, AND IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, OKAY. I ALSO AGREE WITH CHRIS IN THE ASPECT THAT IF SOMEONE OWNS PRIVATE PROPERTY, HOW DO WE GET TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO IN THE PURVIEW OF OF THE ZONING THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE CITY? I TOO FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTRADICTION TONIGHT AROUND, WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE THERE VERSUS WANTING NOTHING THERE. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE THERE EVENTUALLY.

AND I THINK EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THAT.

NOW, WHAT THAT IS, I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD A CLEAR, REQUEST FROM THE OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT THE OFFICE BUILDINGS? DO YOU WANT THE ZONING TO STAY THE SAME? DO YOU WANT RESTAURANTS TO MEET A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE TYPE CRITERIA? AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS MADE CLEAR TONIGHT.

WHEN WE HAVE APPLICATIONS PRESENTED TO US, IT IS AT FACE VALUE.

HERE'S THE APPLICATION.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TO DETERMINE.

DOES THIS FIT DOES IT MEET THIS CRITERIA.

AND WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR AND CONCISE ABOUT OUR DECISIONS AND WHAT THAT MEANS ON BOTH SIDES FOR THE DEVELOPER, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

THAT BEING SAID, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY LOVE THE ACTIVISM.

I LOVE THE WEARING BLACK.

I WISH THERE WAS SIGNS AND POSTERS AND STICKERS BECAUSE I'M THAT GIRL, RIGHT? I FULLY APPRECIATE IF YOU YOU COME AT IT, YOU FIGHT THE FIGHT AND YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED.

HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I THINK THAT IT'S THESE ARE ABOUT SOME REALLY HARD CHOICES.

I'VE LISTENED TO ALL OF THE ALL OF THE THOUGHTS ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY, ABOUT DEFORESTATION, ABOUT DISPLACING THE WILDLIFE, ABOUT KEEPING THE, SETBACKS, THE SAFETY CONCERNS TONIGHT.

AND I THINK WHERE I'M, I'M AT IS THAT.

WITH NOT KNOWING WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS.

AT FACE VALUE, THESE APARTMENTS.

FIT THE MODEL OF WHERE WE WOULD PUT APARTMENTS IN OUR CITY.

FOR THAT, I UNDERSTAND.

HANG ON. ALL YOUR ZONES.

HEY, LISTEN, SIR.

LISTEN, WE HAVEN'T VOTED.

I'M NOT DONE TALKING, OKAY? OKAY. THAT BEING SAID, TYPICALLY WHERE WE WOULD PUT APARTMENTS IN THE CITY WOULD ALIGN RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE HIGHWAYS.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS PROJECT, PER SE, IS THAT IT DOESN'T TURN INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DRIVE THROUGH IT LIKE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN EARLIER TONIGHT, WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXITS WERE COMING THROUGH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

I LIKE THAT IT WAS RIGHT OFF OF THE HIGHWAY.

THERE ARE SOME DEFINITE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

THERE'S DEFINITELY. I THINK WHAT CONCERNS ME, TOO, IS THAT THIS FEELS LIKE A AN APARTMENT PROJECT WITH THESE CP2 ACCESSORIES THERE THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE YET.

AND THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME.

BUT ALSO.

TRYING TO GAUGE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT TO SEE? OKAY. ONE OF THE ANY.

LET ME SAY THIS ANYTIME THAT THERE IS GREEN SPACE, ANYTIME THAT THERE'S A ZONE AG, ANYTIME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING THERE.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU ALL BOUGHT YOUR HOUSES AND WERE TOLD THAT NOTHING WOULD BE GOING ON THERE, OR THAT THEY WEREN'T CLEAR ABOUT THE CITY LAND BEING THERE.

I ALSO THINK THAT, NOT SEEING THE COMP PLAN REVISIONS IS PROBLEMATIC AS WELL, BEFORE WE MAKE SOME DECISIONS. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE COMP PLAN.

I'M NOT ON THE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE OF THAT LOOKS LIKE JUST YET.

I WILL SAY I DO HAVE CONCERNS OVER A POTENTIAL OFFICE BUILDING GOING IN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC AND AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO MITIGATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

IS IT THE SIGHT LINE? IS IT THE TRAFFIC? IS IT JUST WE DON'T WANT APARTMENTS? I WILL TELL YOU THAT. I THINK THAT THERE IS VALUE IN MULTI-FAMILY, UNITS IN OUR CITY.

[03:40:11]

I THINK THAT THERE IS A MARKET FOR THAT CURRENTLY WITH INTEREST RATES, 30 SOMETHINGS NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY HOUSES AND RETIRED PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO HAVE MAINTENANCE IN THEIR HOUSES.

THERE IS A MARKET FOR THESE APARTMENTS OR THEY WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO BUILD THEM.

I WILL ALSO AGREE THAT WHAT THEY SAID AT THE AT THE CHAMBER MEETING, OR THAT THE CHAMBER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAID THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING BACK TO THE OFFICE. THAT BEING SAID.

I'M REALLY TORN WITH THIS.

