9. Approval of a preliminary and final plan for Ad Astra Park, a city park, located at 8265 Maurer Road in the R-1, Residential Single-Family (Low-Density) District

[9. Approval of a preliminary and final plan for Ad Astra Park, a city park, located at 8265 Maurer Road in the R-1, Residential Single-Family (Low-Density) District]

PARK, LOCATED AT 8265 MAURER ROAD IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.

SCOTT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. GIVE ME A MOMENT TO.

SWITCH OUT. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SCOTT MCCULLOUGH WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

ITEM NINE IS A PROJECT KNOWN AS AD ASTRA PARK RENOVATION.

IT IS AT 8265 MAURER ROAD. A PROJECT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IS THIS IS A CITY PARK RENOVATION.

IT IS COMING TO YOU TONIGHT IN THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ATYPICAL, BUT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS A VICTIM OF THE FIRST SNOWSTORM OF THE YEAR IN JANUARY, AND SO WE HAD TO CANCEL THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROJECT, THE FINAL PLAN DOESN'T MOVE MUCH FROM THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.

SO, WE MARRY THE TWO TOGETHER AND BRING THEM TO YOU TONIGHT, BOTH OF THEM, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO ALSO JUST KIND OF KEEP IT ON TRACK.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR THAT THIS IS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MAURER ROAD AND 83RD STREET, JUST WEST OF CHRISTA MCAULIFFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND YOU CAN SEE A GOOD AERIAL OF HOW THE PARK SITS TODAY.

THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS R1, AND IT IS REFLECTED AS INSTITUTIONAL IN THE MOST RECENT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD SITE TO SEE THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING AREA HERE.

WE'RE GOING FROM ABOUT 189 SPACES, I THINK, TO 158 SPACES BASED ON SOME PARKING ANALYSIS AND RATES THAT PARKS AND REC HAD KIND OF CARRIED OVER FROM THE SAR-KO-PAR AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT.

BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE, IMPORTANTLY, I THINK THAT THERE'S A BIG REDUCTION IN AREA FROM THE PARKING LOT.

WE'RE GOING FROM KIND OF ONE WAY DIRECTIONS INTO 90 DEGREE, TWO WAY MOVEMENTS.

IT'S MORE EFFICIENT PARKING LOT IN OUR OPINION.

[00:15:02]

THERE IS A NEW SORT OF, I THINK OF IT KIND OF A CIRCLE DRIVE ALMOST COMING, A DRIVE THAT CONNECTS MAURER TO 83RD STREET WITH PARKING ASSOCIATED ALONG HERE. MOST OF THE PARK AMENITIES HERE ON THE EAST SIDE REMAIN THE SAME WITH THE WITH THE TRAILS AND SUCH.

AGAIN, THE PARKING LOT IS REDESIGNED. THE POOL IS AT THE SAME LOCATION, REDESIGNED WITH PUBLIC INPUT.

AND I'M SURE PARKS DIRECTOR LOGAN WAGLER CAN MAYBE SPEAK TO THIS IF HE COMES UP TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT IT.

AND THEN JUST THE TYPICAL KIND OF BUILDINGS THAT SUPPORT THE POOL ALONG WITH THE NEW RESTROOM FACILITY.

JUST TO LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPING AND WHAT THE ANTICIPATION FOR TREES AND MAINTAINING TREES AT THE SITE IN TERMS OF BUILDING DESIGN. HERE AGAIN, THIS IS THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE BUILDING, REALLY A COUPLE OF BUILDINGS CONNECTED WITH A ROOF THAT HAS AN UNDERGROUND AREA FOR SEATING AND CONCESSIONS.

ONE OF THE ITEMS OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION WAS THE DESIGN OF A SOLAR ARRAY THAT IS PLANNED FOR THIS SITE.

THERE ARE SOME CODE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SCREENING AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING THAT AREA AND ALSO ENHANCING THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING AS IT RETURNS AROUND THE FACADE TO MAURER. SO THOSE DESIGN ISSUES WILL BE WORKED OUT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT AND ARE PRETTY MINOR IN EFFECT.

THE RESTROOM AND MECHANICAL BUILDINGS, STONE, WOOD, BLOCK, KIND OF BUILDING MATERIALS THROUGHOUT THE FACILITY, AND STAFF IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.

ANYTHING FROM THE APPLICANT? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

LOGAN WAGLER, PARKS RECREATION DIRECTOR. I'VE GOT WITH US.

ME ALSO REPRESENTATIVE FROM SFS ARCHITECTURE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. SCOTT AND HIS TEAM, I THINK, DID A GREAT JOB OF JUST OVERVIEW THE PROJECT, AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY HAPPY WITH THE PUBLIC INPUT WE RECEIVED THROUGH A VERY ROBUST PROCESS AND VERY HAPPY WITH HOW THINGS ARE SHAKING OUT.

SO WE'RE REALLY JUST STAND FOR QUESTIONS IF THE COUNCIL HAS ANY.

OKAY, BILL. YEAH, VERY NICE JOB. I REMEMBER FROM THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS THERE WERE 2 OR 3 THEMES. DID YOU SETTLE ON ONE? YEAH. THIS THE ONE YOU'RE SEEING TONIGHT IS THE ONE WE SETTLED ON.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN THEMES? NO, THERE WAS ONE I REMEMBER WAS LIKE ASTRONAUTS OR SPACE.

OH, THAT'S CELESTIAL VERSUS BEACH. THE WHAT? CELESTIAL VERSUS BEACH.

YEAH. DID YOU FIND, SETTLE ON ONE? YEAH. IT WAS THAT.

AND IT WASN'T NECESSARILY A THEME FOR THE POOL. IT WAS KIND OF A MORE OF A DESIGN MOTIF, KIND OF HOW WE'D PULL MATERIALS AND COLORS INTO THE DESIGN PALETTE.

AND ALISON, DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? SHE'S SHAKING HER HEAD, SO THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

SO. AND WHAT DID YOU SETTLE ON? I CAUGHT KIND OF A SPACE MOTIF.

YEAH. KIND OF WITH THAT AD ASTRA AND CHRISTA MCAULIFFE AND EVERYONE KIND OF PLAYED RIGHT INTO THAT.

SO. YEAH. VERY GOOD. NICE JOB. THANK YOU, JOHN.

OVERALL REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. I THINK IT'S AWESOME THAT WE'RE REINVESTING IN OUR PARKS, ESPECIALLY OUR AQUATIC FACILITIES, SINCE THERE'S LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES FURTHER WEST AS WE GO.

DID HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW DURING PLANNING COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER WAGNER RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THERE. AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF A RAISED LIKE A ROAD TABLE.

AT WHAT STAGE IN THE DESIGN PROCESS IS THAT GOING TO BE KIND OF DECIDED UPON? THE ROAD TABLE IS IN THE DESIGN CURRENTLY, SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY PART OF IT.

AND I THINK WE'VE GOT A GREAT PLAN TO NOT ONLY SERVE THE POOL AND THE PARK, BUT ALSO CREATE A BETTER ATMOSPHERE FOR A DROP OFF AND PICKUP FOR ALL THE SCHOOL FAMILIES.

SO AWESOME. GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU BILL. WELL, JOHN CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WHEN HE SAID LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES FOR AQUATICS OUT WEST REMIND ME OF OUR PARKS AND REC MASTER PLAN FOR AQUATICS.

YEAH, SO KIND OF YEAH. THE BIGGEST PRIORITY IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY AROUND AQUATICS FOR A MASTER PLAN WAS A SPLASH PAD.

AND SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING THAT AT ONE OF OUR FUTURE PARKS OUT IN WESTERN LENEXA, EITHER CENTENNIAL OR THE 60 OR SOME LOCATION LIKE THAT.

SO THAT STILL HAS TO BE SHAKEN OUT, EXPLORED EXACT LOCATION.

BUT WE HOPE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

THANKS, CRAIG. EITHER LOGAN OR SCOTT, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN? THERE YOU GO. EITHER ONE OF THOSE. IT'S IT SEEMS A LITTLE ODD TO ME THAT THE DRIVEWAY COMING FROM THE POOL ONTO MAURER

[00:20:03]

DOES NOT LINE UP WITH 82ND TERRACE VERY WELL.