I COME HERE AND I TRY AND LISTEN.

I READ EVERY EMAIL AS WELL.

MY STRUGGLE IS ALSO WITH THE POD ITSELF.

I DON'T WE'VE NOT DONE THOSE BEFORE.

HAVE WE DONE THAT BEFORE WITH ME? LIKE, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW THAT I REMEMBER SEEING A LIST OF I WAS GOING TO I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE SONOMA PLAZA OF RICCIARDO PROJECT HERE AT 435 AND 87TH STREET.

THE EXAMPLE I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ABOUT CHANGING USES IN THAT PLAN WAS THE CAR WASH THAT WENT THROUGH A YEAR OR TWO AGO WHERE IT WASN'T IN THE PLAN.

AND SO WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS, PLANNING COMMISSION AND GOVERNING BODY TO ADD THAT USE TO THAT.

SO THAT'S THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN PROVIDE TO YOU AS A WAY OF, I'M NOT CERTAIN.

I WAS HERE FOR SONOMA PLAZA.

YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL ONE.

I THINK THE CAR WASH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE THE ADDITION TO THAT.

YES. SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE SEEN A LIST LIKE THAT WHERE IT'S PRESENTED AS A PUD.

THIS IS WHAT WE COULD HAVE IF THIS DOESN'T COME TO FRUITION VERSUS WHAT? THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROHIBITING.

I THINK WHAT I FIND PROBLEMATIC ABOUT THIS IS THAT WHILE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A 9.63 YES, 9.62 PER ACRE UNIT, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM LEAVING THAT OPEN TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE OF AN RBP4 AT 16 UNITS PER ACRE, AND HAVE IT COME BACK AND LOOK VERY DIFFERENT IF THIS DOESN'T COME TO FRUITION.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY IS NOT OKAY, HOW IT IS A DIFFICULT SITE, HOW WE'RE MAKING CONCESSIONS TO TO FIX IT.

AND I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN WHERE WE HAVE ZONED REZONING APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS.

AND THEN WHILE THEY'RE ALL TIED TO PRELIMINARY PLANS, I ALSO STRUGGLE WITH HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO AND HERE'S WHAT WE CAN'T DO UNDERNEATH THE CURRENT ZONING.

AND BY DOING THIS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT RP FOUR STIPULATION IN THAT LIST.

WHEN WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH RP THREE, AND THAT WOULD EVEN BE AT 12 INSTEAD OF AT A NINE.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PER SE WITH THE ACTUAL APARTMENTS THEMSELVES.

BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE TONIGHT WITH WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH.

A REMAND OR A, APPROVE OR DENY.

OKAY, I THINK WE ALREADY COVERED THAT WE COULD OMIT THE PP FOR IN LIEU OF PP.

THREE PP FOR HERE THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE EVENING.

SO, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE AGREEABLE TO STIPULATING THAT THERE'S NO PP FOR HERE.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS.

YOU JUST STIPULATE TO IT.

GO AHEAD. SCOTT. MAYOR, I, I APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY OF A PUD.

IT'S A DIFFERENT ZONING TOOL THAT YOU'RE THAT WE DON'T DO A LOT OF THE PP FOR CATEGORY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S PROVIDED IS THE LIST OF USES WITHIN THAT CATEGORY, NOT THE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, NOT THE HEIGHTS, NOT THE DENSITIES.

IT'S THE THE MULTIFAMILY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S WITHIN THAT AND SEVERAL OTHER USES THAT OF COURSE, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CAN'T, CAN'T PROVIDE TO YOU.

SO IT'S A IT'S TAKING FOR I THINK FOR SAKE OF EASE, INSTEAD OF JUST LISTING OUT EVERY POTENTIAL USE IS TO SAY WE'RE INCLUDING THE USES OF I THINK IT WAS NPO AND WHAT WERE THE USES PATRICK NPO AND C PP FOR FOR EXAMPLE, EXCEPT THESE USES THAT THEY'VE TAKEN OUT OF THOSE LISTS.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE CONFUSING A LITTLE BIT THAT BY SAYING PP FOR USES THAT IT GIVES THEM ALL THE STANDARDS AVAILABLE OF PP FOR THE PUD DOES PROVIDE THEM 16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

BUT WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT WE, MUCH LIKE ANYBODY WHO GETS OUR P THREE ZONING, CAN COME IN LATER AND ASK FOR PP FOR ZONING.

IF THEY CAN'T FIND AN PP THREE DEVELOPER, THE PUD HAS TO GO THROUGH ESSENTIALLY WHAT BECOMES A REZONING PROCESS TO GO FROM THE DENSITY THAT THEY HAVE ON

[03:45:07]

THIS PLAN TO SOMETHING GREATER IN THE FUTURE, JUST LIKE THAT CAR WASH DID IN SONOMA PLAZA.

SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS, YES, IT STARTS SETTING THE FRAMEWORK FOR, MAYBE DIFFERENT USES OR GREATER INTENSITIES, BUT THEY'RE THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS JUST LIKE SOMEBODY ZONED PP THREE.

NOW REQUESTING PP FOUR WOULD GO THROUGH.

AND AS YOU KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, LAND USE PROPOSALS CAN CHANGE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT RIGHT UNTIL IT'S BUILT.

RIGHT. WHICH IS MY CONCERN.

BUT THAT CONCERN, I WOULD ARGUE, IS THERE WITH OUR P GRANTING AN RPA STRAIGHT PP THREE ZONE COULD COME IN IN A YEAR AND REQUEST PP FOUR ZONE.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT EVEN SO.

THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK REGARDLESS WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAN.

IS THERE ANYTHING BY RIGHT THAT THEY HAVE BY IT BEING AT THAT PUD UNDER THOSE GUIDELINES CURRENTLY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, LIKE OR DO THEY JUST HAVE TO BRING ME A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAN? THEY ESSENTIALLY WOULD HAVE TO WE WOULD WE WOULD LOOK AT THE USES ALLOWED.

SO LET'S SAY IT'S DAYCARE AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO TRADE OUT THE CONVENIENCE STORE NOW FOR, A TYPICAL, COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THREE TENANTS IN.

THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE STUFF ON RIDGEVIEW THAT ARE DOING THAT.

RIGHT. THEY'RE BUILDING BUILDINGS TODAY.

WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHO THE TENANTS WILL BE.

THEY COME BACK WITH THAT KIND OF A OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THEN, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH A PLANNING PROCESS FOR THAT.

BUT IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND ADD A USE THAT'S PROHIBITED IN THEIR LIST TODAY, THAT IN MY OPINION, I WOULD INTERPRET THAT TO BE MORE OF A REZONING EFFORT WITH NOTICE TO PEOPLE.

AND WE GO THROUGH THIS KIND OF REZONING CRITERIA REVIEW, NOT JUST A PLAN PROCESS.

SO IF THEY CAME BACK SO THIS THIS PROJECT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAME AND BOUGHT THE LAND, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE IT REZONED. IF THEY WANTED TO PUT IN A HIGHER DENSITY, THAT WOULD BE MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.

CORRECT. I WOULD HAVE TO REVISE THE PUD THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO NOTIFY.

I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO TO.

I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY IN THAT REQUEST.

I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO LEGAL ABOUT THAT.

BUT LIVES CLOSE ENOUGH.

BUT BUT TO IN MY OPINION THIS PLAN IS IS ESTABLISHING THE DENSITY WITH THE PUD.

AND AGAIN IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TOOL.

IT'S INTENDED TO BE FLEXIBLE IN SOME WAYS BUT ALSO PROVIDE.

THERE'S LANGUAGE IN OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT, PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT IS IN THE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF THE ARGUMENT WE'RE HAVING TONIGHT, BUT IF YOU FIND IT'S COMPATIBLE, THIS IS THE PLAN THAT GETS APPROVED.

AND THEN YES, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME THINGS THAT GO JUST GO THROUGH A PLAN PROCESS.

I THINK DENSITY MAY BE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE WOULD AT THE, AT THE VERY LEAST, GO THROUGH A PLAN PROCESS AT THE MOST, GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE NOTICE TO TO NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200FT, SIGNS, LEGAL AD, THAT KIND OF THING.

AND NEW OWNER, NEW PLAN.

CORRECT? NO, THIS WOULD RUN WITH THE WITH THE LAND.

AND SO THAT IF A NEW DEVELOPER WOULD COME IN, THEY WOULD BE UNDER THIS PLAN TO BUILD THIS THIS PLAN SPECIFICALLY.

OKAY. AND ANY DEVIATION FROM THAT PLAN WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.

CORRECT. BUT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF IT'S A FINAL PLAN ISSUE.

OKAY. THAT LOOKED LIKE PAGE FIVE.

WHERE ARE WE? I KNOW, I'M I'M GETTING THERE.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT MY CONCERNS ARE ALL MITIGATED.

I'M STRUGGLING. I MEAN, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS, AND I AND I'M NOT CERTAIN WHY IT'S I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING NEW.

IT'S, I MEAN, NEW FOR ME.

LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PUD WORKS.

I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT MY CONCERNS ARE ARE, ADDRESSED WITH SOMETHING MAIN PROBLEMATIC, WHERE YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO COMES IN, BUYS THE LAND, GOES THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, AND THEN TURNS AROUND AND SELLS IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE,

[03:50:08]

AND THEY BUILD FIVE STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

AND I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT PROTECTING THAT PROCESS AND ASKING THESE QUESTIONS AND REALLY TRYING TO BE THOROUGH ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THESE DON'T GET BUILT IN THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING UP MORE OF YOUR EVENING, AS IT STANDS AND AS THE CURRENT.

PLAN IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.

I'M OKAY WITH THE DENSITY.

I'M OKAY WITH THE DEVIATIONS.

I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE C-STORE BEING TOO BIG AND THE DEVIATIONS AROUND THAT.