AND THAT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE A KIND OF JUST AWKWARD INTERSECTION.

I WOULD JUST SAY IT MAY BE AN OPTICAL ILLUSION OR THE WAY THIS WAS GRAPHICALLY PUT INTO GIS.

THIS IS MORE AN EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PUT THIS AGAINST A GIS IMAGE.

SO, I THINK IN THE REAL WORLD IT'S IT WILL LINE UP.

OH, OKAY. YEAH. IT LEVERAGES THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AS WELL.

SO, WHICH I THINK I WAS TRYING TO JOG MY MEMORY, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE THINGS MARRY UP REALLY WELL.

YEAH. MELANIE. LOGAN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT IMAGE OR THE SLIDE WITH THE LANDSCAPING? RIGHT THERE. YEAH. SO, WITH HAVING TO SHRINK THE PARKING LOT, ARE ANY EXISTING TREES GOING TO HAVE TO BE REMOVED? THERE'LL BE A FEW.

THEY'LL ABSOLUTELY GET REMOVED BECAUSE OF THIS, BUT WE'LL BE ADDING ADDITIONAL TREES.

MORE TREES THAN EXIST TODAY. AND MOST OF THE TREES, ACTUALLY, THAT THAT ARE IN THAT PARKING LOT ARE ABOVE THAT PARKING LOT ARE ASH TREES.

SO. OH YEAH. OKAY. SO YEAH, THAT'LL BREAK OUR HEARTS THEN BREAK OUR HEART TO TAKE THOSE DOWN.

SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. THAT'S VERY GOOD TO KNOW.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? THE LET'S CALL IT THE TOP RIGHT QUADRANT OF THIS, WHERE IT'S SOME OF SOME OF THE PARKING WAS REMOVED.

JUST KIND OF APPEARS TO BE AN OPEN SPACE FOR NOW.

WOULD THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL PROGRAM WE IMAGINE HERE LATER? I HOPE SO, IT CERTAINLY GIVES US A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROGRAM THAT SPACE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY GARDENS, EXPANDING OUR COMMUNITY GARDEN EFFORTS INTO THIS PARK.

THAT'S THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. BEYOND THAT, IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE SOME SORT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO DO SOMETHING IN THAT AREA. BUT IT DOES OPEN UP A LOT OF GREAT GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS VERY VALUABLE IN THIS AREA. OKAY, OKAY.

WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAN FOR AD ASTRA PARK LOCATED AT 8265 MAURER ROAD.

MOTION BY CHELSEA, SECOND BY MARK. I THINK IT WAS ALL IN FAVOR.

MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER TEN IS AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FIVE YEAR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP FOR REAL CHURCH LOCATED

[10. Ordinance approving a five-year special use permit for a church/place of worship for Real Church located at 15602-15618 College Boulevard in the BP-1, Planned Business District]

AT 15602 COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN THE BP ONE PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT.

SCOTT. THANK YOU. MAYOR. ITEM TEN IS A IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM REAL CHURCH AT THE NOTED ADDRESS HERE.

IT'S LOCATED WEST OF LACKMAN ROAD AND JUST EAST OF LAKE VIEW AVENUE.

IT'S THERE. IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT THEY ARE TAKING UP 18,000FT² OF THE CLOSE TO 30 JUST OVER 38,000 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT BUILDING HERE. YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BUILDING.

IT'S THE BOX NOTED IN RED HERE IS THE LOCATION THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO LOCATE IN.

IT'S ZONED BP ONE, WHICH DOES REQUIRE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP.

AND IT'S IDENTIFIED AS BUSINESS PARK IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS A FLOOR PLAN, KIND OF A SKETCH, MORE OR LESS, OF THE WORK THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO BUILDING PERMIT WISE TO ESTABLISH THE CHURCH RENOVATED THE SPACE INTO A CHURCH. IT'S CURRENTLY A BUSINESS.

THE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE WOULD BE 150, IN A 200 SEAT SANCTUARY.

TYPICAL SUNDAY SERVICE FROM 10 TO 1130, WITH CHILD CARE AVAILABLE WITH THAT SERVICE AND TYPICAL KIND OF YOUTH GATHERINGS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.

NOTED HERE, STARTING OUT AT MONDAY EVENINGS. SCOTT, WOULD YOU PAUSE THERE FOR A SECOND? THAT 6000FT² SAYS 480 PEOPLE. I AM. IN THE HANDWRITING BELOW THE IMAGE.

I DO SEE THAT WE MAY HAVE THE APPLICANT CLARIFY THAT.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHO SKETCHES THESE WERE.

WE'VE GOT A HAND BEHIND YOU. I'M THE APPLICANT.

YES. COME ON UP. I'M DANNY SLAVENS. I'M THE PASTOR OF REAL CHURCH FOUNDER AS WELL.

WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IN LENEXA FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, JUST UP THE STREET, SO.

WE OUTGREW OUR SPACE, NEEDED MORE PARKING, NEEDED MORE CHAIRS AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO FIT INTO OUR BUILDING.

SO, THIS WAS THE BASED OFF OF A GUESSTIMATE ON WHAT A PROJECTED OCCUPANCY WOULD BE FOR THAT SPACE.

SO, OUR CURRENT CHURCH IS ABOUT 150 PEOPLE. THEY BELIEVE THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT WILL PROBABLY APPROVE BETWEEN 480 AND 50 FOR THAT SPACE.

SO THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT OCCUPANCY RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S JUST A PROJECTION BASED OFF THE SPACE THAT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR OUR SANCTUARY. SO OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU BET. YES. THAT'S WILL BE A FUNCTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DESIGN.

OCCUPANT LOAD AT THE RIGHT TIME. GOOD CATCH MAYOR.

AS YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT LEAST 13 CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING OUR SPECIAL USE PERMITS.

[00:25:04]

AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, WE LOOKED AT THE EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES AND SORT OF PARKING IMPACTS.

AND SO THIS EXHIBIT IDENTIFIES THE PROPOSAL HERE.

THERE ARE 67. THAT'S REALLY ONE FOR EVERY THREE SEATS IN A CHURCH REQUIRED.

SO 67 PARKING SPACES ARE IS REQUIRED. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 148 PROPOSED.

THEY DO HAVE 110 ON SITE AND THEN 38 VIA PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THIS YELLOW BOXED IN AREA ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY.

AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT PARKING WITH THE PROJECTED ATTENDANCE IS GOING TO BE SATISFIED.

WELL WITH THE CODE AND FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

AND WITH THAT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS WITH NO CONDITIONS. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION? OTHER THAN THANK YOU GUYS DESPITE THE WEATHER.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR HAVING THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

WE WERE VICTIM OF THE BLIZZARD PRIOR. SO WE LOST 30 DAYS OF BUILDING LAST TIME.

BUT YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB WITH THE CITY IS HELPING US MAKE THAT UP, SO WE APPRECIATE IT. I'M A LENEXA RESIDENT.

LOVE THE CITY, LOVE WHAT WE DO IN THE COMMUNITY AND LOOK FORWARD TO GIVING BACK. SO, THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR SCOTT OR APPLICANT, MARK? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION. ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND JUST TAKING SOME OF THIS? IS THAT CORRECT? NO, IT'S BEEN CONDOMINIUM. AND SO WE OWNED THE WEST HALF OF THE 18,000 SQUARE FOOT.

SO IT'S CURRENTLY NOW DUAL OWNED THAT PROPERTY.

AND SO WE OWN THE CONDOMINIUM ON THE WEST HALF.

AND THEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL ON THE EAST SIDE.

SO THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. OTHER QUESTIONS.

SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIVE YEAR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE CHURCH PLACE OF WORSHIP FOR REAL CHURCH LOCATED AT 15602 COLLEGE BOULEVARD.

MOTION BY MELANIE. SECOND BY MARK. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU. ITEM 11 IS AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 41 B 23 AK, PERTAINING TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY USE

[11. Ordinance approving amendments to City Code Section 4-1-B-23-AK pertaining to the supplementary use regulations applied to certain homeless shelters operated as an accessory use to a church or place of worship]

REGULATIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN HOMELESS SHELTERS OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP.