BUT, AGAIN, I THINK THAT WHEN THEY HAVE WHATEVER YOUR WHO YOUR OVER YOUR BUYER OR WHOEVER, THE WHATEVER'S GOING IN THERE WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME STANDARD FOOTPRINT THAT YOU'LL BRING BACK TO US.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT AS IT'S SHOWN HERE, I'M OKAY WITH APPROVING THIS PROJECT.

BASED ON THE IN AND OUT, THE EXITS, THE THINGS I LIKE, WHERE IT'S AT.

I THINK WE'VE DONE SOME THINGS THAT IN OTHER PLACES THAT I WAS NOT AS COMFORTABLE WITH.

I'VE HEARD I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS.

I DO, AND I'M SORRY.

I. I TOO HAVE LOOKED AT WHAT'S GOING ON.

I KNOW THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING ISN'T WHAT YOU'RE GETTING.

AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE HERE? AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'VE GOT A CLEAR IDEA OF, WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HERE WANTS THAT SAYS WE WANT THIS, NOT THIS, NOT THIS.

OKAY. OTHER THAN WE JUST DON'T WANT ANYTHING.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SAY THAT I'M OKAY APPROVING THE PUD UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT ANY DEVIATION FROM A HIGHER DENSITY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK, AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT C STORE CONCEPT. ONE THING.

NO, MA'AM, WE'VE TAKEN PLENTY OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

CAN YOU LET HIM TALK? HE WAS ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.

HE WASN'T ASKED TO SPEAK.

MARK. ANYTHING ELSE? FOR THE RECORD? YEAH.

I WANTED TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT OF OPINIONS FROM EVERYONE.

AND, THIS IS MY.

OH, I'M PRETTY LOUD TO BEGIN WITH, YOU KNOW? BUT, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF OPINIONS AND I'VE WATCHED A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG PRAIRIE STAR PARKWAY OVER THE YEARS.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH DIFFERENT, ADVENTURES OF APPROVING WASN'T APPROVED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM YOUR GUYS'S SIDE.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE SEEN SOMETHING HAPPEN AT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, AND IT WOUND UP GETTING APPROVED.

AND SO GUESS WHAT? THAT PROPERTY BECAME SOMETHING ELSE AND BECAME MORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AREA.

AND SO THERE'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE, MULTIFAMILY OVER IN THAT AREA.

I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF MULTIFAMILY IN SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, AND I THINK OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HELPS KIND OF ALIGN THAT.

BUT IN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING ELECTED IN THE CITY, SOME OF THE HOT BUTTON ITEMS I HEARD WAS NO MORE APARTMENTS IN THE NEXT AND NO MORE APARTMENTS IN THE LENEXA.

AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD, WELL, THERE MIGHT BE CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, AREAS THAT MAY LEND ITSELF TO IT ALONG HIGHWAYS ALONG THIS.

AND SO I TOOK A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO GETTING ONTO THIS COUNCIL AND RUNNING FOR THIS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A FAINT OF HEART.

THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO TO DO THIS.

AND I BRING A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THESE KINDS OF THINGS, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, BECAUSE THE DIFFICULTY OF WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THIS SITE IS, IS I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE IT CAN BE.

AND IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, SOME POTENTIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS.

WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING LOT LIGHTING.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, JUST THE SAME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AS, AS, AS CHELSEA SAID.

SO I THINK WE KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH IN THERE.

[03:55:03]

I CAN'T BALANCE IS THE APARTMENTS ARE AN OFFICE GOING TO BE BETTER? I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER.

AND I'VE SEEN DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS CHANGE OVER THE, OVER THE, THE CITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS TO ME THE BEST LOCATION FOR AN APARTMENT.

JUST COMMON SENSE APPROACH.

AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE MY CONSTITUENTS OUT THERE.

I MAY NOT GET YOUR VOTE IN FOUR YEARS, BUT IT'S IT'S THE IT'S THE MOST COMMON COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THIS SITE IS A DIFFICULT SITE TO TRY AND DO COMMERCIAL ON.

AND SO.

I DON'T AGREE THE FACT THAT THE, THE BILL, THE OFFICE MARKET IS GOING TO COME BACK, ESPECIALLY ON THIS, ON THIS CORNER, IT'S JUST TOO SMALL OF A CORNER.

AND YOU WE'VE SEEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE IN OLATHE THAT WHOLE DRIVE BEAUTIFUL DRIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

IT HASN'T GONE ANYWHERE.

SO WE ALL WANT SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OUT HERE.

WE WANT A GROCERY STORE.

WE WANT SOME AMENITIES OUT THERE.

YOU HAVE TO GET THE DENSITIES TO BE OUT TO GET THOSE OUT THERE.

AND SO YOU IT'S A BALANCING ACT.

AND SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THIS SITE.

THANK YOU. MARK.

MELANIE, I'M NOT HEARING ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR A REMAND.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT DID YOU SAY? SAID I'M NOT HEARING ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ASK FOR A REMAND.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? I'M JUST IN A SIMILAR POSITION AS COURTNEY.

WHERE I'M REALLY TORN.

BECAUSE I REALLY UNDERSTAND, LIKE, THE KIND OF LIKE WHAT COURTNEY WAS SAYING.

THE. EVER SEEN ME. REALLY, FEELS, FINDS A LOT OF EMPATHY IN THE CROWD TONIGHT.

I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE REZONING.

IT'S THE.

IT'S THE PLAN OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

OKAY. YES, BILL.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I I'VE HEARD ENOUGH CONCERNS UP HERE AT THE COUNCIL THAT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMAND, AND ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT, CONFORMANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HOW IT AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEVIATIONS, SOME OF THE WORRIES WE HAVE WITH THE PUD.

REVIEW AND WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE PUD.

SO I. I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION THAT WE, REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THAT HAS BEEN SATISFIED ALREADY IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION? NO. OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION TO REMAND? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE A ROLL CALL.

VOTE ON THAT, PLEASE.

JOE ASSUMING. YES.

THIS IS ON THE REMAND.

THE MOTION TO REMAND FAILS.

FROM HERE.

SEAN. YES.

I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONING.

THANK YOU. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING NEXT.

WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

REZONING PROPERTY FROM AG, CPO PLAN GENERAL OFFICE AND CP TWO PLAN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. MOTION BY CHRIS.

SECOND BY MARK.

AGAIN, I'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL.

VOTE, PLEASE.

MAYOR'S, PLEASE START WITH COURTNEY ON THIS ONE.

SO YOU HAVE ZONING? YOU HAVE. SIR.

[04:00:03]

WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPANION PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR CANYON RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES.

FOLKS. CHELSEA, WAS THAT YOU? SECOND BY CHELSEA.

CHRIS. CHELSEA.

CHELSEA. ANOTHER ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

MARK. THIS IS THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPANION PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR CANYON RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES.

ON WHAT? CHELSEA MADE THE MOTION.

I'M SORRY. CHELSEA, YOU MADE THE MOTION CORRECT.

CHELSEA AND CHRIS.

OKAY, OKAY. SORRY.

WE'LL DO. YEP.

WE'LL START WITH MARK. THIS IS THE MOTION.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.

YES, BILL.

NO. MELANIE.

FOLKS, TAKE IT OUTSIDE, PLEASE.

COURTNEY. COURTNEY. COURTNEY.

FOUR. SO WE HAVE A TIE.

OH, YES. RIGHT.

MARK? YES. NO, IT'S GOT TO BE.

IT'S FOUR THREE. RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING CRAIG. IT'S FOUR THREE AND IT PASSES.

YOU DO NOT NEED FIVE ON THIS.

IT'S A MAJORITY OF, RIGHT.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

MOTION PASSES.

OKAY. DO WE NEED A RECESS? EVERYBODY NEED A BREAK? YEAH. OKAY.

OKAY. NUMBER EIGHT IS CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING OF PRELIMINARY PLAN ON A SANTA FE COMMERCE CENTER FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST

[8. Consideration of a rezoning and preliminary plan known as Santa Fe Commerce Center for an industrial development located at the northeast corner of Santa Fe Trail Drive & Lakeview Avenue - CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 6, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING]

CORNER OF SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE AND LAKEVIEW AVENUE.

ITEM EIGHT A IS AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM AG TO THE BP TWO PLANNED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.

AND ITEM EIGHT B IS THE APPROVAL OF A COMPLAINANT COMPANION PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR SANTA FE COMMERCE CENTER.

STEPHANIE. LET'S ROLL.

LOOK AT THOSE CUTIES.

SORRY. THANK YOU FOR BREAKING THAT TENSION.

LET ME GET THIS DISPLAYED HERE.

THAT'S MY PROBLEM IS WE NEED.

WHY IS IT NOT SHARING? OH, I GUESS WE'RE DOING IT. EXTENDED SCREEN.

OKAY. APOLOGIES.

THERE. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SANTA FE COMMERCE CENTER.

THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SANTA FE TRAIL.

SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE AND LAKEVIEW AVENUE.

NOW, ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE THE LOCATION MAP.

AND AS MENTIONED, THIS IS ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE.

LET ME GET MY HANDY POINTER OUT AND YOU'LL SEE HERE.

THE PROPERTY ALSO INTERSECTS WHAT IS CURRENTLY LAKEVIEW AVENUE, A PUBLIC STREET.

WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT LATER.

AND WE'RE RIGHT ALONG THE BORDER OF LENEXA AND OLATHE AT THIS LOCATION.

SO WE HAVE INTERSTATE 35 ALONG THE EAST, AND 113TH IS THE NEAREST NUMBERED STREET TO THE NORTH.

JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE CONTEXT, THE BLUE LINE YOU SEE HERE IS THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.

SO OLATHE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY AND LENEXA IS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE THIS IS WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK TYPE AREA.

NOW YOU'LL SEE THE ZONING MAP ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS BP TWO IN THE PURPLE AND GREEN WHERE YOU SEE AG.

AS YOU KNOW, AG IS AGRICULTURAL AND BP TWO IS BUSINESS PARK ZONING.

SO INDUSTRIAL.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR BUSINESS PARK USES AT THIS LOCATION.