SCOTT. THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR. THIS ITEM 11 IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE UDC.

IT'S A REQUEST MADE BY PROJECT 1020. SO, WE WILL JUMP IN AND REMIND YOU WHAT THE CURRENT CODE IS THAT THE REQUEST IS, IS BASED ON IN TERMS OF MODIFYING. SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE THREE APPROACHES TO THE LAND USE OF A HOMELESS SHELTER.

TWO OF THEM ARE RELATED TO A CHURCH. AND ONE OF THEM COULD BE RELATED TO A CHURCH BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.

AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A MOMENT. BUT AS THEY RELATE TO CHURCHES, THERE ARE TWO TIERS OF SIZES LIMITS TO OCCUPANCY, IF YOU WOULD. THE FIRST IS THAT ANY CHURCH, AT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR CAN HOUSE UP TO TEN UNHOUSED GUESTS.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO EMPLOYEES OR VOLUNTEERS DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS, AND THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT MEETS BUILDING AND FIRE CODES FOR THEIR SHELTER. SO THE CHURCH HAS THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THE SHELTER SERVING UP TO TEN GUESTS WOULD HAVE THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

THAT'S FOR ANY CHURCH YEAR ROUND. DURING COLD WEATHER MONTHS OR FROM NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL 1ST.

CHURCHES THAT MEET CERTAIN OTHER CRITERIA ARE ALLOWED TO HOUSE UP TO 30 GUESTS, AND THOSE CRITERIA ARE THAT IT HAS TO BE 30,000FT² IN SIZE.

IT HAS TO BE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR HAVE RELIABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION.

THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN STAFFING LEVELS, AS IDENTIFIED HERE FOR 30 GUESTS.

THAT'S EQUAL TO FOUR EMPLOYEES OR VOLUNTEERS.

AND THEY TWO HAVE TO SECURE A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND MEET ALL THE CODES CURRENTLY WITH THE CHURCHES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED THROUGH EITHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR BY RIGHT. THERE ARE EIGHT SUCH CHURCHES THAT MEET THOSE CRITERIA FOR SIZE ACCESS POTENTIAL FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.

THIS IS HOW THE CODE IDENTIFIES WHETHER CHURCHES ARE ESTABLISHED VIA SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR PERMITTED OUTRIGHT WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. YOUR VERY LAST ITEM WAS A CHURCH THAT WAS ESTABLISHED VIA A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE IT FELL IN THE BP ONE ZONING DISTRICT, AND SO THAT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IF YOU'RE IN R1 OR RP ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, BUT YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND THOSE ISSUES.

[00:30:06]

THE THIRD LEVEL OF SHELTERING IS WHEN YOU DON'T MEET THOSE CRITERIA IF YOU'RE A CHURCH.

SO, IF YOU'RE A CHURCH IN CP TWO, 3 OR 4, BUT YOU'RE EXCEED THE 30 LIMITS OR CAN'T MEET OTHER THINGS, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF YOU EXIST IN CP TWO, 3 OR 4, OR IF YOU'RE NOT A CHURCH AND YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH AS A SHELTER, WHICH WAS THE LA QUINTA EXAMPLE, AND YOU'RE IN CP TWO, CP THREE OR CP FOUR, YOU CAN REQUEST A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

SO THAT JUST LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR WHAT THE CURRENT CODE HAS AS OPPORTUNITIES TO ESTABLISH A HOMELESS SHELTER, EITHER AS ACCESSORY TO A CHURCH OR OTHERWISE TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON, IN TERMS OF GAINING THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SHELTER, YOU AGAIN MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN AN APPROVED CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP.

WE DO THAT THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS, AND WE GRANT THE CHURCH, AFTER BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REVIEW ITS OWN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

AFTER THAT, A SHELTER WOULD SUBMIT FOR ITS OWN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AND WE WILL LOOK AT ALL THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES.

IT WOULD BE VERY SITE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT MIGHT BE INADEQUATE TO BE ABLE TO COME UP TO US, BUT IT COULD BE IT COULD INCLUDE THINGS SUCH AS EXITING SPRINKLERS, BATH FACILITIES, THINGS ON THIS LIST AND A WHOLE LOT MORE.

SO IT'S THE ENTIRE CODE. SO TURNING TO THE REQUEST ITSELF MID TO LATE LAST YEAR, PROJECT 1020 SUBMITTED A LETTER REQUEST TO THE CITY ASKING THAT WE DO THESE TWO THINGS TO THIS EXISTING CODE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

ONE IS INCREASE THE LIMITATION OF OCCUPANCY FROM 30 TO 50 GUESTS.

AND THE SECOND IS IF IT GETS TO 50 PROVIDE A STAFFING LEVEL THAT KEEPS IT AT AND WELL, WE ENDED UP ON FOUR HERE, BUT IT WAS TO MODIFY TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROWING OCCUPANCY.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A NON-EXCLUSIVE LIST OF ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH THIS APPLICATION.

THIS REQUEST IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR MOST OF OUR CODE AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST IS THAT IT IS APPLIED CITYWIDE. WE THINK A LOT ABOUT PROJECT 1020.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT BRING THE REQUEST FORWARD.

BUT THIS WILL BE APPLIED CITYWIDE IN TERMS OF ITS APPLICABILITY.

ALSO JUST RIGHTSIZING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY TO MAINTAIN ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN EACH OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE ONE IS KIND OF THE PREDOMINANT ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE FIND CHURCHES IN, THAT WE DO HAVE A HANDFUL OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LIKE YOU JUST SAW.

ENSURING THAT THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY REMAINS SMALL ENOUGH TO BE ACCESSORY TO THE CHURCH AND NOT A PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE ISSUE, THE CONCEPT THAT THE UNHOUSED IS A REGIONAL ISSUE AND THAT LENEXA WITH ITS CODE, ONE OF TWO THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY THAT ACCOMMODATES HOMELESS SHELTERS THAT WERE NOT TO THE POINT OF ACCOMMODATING ALL OF THE SERVICES REQUIRED TO HOUSE THE UNHOUSED, MAINTAINING THE REQUIREMENT TO MEET BUILDING AND FIRE CODES IN THE CODE.

AND WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLYING WITH AN OCCUPANCY LIMIT.

EARLIER THIS YEAR IN YOUR COUNCIL MEETING, I DID ADVISE THAT PROJECT 1020 IS HAVING TROUBLE MEETING THEIR OCCUPANCY LIMIT AND MEETING THE CODE IN THOSE TERMS. WE BELIEVE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT ANY ESTABLISHED HOMELESS SHELTER COMPLY WITH OUR OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, SITUATIONAL AWARENESS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, POLICE AND FIRE NEED TO KNOW THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF WHAT THEY'RE WALKING INTO SHOULD AN EMERGENCY HAPPEN. BALANCING THE IMPACTS FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IS A KEY LAND USE QUESTION IN JUST ABOUT ANY CODE AMENDMENT, BUT THESE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF LAND USES.

HOW ARE WE MITIGATING AND BALANCING THOSE IMPACTS, AND ALSO COMPLYING WITH LIMITS TO COMPEL OTHERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS REGIONAL ISSUE OF PROVIDING SERVICES FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNHOUSED? THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU IS SUPPORTED BY STAFF, AND THESE ARE SOME OF OUR REASONS FOR DOING SO.

WE BELIEVE THAT INCREASING FROM 30 TO 50 FOR CHURCHES AS AN ACCESSORY USE IS STILL WITHIN THAT BALANCE OF IMPACTS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE AND MITIGATING IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

[00:35:02]

BUT IT'S PROBABLY AT THE UPPER LIMIT. AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SHARED WITH PROJECT 1020 IN SOME DISCUSSIONS IS THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO GET PAST THIS ANALYSIS AND SAY THAT WE'RE STILL BALANCING THE IMPACTS OF 50.

STAYING OVERNIGHT, IMPACT OF A SHELTER IN ANY ONE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THESE CHURCHES LIE IN.

WE BELIEVE THAT ADDITIONAL 20 OCCUPANTS CAN BE SERVED WITH THE WITH THE CURRENT RESOURCES WE HAVE.