SO THE INTENDED PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS MENTIONED, THIS DOES INCLUDE A REZONING.

OUR FAVORITE THING TONIGHT AND WITH THIS REZONING REQUEST, IT IS TO BASICALLY REZONE THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO ALL BP2.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO MORE AGRICULTURAL ZONING.

I WILL NOTE WE TYPICALLY DO USE AG ZONING AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR THOSE THAT AREN'T AWARE.

SO SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE NEW PROPERTY THAT'S UNDEVELOPED, IT'LL BE ZONED AG UNTIL SOMEONE COMES ALONG WITH A PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP IT AND REZONE IT AT THAT TIME. SO IT'S MOST LIKELY NOT BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION.

[04:05:02]

IT'S NOT QUITE FARMLAND HERE, BUT IT WAS MORE OF LIKE A HOLDING AREA HOLDING A ZONING CATEGORY FOR DEVELOPMENT TO COME IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE DID ANTICIPATE THIS TYPE OF ZONING AND USE IN THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES TWO BUILDINGS, AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 222,000FT² TOTAL.

THAT'S BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

BUILDING NUMBER ONE HERE ON THE WEST IS JUST OVER 150,000FT².

AND BUILDING TWO JUST OVER 70,000FT².

YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT POINTS OF ACCESS ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL.

SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE.

THIS ACCESS POINT HERE SERVES FOR THE DOCK ENTRANCE.

AND ALSO THE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING ONE.

FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE, FOR BUILDING ONE, IT DOES LOOP AROUND TO THE NORTH FOR ACCESS.

SHARES CROSS CROSS ACCESS INTO THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE THERE.

THEN ALSO WHAT IS TECHNICALLY THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FACING THE WEST SIDE HERE.

THERE'S A PARKING LOT HERE AND DRIVE AISLE THAT SPITS OUT ONTO LAKEVIEW AVENUE.

AND A COUPLE POINTS HERE.

AS PART OF THIS SITE PLAN, LAKEVIEW AVENUE IS PROPOSED TO BECOME A PRIVATE STREET, SO THE ITEM FOLLOWING THIS IS A RIGHT OF WAY VACATION REQUEST TO VACATE THIS AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND TURN IT INTO A PRIVATE STREET, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THEM TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CUL DE SAC BULB AND RECONFIGURE THIS INTO A DRIVE ENTRANCE AND PARKING WHILE STILL MAINTAINING ACCESS FOR NOT ONLY THIS NEW SITE, BUT THE EXISTING SITES THAT TAKE ACCESS TO THE NORTH AND WEST. BUILDING TWO INCLUDES PARKING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, ADJACENT TO SANTA FE TRAIL TRAIL DRIVE, AND THEN THE DOCKS ARE IN THE BACK OR NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING TWO.

BUILDING TWO ALSO FEATURES AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA THAT YOU SEE IN THE BLUE HERE.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE.

IT INCLUDES CONCRETE TILT UP CONCRETE STYLE WITH MOSTLY GRAY NEUTRAL TYPE TONES WITH SOME ACCENT COLORS ALONG THE CORNERS. IT ALSO FEATURES WINDOWS AND CORNER ELEMENT FEATURES, AND ALSO SOME SMALLER WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE WAREHOUSE.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE.

SORRY. IS THERE A QUESTION? OKAY. SORRY.

USUALLY I'M THE ONE TO MAKE THE PURPLE JOKES UP HERE.

I'M TRYING TO BE GOOD TONIGHT, THOUGH.

SO, WITH THAT, THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

I DO WANT TO NOTE, STAFF DID REALLY PUSH HARD TO IMPROVE THE CURB APPEAL OF THIS AREA, SINCE IT'S NOT TYPICAL FOR US TO HAVE DOCK DOORS THAT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY LIKE THIS.

JUST THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE REALLY DIDN'T MAKE IT VIABLE TO ROTATE THIS BUILDING DIFFERENTLY.

AND SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE, THE APPLICANT HAS INCREASED THE LANDSCAPING HERE, ADDED SOME BERMING AS WELL TO MAKE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THIS DOCK AREA LESS HARSH ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE.

THIS PLAN ALSO INCLUDES A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

SO THERE ARE TWO LOTS AND THREE TRACKS.

AND WE DO HAVE TABLES SIMILAR TO THESE IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

SO ANY TIME WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT WHERE WE OUTLINE THE PURPOSE OF IT AND THE SIZE OF IT.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE LOT ONE AND TWO, AS WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH ARE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.

TRACT A WILL BECOME PART OF LOT TWO WITH A FINAL PLAT.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE AS PART OF A TRACT.

WE WANT IT TO BE INCLUDED WITH THIS LOT.

SO THAT WILL CHANGE AND BE ABSORBED INTO LOT TWO.

CONTRACT B IS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

THAT'S THE LARGE RETENTION AREA YOU SAW UP THERE.

AND TRACT C WILL BE THE ACCESS DRIVE IF THAT RIGHT OF WAY VACATION IS APPROVED.