AND SO BECAUSE, FRANKLY, PROJECT 1020 HASN'T BEEN MEETING THEIR VIOLATIONS, IT'S ACTUALLY GIVEN US A LITTLE BIT OF VIEW INTO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OPERATIONALLY.

FOR OUR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. AND SO WE WE DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL RESPONDERS FOR THAT.

THE REQUEST PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE OUR SOMEWHAT CLUNKY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS OF THE CODE TODAY.

WE CAN GO AND ENFORCE. IT'S A LITTLE INEFFICIENT.

WE WOULD ENJOY THE ABILITY TO HAVE A STREAMLINED, MORE IMPACTFUL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN THE CODE.

THIS PROVIDES US THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND WITH THAT ENFORCED ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT, WE BELIEVE ESTABLISHING 50 OCCUPANTS PROVIDES A BRIGHT LINE LIMIT KIND OF A MESSAGE TO OPERATORS. THE COUNTY OTHER CITIES THAT THIS IS THE LIMIT OF INTENSITY THAT LENEXA HAS IN ITS CODE GOING FORWARD. SO ON TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

WHAT THE ORDINANCE DOES IS, IS ESSENTIALLY 3 TO 4 THINGS.

IT RAISES OCCUPANCY FROM 30 TO 50 FOR THAT GROUP OF CHURCHES THAT ARE OF A CERTAIN SIZE AND HAVE CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA.

IT ADJUSTS STAFFING REQUIREMENTS TO ALIGN WITH OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS.

SO STAFF IS PROPOSING FOR STAFF FOR 50 OCCUPANT LOAD.

WE DO THIS OUT OF ANALYSIS MADE WITH THE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND THEIR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES FOR 50 OCCUPANTS. AND ALSO JUST IN TERMS OF SPEAKING WITH OPERATORS ABOUT THE BEHAVIORS OF THOSE STAYING OVERNIGHT AND HOW SLEEP PATTERNS AND MEAL TIME GOES, AND VARIOUS THINGS. IT ESTABLISHES THAT ENHANCED VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.

OCCUPANCY VIOLATIONS WOULD BE A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE SHELTER OPERATOR AND OR THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO THE HOST OF THE SHELTER, THE HOST CHURCH, IF YOU WOULD, WITH THE ABILITY TO REVOKE OCCUPANCY FOR UP TO ONE YEAR FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS WITHIN A 12 MONTH ROLLING PERIOD. SO NOT JUST BY SEASON, BUT A 12 MONTH ROLLING PERIOD AND EVEN LONGER REVOCATION PERIODS IF THAT FIRST REVOCATION DOESN'T WORK.

AND BUT LIKE ANY GOOD CODE, IT PROVIDES AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THOSE WHO ARE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED.

YOU MAY KNOW THAT THE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS HEARING, RECOMMENDED A STIPULATION TO RESTRICT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GUESTS ACROSS ALL ELIGIBLE CHURCHES TO THAT MEET THAT SIZE AND LOCATION CRITERIA TO 250 TOTAL CITYWIDE.

THEY ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER BY TAKING THE EIGHT CHURCHES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND MULTIPLYING THEM BY THE 30 OCCUPANT LIMIT OF TODAY TO GET TO 240. THEN, FOR GOOD MEASURE, UP TO AROUND 250.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THAT STIPULATION AND FINDS IT POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL.

SO WE CANNOT RECOMMEND TO YOU TO CARRY FORWARD WITH THAT STIPULATION.

SO WE BELIEVE YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT TO CONSIDER MOTIONS DECISIONS ARE TO OVERRIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WITH A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND DO ONE OF THESE THREE THINGS.

APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

THAT WILL TAKE SIX VOTES. DENY THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD ALSO TAKE SIX VOTES BECAUSE IT'S CONTRARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR MODIFY THE ORDINANCE DIFFERENT THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT UNLAWFUL.

THAT TAKES SIX VOTES. YOU COULD ALSO, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE OF FIVE, REMAND THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW, WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THEM TO, TO DISCUSS AND BRING BACK TO YOUR CONSIDERATION.

MAYOR, I'LL END THERE. THROW IT BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU.

SO WITH THAT BIT OF UNUSUAL NATURE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STIPULATION AND WHAT STAFF HAS EXPRESSED IN SCOTT'S PRESENTATION, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.

EACH OF YOU WHAT YOUR OPINION IS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THESE THREE POTENTIAL ACTIONS.

[00:40:08]

BEFORE WE START MAKING MOTIONS TO DO SO, GIVEN THAT WE DO NEED MAJORITY ON MOST OF THESE I WOULD START BY SAYING I DO AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S STIPULATION THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 250 HAS POTENTIAL LEGAL CONCERNS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT STRUCK IN IN ANY MOTION THAT WE MAKE.

AND WHILE REMAND IS CERTAINLY ONE OF OUR THREE OPTIONS I DO TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO REACH CONSENSUS AMONG ONE OF THE OTHER TWO COURSES OF ACTIONS TONIGHT. SIMPLY BECAUSE DELAYING THIS POTENTIALLY WOULD NOT CHANGE THE RESULTS.

AND WE CAN REMOVE THE 250 STIPULATION IN EITHER ONE OF OUR OTHER TWO ACTIONS TONIGHT.

SO WITH THAT, OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. CHRIS, YOU WANT TO START WITH YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OF THE OPTIONS. CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO REMAND IT, SO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN. WHICH I GUESS IS ONE A AND I AND I SUPPORT THAT WE, WE CHANGE THE, THE ORDINANCE. FOR ONE, I THINK IT FITS IN OUR VISION AND VALUES YOU KNOW, ACROSS ALL THE COMMUNITIES I BELIEVE TEN, 20 DOES HAVE THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE THE 50.

AND, YOU KNOW, SCOTT'S PRESENTATION AND YOU KNOW, INSIGHT INTO, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, THE VIOLATIONS.

AND SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO, TO GUESS ABOUT.

AND. CHECKING OUT MY NOTES HERE. YOU KNOW, AND I THINK ALSO AND, YOU KNOW, NOT A TECHNICAL COOL PART OF THIS REVIEW, BUT OUR COMMUNITY CARES ABOUT THE LESS FORTUNATE.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE. AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU LEAD, YOU'RE BY YOURSELF.

BUT YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT, AND WHAT'S RIGHT IS TAKING CARE OF OUR PEOPLE.

AND SO WE HAVE TO MEET THIS BASIC NEED. I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT THIS SHOULDN'T JUST BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE CAN PERHAPS GIVE COURAGE TO OTHER FOLKS TO STEP UP AND DO THEIR PART AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CRAIG. I LISTENED TO THE AUDIO RECORDING OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AND I CAME AWAY WITH THE SENSE THAT THE COMMISSION STRUGGLED A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS ISSUE.

AND WE HAD FIVE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, BUT WE WERE MISSING TWO OF OUR, I THINK, MORE SENIOR COMMISSIONERS THAN I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS AS WELL.

THEY HAVE SERVED FOR MANY YEARS. SO, I'M A LITTLE BIT TORN.

I THINK I SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, BUT I WOULD ALSO CONSIDER REMANDING TO GET THE ADDITIONAL OPINIONS OF OUR SENIOR COMMISSIONERS.

I THINK THE OUTCOME WILL LIKELY BE THE SAME, BUT WE ARE WORKING ON AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE FROM THIS POINT NEAR THE END OF MARCH, MIDDLE TO END OF END OF MARCH AND THEN BY APRIL 1ST IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL.

SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE APPLICABLE NEXT YEAR.

SO I'M SOMEWHERE IN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU, CRAIG.

CHELSEA. PLEASE ALSO FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

OKAY. WELL, I AGREE THAT THE STIPULATION OF 250 WAS VERY ARBITRARY, AND I DO HAD I HAD MY OWN CONCERNS.

WHEN I SAW THAT, THAT WE COULD BE SETTING THE CITY UP FOR SOME LEGAL LIABILITY, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS RESTRICTIONS.

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN REMANDING. I WOULD PREFER TO OVERRIDE WITH THAT THE STIPULATION, PARTICULARLY. AND APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE STAFF.

[00:45:06]

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INCREASE OF 20 BEDS.

OUR POLICE AND FIRE AND SAFETY HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THAT IS EASILY ABSORBED.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, HOMELESSNESS IS GETTING WORSE.

PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS. FOOD PRICES ARE HIGHER.

HOUSING COSTS ARE HIGHER. AND I AGREE WITH, WITH CHRIS THAT LENEXA SHOULD BE A LEADER.

THIS IS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND THE HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN SCOTT SAID THE STANDARD IS, YOU KNOW, IS THE INCREASING NUMBER, IS IT BALANCING THE NEED TO NEED TO SERVE WITHOUT MITIGATING ANY IMPACTS WITH SURROUNDING USES IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES. AND I BELIEVE IN MY OPINION, THAT'S A NO BRAINER.

SO THANK YOU. SCOTT, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT AND I'M SURE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT REMIND ME, WHY DIDN'T WE APPROVE AN OCCUPANCY RATE OF 50 FROM THE START? MY RECOLLECTION, COUNCIL MEMBER, IS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD PROPOSED AN OCCUPANCY LIMIT IN LINE WITH USES OF THE CODE THAT WENT TO TEN OR GROUP HOMES, HAVE A LIMIT OF TEN OF OCCUPANCY, AND THAT'S MOSTLY RELATED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.

SO AS YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH, WE HAVE A CODE, LIKE MANY CITIES THAT REQUIRES THAT ALLOWS UP TO FOUR UNRELATED PEOPLE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS.

ONE OF THEM IS A GROUP HOME, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO TEN, AND THEN FROM THERE, THE NEXT LEVEL OF SHELTERING OR HOUSING IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WOULD BE A HOMELESS SHELTER. AND SO WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT CLOSER TO THE OTHER USES OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

AND SO WE WENT FROM 10 TO 30 IN THAT TIME FRAME OF LOOKING AT THAT CODE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, SEAN OR BECKY, IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANY, ANY MORE TO THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. I THINK THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS JUST THIS IDEA OF WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BE HOUSED AND WHILE STILL REMAINING CLEARLY ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY USE OF THE CHURCH.

AND AT THAT TIME IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE HAD ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS AGREEMENT AS A RESULT OF LITIGATION THAT WHERE THE PARTIES HAD AGREED ON 30 AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT THAT WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH AT THAT TIME.

AND I THINK THAT, AS SCOTT HAS INDICATED, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SINCE THAT TIME, THIS THIS HAS BEEN IN OPERATION, AND WE'VE LEARNED MORE ABOUT IT AND SEEN MORE ABOUT THE CAPABILITY OF THE OPERATION AND WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE.

AND I THINK TODAY, AS STAFF, WE THINK THAT 50 IS ALSO A REASONABLE ACCESSORY TO THE CHURCH.

BUT AS SCOTT INDICATED IN HIS PRESENTATION, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S CERTAINLY AT THE TOP LIMIT OF THAT.

WE WOULDN'T SUPPORT GOING HIGHER THAN THAT, BECAUSE THEN I THINK YOU RISK GETTING OUT OF BALANCE BETWEEN THE PRIMARY USE OF THE CHURCH AND THE ACCESSORY OF THE SHELTER.

OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. WITH THAT I, I ALSO I'M ALSO LEANING TOWARDS APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THAT OCCUPANCY LIMIT, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN THE CODE TO ADDRESS VIOLATIONS.

I DO AGREE WITH THAT. AND I ALSO WANTED TO JUST ADD THIS THOUGHT THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE ENERGY IN THE CONVERSATION SO FAR FROM MY PEERS. WE WERE RIGHTLY FRUSTRATED THAT AFTER WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR, WE DON'T HAVE MORE SUPPORT FROM OTHER CITIES IN THE COUNTY TAKING ON THIS ISSUE.

AND WE HOPE THAT THIS IS A CONTINUING CONVERSATION AND AN INVITATION FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES TO ALSO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT MY PEERS HAVE TO SAY SO FAR IN THE CITY SUPPORTING THIS OCCUPATION OR OCCUPANCY LIMIT AMENDMENT.

I RECENTLY WENT TO VISIT A PROJECT 1020 AND I GOT TO SAY I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY THAT THE

[00:50:02]

SHELTER IS RAN. THE, THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, NOT JUST VOLUNTEERS, BUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS TOO, THAT I GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO. I HAD A WONDERFUL CONVERSATION WITH A COUPLE OF GENTLEMEN THERE.

THEIR NAMES WERE BRIAN AND DAVE. AND I THINK I JUST, IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND, I REALLY JUST WANT TO SHARE THIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT STOOD OUT TO ME WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH BRIAN.

HE SAID THAT HE JUST FELT SO OVERWHELMED WITH COMPASSION BY THE VOLUNTEERS FROM PROJECT 1020 THAT HE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE DAY THAT HE CAN PAY IT FORWARD.

AND THAT REALLY WAS VERY TOUCHING TO HEAR. I JUST IMAGINE HOW MANY OTHER BRIANS WILL COME IN AS A RESULT OF THIS CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY, AND ALSO FEEL INSPIRED WITH PURPOSE TO MAKE A CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND THIS CONVERSATION REMINDED ME OF VISION 2040, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT OUR GOAL TO CREATE SPACES THAT CAN IMPROVE PEOPLE'S MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH. PROJECT 1020 ACHIEVES THAT. BECAUSE IT GIVES PEOPLE THIS SENSE OF MEANING AND COMMUNITY AND BELONGING AND PURPOSE, AND I JUST GENUINELY APPRECIATE THEIR MISSION AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE HERE IN LENEXA.

ALSO, THE FACT THAT THIS IS IMPACTING RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN LENEXA, WHO VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME AT THE SHELTER, THEY ALSO FEEL THIS SENSE OF MEANING AND BELONGING IN COMMUNITY WITH THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WORK WITH.

AND SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES SO FAR WHO ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT AND TO THE CITY FOR SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SWING ON DOWN TO JOHN. THANK YOU.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO STAFF ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT CAME UP THROUGH A LOT OF THE EMAIL INPUT THAT WE GOT FROM RESIDENTS.

AND I THINK SAFETY WAS CHIEF AMONG THOSE CONCERNS, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RESOURCES ARE ALREADY WITHIN LENEXA FOR US TO HANDLE THE CASE LOAD THAT PROJECT 1020 HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATING, I THINK BRINGS ME A LOT OF COMFORT.

I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ANY OF THE CITY STAFF, HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER CHURCHES REACHED OUT IN THE INTERIM EXPRESSING INTEREST IN ONE OF THESE SUPS? NO, NO, WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT I CAN THINK OF.

NO. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK I GUESS FIRSTLY, AS FAR AS REMANDING I DON'T SEE A NEED OR A BENEFIT TO IT. I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE BEING PUT INTO PLACE, AND I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT OF THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE, THEY HAD THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEEDED, AND THEY FOLLOWED THE GOLDEN CRITERIA TO THE LETTER.

SO, YOU KNOW, REMANDING IS JUST NOT IN MY TABLE.

HEARING THAT A LOT OF THE CONCERNS OR AT LEAST UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS AND SEEING HOW THE CITY HAS WORKED TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE COVERED.

I THINK WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO THINGS. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

OTHERWISE, THE SHELTER WOULDN'T BE OPERATING PAST CAPACITY.

THE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED AS WELL. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE WE NEED STRONGER ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER WE'RE REWARDING BASICALLY EXCEEDING THE EXISTING LIMIT BY CHANGING THE LIMIT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY THE QUESTION.

IT'S WHETHER THE EXISTING CODE LIMIT SERVES A PURPOSE.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE PROJECT 1020 HAS SERVED OVER 30 PEOPLE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO AND THE COMMUNITY WAS STILL ABLE TO HANDLE THAT LEVEL OF NEED.

TO ME SAYS THIS CHANGE IS PRETTY REASONABLE. AND I WOULD GENERALLY SUPPORT OVERRIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

THANK YOU. COURT. I THINK I SECOND WHAT JOHN JUST SAID.

I DON'T FIND REMANDING THE ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE TIMELY OR NECESSARY AT THIS RATE, I WOULD RATHER SEE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HOW WE GOT HERE INITIALLY WITH THE LIMITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE UDC BECAUSE.