THERE IS A DEVIATION IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST FOR THE FENCE SETBACK.

MANY OF YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH A VERY GRUELING FENCE CODE UPDATE NOT THAT LONG AGO.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME WITH THAT.

IT'S VERY MEMORABLE FOR ALL OF US.

AND AS PART OF THIS, THE FENCE WILL EXCEED, WHAT IS THE ESTABLISHED FRONT WALL OF THE BUILDING? IF YOU REMEMBER, WE BASICALLY SAID IN THAT NEW FENCE CODE, WE DON'T WANT THE FENCES TO PROJECT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS BUILDING IS THAT FULL 100FT BACK AND THE FENCE IS MEETING THE 50 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE THE BUILDING COULD COME UP TO.

STAFF FELT COMFORTABLE THAT AS LONG AS THE FENCE IS MAINTAINING WHAT A BUILDING WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET AT A MINIMUM, AND THE FENCE IS OF HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS.

[04:10:03]

STAFF DOES SUPPORT THAT DEVIATION.

SO AGAIN, THE BUILDING COULD HAVE BEEN AT A 50 FOOT SETBACK, BUT THEY CHOSE TO ADD MORE PARKING AND MOVE THAT SETBACK TO 100FT.

SO THAT IS PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR STAFF SUPPORT OF THIS DEVIATION.

OOPS. THE FENCE DID ACT AS A POINT OF DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO PREVIOUS WITH DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND STAFF.

SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT STORAGE AREA.

THE FENCE IS BOTH THE RED LINE AND THE BLUE LINE.

THE BLUE LINE IS JUST SORT OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE OF FENCE THAT'S ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE.

AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TYPE OF FENCE AND THE PANELS AND THE SPACING BETWEEN COLUMNS.

SO THIS IS AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE PANEL THAT'S WHITE VINYL FENCING.

SO PRIVACY, IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY AREAS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE.

IT'S MEANT TO SCREEN THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA.

AND THE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THAT WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY, COLUMNS AT EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS, ABOUT 24FT APART.

SO THIS IS RELATIVELY TO SCALE.

KIM PORTILLO DID A GREAT JOB ON UPDATING THIS GRAPHIC FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THESE ARE THE PROPOSED COLUMNS IN THE SQUARES.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF DID WANT TO SEE A RETURN OF COLUMNS AROUND THE CORNER AS THEY WRAP, SO THAT YOU'RE STILL GETTING THAT HIGH QUALITY FEELING OF THE FENCING AS YOU'RE DRIVING BY.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE THE COLUMNS GO ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN THAT NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND BACK TOWARDS SORT OF THE BACK OF HOUSE OPERATIONS HERE.

WE WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE IT'S FOCUSED MORE TOWARD THE CURB APPEAL AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS AREA.

SO THOSE WOULD BE MASONRY COLUMNS.

AND DID YOU SAY WHAT WAS BEING STORED IN THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE AT THIS POINT? THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT THESE BUILDINGS DON'T HAVE TENANTS.

SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING USE WISE.

WE JUST KNOW IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL SPEC TYPE BUILDING, BUT THE APPLICANT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE AN UPDATE TO SHARE WITH YOU ON THAT.

OKAY. THERE'S ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS A POINT OF DISCUSSION AND THAT IS THE SIDEWALK.

SO PUBLIC SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE SIDEWALK ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE.

WE DO HAVE FUTURE PLANS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE HERE, FOR A TRAIL CONNECTION IN THE FUTURE.

AND THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY LEAD SOUTH TO AN EXISTING, PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR TRAIL IN THE OLATHE SIDE HERE.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE'S REALLY JUST NO TRAIL OR SIDEWALK.

WE DO WANT THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT CONSTRUCT A SIDEWALK RATHER THAN A TRAIL, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WITH OUR CIP PLANS WHEN THE TIME WILL COME THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THAT.

SO I THINK JUST CONNECTING WITH SIDEWALK IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT ON THIS GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT, THAT WOULD BE THE FIVE FOOT PUBLIC SIDEWALK FIVE FOOT WIDE.

AND THEN THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO ALSO HAVE INTERNAL SIDEWALK BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS.

SO WE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON ACHIEVING THAT.

AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S SOME GRADE CHALLENGES WITH THE SITE.

AND ALSO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN GET TO THESE BUILDINGS FROM PUBLIC WAYS OR PRIVATE SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS.

SO, ONE OPTION WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO JUST HAVE THE FRONT DOOR MEET UP WITH THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE, BUT POTENTIALLY HAVE A PATH THAT GOES FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING INTERNALLY.

SO THAT'S AN ITEM THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON BETWEEN THIS POINT AND THEIR FINAL PLAN.

BECAUSE THIS AGAIN IS JUST A PRELIMINARY PLAN.

SO THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL THAT THAT BE WORKED OUT FOR THE FINAL PLAN.

WITH THAT STAFF, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAN PLAT FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE.

AND THESE WERE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

AS MENTIONED, THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE WOULD BE INSTALLED BY THE APPLICANT AND SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAN.