[00:55:04]

THREE OF US, I THINK, WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE HERE AT THAT TIME BRING A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE WHEN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE TAKING PLACE, THIS WAS A COMPLETELY NEW REALM FOR THE CITY TO DIVE INTO.

OBVIOUSLY COMPELLED TO DO THAT. AND WE WERE CAUTIOUS IN MAKING THOSE CHOICES AND THOSE DECISIONS, NOT KNOWING WHAT IT WOULD REALLY LOOK LIKE. AND HERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, SIX YEARS LATER.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE SEEN THINGS PUT INTO PLACE FROM PROJECT 1020 THAT WEREN'T NECESSARILY FOR CODE LIKE A FULL TIME SECURITY GUARD THAT'S THERE.

THINGS THAT TO STEP UP THEIR OPERATIONS TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY BETTER.

AND WITH THAT COMES WITH THAT GROWTH ALSO COMES THE CHOICE FOR US TO OPEN UP THE UDC TO ACCOMMODATE BECAUSE IT IS WORKING FOR ME. I RECENTLY VISITED ALSO PROJECT IN 20, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, AND THE SETUP THAT THEY HAVE THERE IS INCREDIBLE COMPARED TO SOME OF THE TOURS THAT WE WENT ON FOR THE SOME OF THE OTHER HOMELESS SHELTERS IN THE CITY.

THE CLEANLINESS, THE PEOPLE WERE INCREDIBLE. THE WAY THAT IT WAS RAN WAS STRUCTURED AND SAFE.

AND THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT IT THAT MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR THAT ANYBODY ELSE THERE MADE THEM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.

THE EMAILS THAT I'VE BEEN GETTING THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS HAVE BEEN ACTION ALERTS FROM THE SAME.

SOMEONE HAS PUT OUT, YOU KNOW, A BLANKET EMAIL THAT IS FULL OF MISINFORMATION.

AND MOST OF THEM ARE COMING FROM NON-LENEXA RESIDENTS.

SO BASED ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND. BASED ON THE EMAILS THAT I RECEIVED FROM OUR RESIDENTS I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

MARK SCOTT, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S TWO OTHER ONE.

WE'RE ONE OF TWO, AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER JURISDICTION THAT HAS SOME SORT OF ORDINANCE IN THERE UDC CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT AND WHAT THE WHAT THEIR STIPULATIONS OR WHAT THEIR ORDINANCE IS ABOUT? I CAN'T SPEAK TO DETAILS OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT I BELIEVE SHAWNEE ACCOMMODATES SHELTERS IN THEIR CODE.

I BELIEVE THEY DID SO RIGHT AFTER, AND THAT WAS RIGHT AFTER OURS.

THE CITY OF LENEXA DID IT. YEAH. IS IT LIKE, IS IT YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN THE 30 OR IS IT A TEN OR YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? I'M SORRY. I WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT.

OKAY. WELL, I. YOU KNOW, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHO ALL CAME OUT IN SUPPORT AND DEFENSE OF THIS. AND, AND I GOT A DIFFERENT SENSE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, AND I THINK THAT THEY WERE HAVING DIFFICULTY APPROVING IT. AND THEN THE 250 STIPULATION GOT THEM A WAY TO THEN KIND OF ADVANCE IT.

I'M MORE LEANING TOWARDS THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO REMAND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GET SOME MORE FOLKS OPINIONS.

GET THEM ON BOARD. I'M MORE OF THE MINDSET. YOU KNOW, I VISITED PROJECT 1020, AND IT'S BEING RUN FABULOUSLY AND JUST TO SEE THE ONES THAT CAME OUT IN SUPPORT AND BARB'S HUSBAND COME OUT AND SUPPORT LAST, LAST PLANNING COMMISSION WAS JUST ADMIRABLE OF HOW PROUD HE IS OF HIS WIFE AND WHAT SHE'S DOING AND ALL THE VOLUNTEERS OF THE PROGRAM.

BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT SENSE OF, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE REST OF OUR CITY AS A WHOLE, AND I WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT WE'RE RACING THROUGH THIS.

AND I LIKED CRAIG'S IDEA OF REMANDING IT TO THE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET SOME OTHER THEIR VIEWPOINT.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO I'VE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BUT I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THIS, BUT DO SOME SORT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ORGANIZATION TO GO FROM 30 TO 50 SO THAT IT'S NOT A BLANKET.

EVERYBODY CAN JUST GO TO 50 RIGHT OUT OF THE RIGHT OUT OF THE CHUTE.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER CHURCHES IN AND AROUND HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THEIR ZONING AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.

BUT I'D LIKE TO INVESTIGATE THAT, AND I HOPE THAT THIS CAN GO BACK TO THE REMAND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND MAYBE HAVE SOME MORE INVESTIGATION ON THAT.

[01:00:03]

I JUST I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT AT 30 IF THIS CAN'T GO BACK TO.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REMANDING. MAYOR IF I COULD, COUNCILMEMBER I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THE CONCEPT OF REQUIRING SOME ADDITIONAL REVIEW, WHETHER THAT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR SOMETHING TO GO FROM 30 TO 50.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL SUBJECTIVITY IN THE TO THAT PROCESS, GIVEN THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE LAW THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

HAVING SAID THAT, IF IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL THAT THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT, WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE THAT FURTHER. BUT I WOULD DEFINITELY TELL YOU THAT SHOULD TAKE A REMAND OR PERHAPS YOU SHOULD VOTE THIS DOWN AND GIVE US DIRECTION TO BRING A NEW ORDINANCE BACK, BECAUSE THAT'S PRETTY FAR REMOVED FROM WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO RUSH THAT THROUGH. SO I WOULD TELL YOU, I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT CHANGE HERE TONIGHT.

BUT IF IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL THAT YOU WANT US TO LOOK INTO THAT WE COULD DO THAT.

OKAY. YEAH. JOHN. YEAH, I GUESS QUICK STAFF QUESTION.

WHAT, HOW WOULD A FACILITY LOOK DIFFERENTLY IF IT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR 30 AND THEY HAD MADE CHANGES SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT APPROVAL TO HOUSE 30 PEOPLE AND TO GET TO 50? ARE THERE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE THAT WE WOULD EXPECT A BUILDING OR A CHURCH TO HAVE TO UNDERGO? POTENTIALLY. AGAIN, WE WOULD THEY WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH A NEW OCCUPANCY LEVEL.

AND WE WOULD ASSESS IT. WE WOULD ASSESS EACH SPACE BACK SPECIFICALLY TO THAT SITE.

SO, SOME OF THE SUBJECTIVITY WOULD COME DOWN TO SPACE, SIZE LAYOUT, KIND OF ACCESS TO SOME OF THE FACILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED, LIKE SHOWERS, STUFF LIKE THAT. CORRECT NUMBER OF BATHROOM FIXTURES, EXITING FIRE SYSTEM, THAT KIND OF THING.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER IF I COULD CLARIFY, WHEN I SAY SUBJECTIVITY INTO THE PROCESS, I'M TALKING LESS ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY IN THE BUILDING CODES AND MORE ABOUT IN THE LAND USE CODES. THANK YOU. YEAH. I BORROWED A WORD FROM THE WRONG PLACE, I THINK, BUT AWESOME.

THANK YOU. OKAY. PHIL. YEAH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M MIKE. THANK YOU AND SEAN, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE AUDIO OF THE MEETING BECAUSE UNLIKE MARK, I DIDN'T GO, BUT MY SENSE OF LISTENING TO THE AUDIO OF THE MEETING WAS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REALLY DID STRUGGLE. REALLY DID STRUGGLE WITH THESE THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE, THE UDC CHANGE.

THEY REALLY DID STRUGGLE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS MAIN REASON THEY STRUGGLED WAS THIS GOING TO 50 TIMES EIGHT CHURCHES AND YOU GET 400. AND THEN AS, AS SCOTT MENTIONED TONIGHT THEY.

THEY SAID, WELL, WHAT ABOUT 30 TIMES 8 TO 40 AND THEN THEY ROUND UP TO 250 AND I THINK AND YOU KNOW, THEY THAT MEETING LASTED 90 MINUTES, 90 MINUTES AND THAT 250 IDEA CAME OUT AT THE 82ND MINUTE.

AND SO. I THINK AND EVEN STEVEN, OUR ATTORNEY, STEVEN, OUR ATTORNEY, SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME MORE STUDY THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME MORE STUDY.

AND SO I, I THINK THE SENSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS, LET'S SEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT WILL GIVE STAFF SOME TIME TO STUDY THE 250.

IS IT DEFENSIBLE? IF NOT, THEY'LL REMAND IT BACK TO US FOR STUDY.

I, I THINK WE SHOULD REMAND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF WANTED WITH THAT STIPULATION OF 250.

KNOWING THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME STUDY THAT GOES TO IT.

AND SO WE SHOULD BE ACTING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.

AND IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, THEN WE SHOULD REMAND IT BACK TO THEM FOR THEM TO STUDY IT SOME MORE.

KNOWING THAT THE 250 IS NOT GOING TO BE DEFENSIBLE.

I THINK IT'S KEY THAT STEVEN TOLD THEM. STEVEN TOLD THEM IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE STUDY.

[01:05:06]

NOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE 250 OVER IT BASED ON OUR STUDY.

I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF 30 TO 50 AGAIN.

I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THE INCREASED ENFORCEMENT.

I THINK MANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I THINK ALL OF US UP HERE THINK WE NEED INCREASED ENFORCEMENT. BUT. I THINK FOUR STRIKES IS TOO MUCH.

YOU GET THE WRITTEN, YOU GET THE WRITTEN WARNING, AND THEN YOU GET A A FINE.

THEN YOU GET ANOTHER FINE, THEN YOU GET ANOTHER FINE.

AND THAT JUST SEEMS TOO MUCH. THREE IS FINE WITH ME.

I'M OKAY WITH THE STAFFING CHANGES. ESPECIALLY SINCE SECURITY IS AUGMENTING THE STAFF AND THE VOLUNTEERS. AND IF PAID SECURITY ISN'T ON SITE, THEN I AND I THINK THE STAFFING SHOULD GO UP. I LOVE THE APPEAL PROCESS.

I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD. A JUDGE SHOULD HAVE THE SAY IN WAS THE STAFF OUT OF BOUNDS, OR WAS A SHELTER INATTENTIVE OR JUST NOT PAYING ATTENTION OR JUST, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO SERVE THESE PEOPLE.

AND THE JUDGE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT IN ALL YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR WHOLE MISSION AT RISK.

YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR WHOLE MISSION AT RISK BY NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES.

AND SO A JUDGE WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES AND DETERMINE.

SO I LIKE I LIKE THE APPEAL PROCESS. AND LIKE I SAY I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE NUMBER AT 30 GOING TO 50. WE'RE AT 66% PERCENT MORE PEOPLE, NOT ONLY TO THE SHELTER BUT TO THE ACCOMPANYING. ISSUES THAT SURROUND THE SHELTER.

WE HEARD FROM. PARDON ME. WE HEARD FROM SMITH AND LOVELACE THAT THEY'VE HAD TO HIRE EXTRA SECURITY WHILE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LA QUINTA.

I HEARD FROM A BUSINESS EAST OF NOLAN. PLEASE DON'T APPROVE LA QUINTA.

WE ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SMALL SHELTER THAT WE HAVE NOW.

WE HEARD FROM SMITH AND LOVELESS THAT THERE WAS GREAT INVESTMENT IN THE AREA, THAT IT WOULD DOUSE ENTHUSIASM FOR FURTHER INVESTMENT. AND HERE WE ARE. WE'RE PUTTING 12 MILLION INTO THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

WE'RE PUTTING 4 MILLION INTO STREET AND TRAILS SYSTEM, 2 MILLION INTO PARKING IN OLD TOWN FOR OUR RESIDENTS, FOR OUR BUSINESSES. AND I THINK THESE ACCOMPANYING ISSUES DAMPEN, DAMPEN THE USE OF ALL THOSE FACILITIES AND ALL THAT INVESTMENT.

WE GOT A LOT OF EMAILS. COURTNEY MENTIONED THAT, WE GOT A LOT OF EMAILS, WE GOT SOME PHONE CALLS.

AND FROM SOME PEOPLE THAT DO NOT EVEN LIVE IN LENEXA THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT THIS REGIONAL QUESTION.

REGIONAL QUESTION. AND WE CAN ALL GET DISTRACTED ABOUT WHY DOESN'T OVERLAND PARK DO SOMETHING AND WHY DOESN'T.

OLATHE, DIDN'T KNOW SHAWNEE HAD STEPPED UP AND WE COULD ALL GET DISTRACTED BY THAT.

BUT THOSE PHONE CALLS AND THOSE EMAILS NEED TO GO TO THOSE CITY COUNCILS AND WONDER WHY THEY AREN'T ALLOWING SOMEBODY, A NONPROFIT, A CHURCH, SOMEBODY TO TAKE THEIR 30.

WE'RE BECOMING THE MAGNET. WE'RE BECOMING AND EVERYONE WILL.

IN FACT, WE OUGHT TO ASK THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHY DON'T YOUR ORDINANCES ALLOW THIS KIND OF USE IN THE PROPERTY THAT YOU CONTROL AND THAT YOU SUPERVISE?

[01:10:01]

YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL JOHNSON COUNTIANS, WE CAN SEND THAT EMAIL, WE CAN MAKE THAT PHONE CALL.

BUT IT'S JUST WE CAN GET DISTRACTED BY ALL THAT.

BUT IT'S OTHER CITY, IT'S OTHER CHURCHES, NONPROFITS, AND THE RESIDENTS OF THOSE TOWNS TO ASK THEIR CITY COUNCILS WHY THEY DON'T HAVE ORDINANCES THAT ALLOW THIS USE, I WOULD REMAND IT, TO SUM UP, I WOULD REMAND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVE THEM LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL, BECAUSE I THINK THE 250, THE 250 GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND IT UP TO US.

EVEN WITH THE THOUGHT WE MIGHT HAVE TO STUDY IT AND THE 250 MIGHT GO AWAY.

SO, I THINK THEY SHOULD DIG INTO ALL OF IT. AND I THINK IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T REMAND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT IF YOU BREAK THE RULES LONG ENOUGH AND OFTEN ENOUGH, YOU WILL GET REWARDED.

THANK YOU. I WOULD CLOSE WITH MY THOUGHTS WHICH I'M UNABLE TO UNHINGE AS COURTNEY KIND OF KIND OF REFERENCED WITH THE LAST SIX YEARS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE STARTED IN 2019.

WE WORKED FOR TWO YEARS TO GET THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE.

WE'VE LEARNED SO MUCH ABOUT THE ONE ENTITY THAT HAS STEPPED UP TO ACTUALLY START THE PROCESS OF SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.

AND WHAT I HEARD FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WAS A LITTLE BIT OF UNFOUNDED FEAR THAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WOULD ALL OF A SUDDEN JOIN THE CONVERSATION AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE SEVEN OTHER CHURCHES.

THAT CREATED THIS POTENTIAL CAPACITY ISSUE THAT THEY WERE SCARED OF, WHICH IS WHAT I KIND OF TOOK FROM THEIR CONVERSATION WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION IS EVEN READY TO DO THAT.

WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM ANY OTHER CHURCHES, EVEN IN A SINGLE NIGHT EMERGENCY SITUATION, THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO OPEN THEIR OPEN THEIR DOORS AND START WORKING ON THIS ISSUE, AND CERTAINLY NOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO AS THE SHAWNEE MISSION UNIVERSALIST CHURCH HAS DONE, AND RAISE THE CAPITAL TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR FACILITY THAT WE REQUIRED AS A PART OF THAT ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, TO SAY, THESE AREN'T JUST BEDS FOR PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SHOWERS AND THE FIRE SAFETY AND ALL OF THAT, AND SMOOCH HAS DONE THAT. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE SORT OF COMMITTED TO THE DEAL.

AND I THINK THAT, AS OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE NOTED, THEY'VE ILLUSTRATED THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BUILD VOLUNTEERS.