THE INTERNAL SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS WOULD BE PART OF THE FINAL PLAN AND INSTALLED AS WELL.

AND THEN THE FENCE, MASONRY COLUMNS AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE RETURN AROUND THE EDGES AS WELL IN SUPPORT OF THAT DEVIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STEPHANIE? I DO. CHRIS.

THE LAKEVIEW AVENUE THAT'S GOING TO BE MADE PRIVATE.

DOES IT AFFECT ANY OTHER PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER.

SO I HAVE MORE SLIDES ON THAT IN OUR NEXT ITEM, BUT I CAN GO BACK TO THIS IMAGE AT THE BEGINNING.

[04:15:08]

THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST ONE JUST ON THE LOCATION MAP.

SO LAKEVIEW AVENUE DOES SERVE AS AN ACCESS POINT FOR THESE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO THE WEST.

IT CUL DE SACS RIGHT HERE.

SO IT DOES NOT GO ANY FURTHER NORTH, NOR DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT ROAD TO EVER NEED TO CONNECT NORTH.

SO IT'S REALLY SERVING THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

SO PROVIDED THAT THEY MAINTAIN SOME SORT OF PRIVATE ACCESS FOR THESE PROPERTIES, WHICH THEY HAVE AGREED TO AT THIS POINT.

THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE CITY NEEDING TO KEEP THAT RIGHT OF WAY FOR ANY PURPOSES.

ANYONE ELSE.

WORK. THE TRAIL THAT MAY BE ANTICIPATED IN FUTURE CAN BE A TEN FOOT NORMAL TRAIL DOWN THE ROAD.

OR IS IT TOO TIGHT IN THAT IN THE.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE AS WE GET CLOSER TO PLANNING THAT OUT.

THERE IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WITH THE APPLICANT ALREADY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT ENOUGH, EITHER AN EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO BE ABLE TO PUT THAT TRAIL IN.

THAT'S ANOTHER DETAIL THAT WE FINALIZED DURING THE FINAL PLAN PROCESS.

OKAY, I SEE WE MAY STILL HAVE THE APPLICANT OVER HERE.

YOU GUYS ARE WARRIORS TONIGHT.

ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT ON IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.

I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. AND DAN FINN WITH PHELPS ENGINEERING, 1270 NORTH WINCHESTER, OLATHE, KANSAS.

REALLY NOTHING TO ADD. JUST TO HIT A FEW OF THE COMMENTS YOU GUYS MADE.

THE ENTIRETY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS OWNED BY THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER RIGHT NOW.

KNOWING THAT'S ALWAYS NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE, THERE WILL BE AN ACCESS EASEMENT DEDICATED OVER WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE RIGHT OF WAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL THE PROPERTIES, IN CASE IT DOES SELL OFF IN THE FUTURE.

WE ARE ALSO DEDICATING A TEN FOOT WIDE TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ENSURE THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE FOR THAT TRAIL SYSTEM WHEN IT DOES GET INSTALLED BY THE CITY IN THE FUTURE. OTHER THAN THAT, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, AND WE STAND HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY, SEEING NOTHING ELSE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

REZONING PROPERTY FROM AG TO BP2 PLAN MANUFACTURING.

MOTION BY COURTNEY, SECOND BY MELANIE.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE.

EXCUSE ME. APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR SANTA FE COMMERCE CENTER.

MOTION BY JOE.

SECOND. SECOND BY MARK.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

MOTION PASSES.

OKAY. NEXT IS PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER NINE.

[9. Consideration of a right-of-way vacation of Lakeview Avenue north of Santa Fe Trail Drive and south of 113th Street - CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 6, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING]

CONSIDERATION OF A RIGHT OF WAY VACATION OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE ON NORTH, NORTH OF SANTA FE TRAIL DRIVE AND SOUTH OF 113TH STREET, WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 6TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

ITEM A IS PUBLIC HEARING.

ITEM B IS ORDINANCE VACATING THE RIGHT OF WAY.

ANY THING BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SURE. STEPHANIE KESSLER AGAIN, I CAN DO A QUICK PRESENTATION JUST GIVING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DETAIL ON WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

AS MENTIONED, A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE.

NOW ON THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION MAP AND YOU'LL SEE AGAIN, THIS SHORT SEGMENT ENDING IN A CUL DE SAC WHICH IS CURRENTLY LAKEVIEW AVENUE.

AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED VACATION.

AS YOU SAW ON THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, THIS YELLOW LINE IS THE BORDER BETWEEN LENEXA AND OLATHE.

A COUPLE MORE SLIDES FOR YOU.

THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND YOU CAN AGAIN SEE HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH A COUPLE DRIVE ENTRANCES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST FOR THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES.

SO THAT WOULD BE AS THE APPLICANT DISCUSSED, THEY WOULD MAINTAIN AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THAT.

AND THEN JUST IN RELATION TO THAT SITE PLAN, YOU JUST SAW, THIS IS WHAT THAT AREA LOOKS LIKE.