THEY HAVE A NETWORK OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS FACILITY EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

THEY BRING FOOD EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, MY OWN MOTHER IN LAW TOLD ME THAT SHE HAS COOKED AND TAKEN FOOD FROM THEIR CHURCH TO SUPPORT THIS ORGANIZATION BECAUSE HER CHURCH IS LOCATED IN OLATHE AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO SUPPORT THE ONGOING NEED FOR HOUSING. SO MAYOR OFTEN DOESN'T VOTE, BUT I MIGHT TONIGHT AND SAY THAT I WOULD ALSO APPROVE WITH REMOVING THE STIPULATION OF THE 250. CORRECT.

THIS IS THE QUESTION I'LL ASK YOU, MAYOR, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED? WITHOUT THE STIPULATION? WITHOUT THE STIPULATION? NO, I WOULD ONLY APPROVE IF WE DID NOT HAVE THE 250, WHICH I AGREE WITH.

STAFF IS UNLAWFUL. IS THAT ONE A? YES. SO, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION? YES I WOULD, SO MOVE. OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON ONE A? YES, BILL. I'LL JUST SHAKE MY HEAD TO, YOU KNOW.

I HOPE, I MEAN I CAN SEE THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE TYPICAL PROCESS IS STAFF RECOMMENDS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

PLANNING COMMISSION, OLLIE, OLLIE, OXEN FREE PUBLIC HEARING.

LET'S HEAR IT. LET'S HEAR IT. LET'S HEAR IT. OKAY.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN TALKS AMONGST THEMSELVES.

AND THEY STRUGGLE JUST LIKE THEY STRUGGLED. JUST LIKE THEY STRUGGLE.

AND THEY SENT US A RECOMMENDATION. WE AREN'T.

[01:15:08]

WE AREN'T APPROVING OR DENYING THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

WE'RE. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO HEAR IT ALL AGAIN.

WE NEED TO SEND IT BACK TO THEM AND PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION.

NOW THAT WE HAVE STUDIED THE 250, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DO THAT.

BUT NO, I DON'T THINK SEVEN CHURCHES ARE GOING TO GO, LET'S GO.

LET'S START HELPING. LET'S START HELPING 10 20, WHY SHOULD THEY? WHY SHOULD THEY? I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS WORRIED ABOUT 50 THROUGHOUT LENEXA. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY LANDED ON THE 400.

THAT'S WHERE THEY LANDED ON THE 400. AND THEN AFTER A BIT OF CONVERSATION, OKAY, 30 BECAUSE THEY FOUND OUT IT'S NOT JUST FOR 1020.

1020 MADE THE APPLICATION, BUT IT'S NOT JUST FOR 1020, IT'S FOR ALL EIGHT AND CHURCHES YET TO BE FOUNDED AND REACH ALL THE 6 OR 7 CRITERIA. I'LL JUST SHAKE MY HEAD.

THANK YOU. LET ME GRAB COURTNEY FIRST. GO AHEAD.

I JUST WANT TO COMMENT A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT.

I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING IS THAT THEY WERE SO STUCK ON 250 THAT THEY WOULD WANT US TO REMAND THIS BACK TO THEM.

I'VE NEVER HEARD THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TELL ME THAT THEY WANT US TO REMAND ANYTHING BACK TO THEM.

I MEAN, TO BE HONEST AND I DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE LEGAL HAS DEEMED IT UNLAWFUL THAT OR THAT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL UNLAWFULNESS THAT IT CHANGES THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.

AND SO I THINK BY REMANDING IT, ALL WE ARE DOING IS PUSHING THIS OUT EVEN FURTHER.

AND KEEPING IT FROM HAPPENING UNTIL NEXT YEAR AND NOT GIVING THEM THE PERMIT THAT THEY NEED.

WHILE IT'S -15 DEGREES OUTSIDE AND GETTING PEOPLE A PLACE TO STAY UNDER THE CURRENT UDC OR UNDER THE NEW UDC SO THAT THEY CAN INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY.

I HEARD FROM CHELSEA FIRST. YOU KIND OF TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.

IT'S FIVE DEGREES OUT. IT'S ONE OF THE COLDEST DAYS OF THE YEAR.

THIS IS A WARMING SHELTER THAT STAYS OPEN FOUR MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR.

I'M JUST WONDERING HOW MANY PEOPLE RUSHED FROM THEIR CARS TONIGHT TO GET INTO THE WARM BUILDING WHERE THERE WAS A HEATER? YOU KNOW, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT FROSTBITE CAN HAPPEN WITHIN JUST MINUTES WITH EXPOSED SKIN.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY REMANDING IT BACK TO A PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND I ALSO LISTEN TO THE AUDIO. AND THAT'S GOING TO DELAY IT.

AND. I DON'T I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY.

I MEAN, IT'S FIVE DEGREES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEGATIVE WIND CHILL RIGHT NOW. AND WE'RE ARGUING OVER 20 EXTRA BEDS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO CORRECT. THAT'S FINE. YOU'RE GOOD.

JOHN. I'LL MAYBE JUST REITERATE COUNCILMAN NICK'S BROUGHT UP THAT THERE WERE ACCOMPANYING ISSUES WITH THE POTENTIAL INCREASE FROM 30 TO 50, AND THAT'S NOT UNTRUE. I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP IN, IN SPECIFIC WAS THE SMITH AND LOVELESS CONCERNS THAT THEY RAISED DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO CHIEF LAYMAN, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE'S ANY KIND OF DATA THAT SUPPORTS THERE'S BEEN A DRASTIC RISE IN CRIME FOR THEIR LOCATION OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

SO I, I AGREE THAT A LOT OF ACCOMPANYING ISSUES WERE BROUGHT TO US.

AND IN THE RESEARCH THAT I WAS DOING, AND IN REACHING OUT TO THE STAFF THAT I WAS DOING, A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS WERE, I THINK, QUELLED. AND SO. I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EMAILS THAT ARE IN MY INBOX AREN'T IN YOUR INBOX.

I KNOW THAT THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD AREN'T THE ONES THAT YOU HAD, BUT THOSE WERE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT DID BRING ME COMFORT WITH GOING FORWARD WITH APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THIS WHEN I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT SINCE I'M NOW ON THE GOVERNING BODY, WHOEVER SAID IT EARLIER IS CORRECT. I DID NOT LIKE IT WHEN THINGS WERE REMANDED TO ME AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

MAYBE THINGS HAVE CHANGED. BUT I THINK GENERALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEALS WITH AS MUCH BLACK AND WHITE AS POSSIBLE.

THEY FOUND SOMETHING IN THE 82ND MINUTE, TO YOUR POINT OF A 90 MINUTE SECTION OF A MEETING.

GENERALLY, WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING YOU CAN LIVE WITH IN 82 MINUTES, YOU DON'T GO ANOTHER 82.

[01:20:04]

YOU TEND TO FIND A SOLUTION YOU LIKE. YOU WRAP IT UP, YOU'RE GOOD. AND SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REALLY ANY CREDIT BY SAYING THEY DID IT WRONG. I THINK THEY GAVE US AN APPROVAL THEY CAN LIVE WITH.

AND I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KEEP GOING.

OKAY. BILL. WELL, I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID ANYTHING NECESSARILY WRONG, BUT I THINK THE 250 WITH STEVE AND OUR ATTORNEY'S NOTICE THAT WE'D HAVE TO STUDY IT, AND I THINK BY NOT REMANDING IT, WE ARE I THINK WE'RE, IN A WAY, DISRESPECTING THE PROCESS OF YOU MADE A DECISION WITH THIS, WITH THIS STIPULATION, WE DON'T TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO THINK SOME MORE ABOUT IT.

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE 250 CANNOT WORK. I THINK THE PROCESS THE I HAD A GOOD FRIEND.

HAD A GOOD FRIEND. WE ALL KNOW HER. SHE SAID PEOPLE WILL FORGIVE THE RESULT BUT NOT FORGIVE THE PROCESS IF IT'S NOT WHAT'S TYPICALLY DONE. MARK, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? YEAH, I HAVE THIS THIS WHOLE WHY I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE OTHER NIGHT WAS JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHO ALL CAME OUT IN SUPPORT.

AND I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THIS IS MODIFYING THE UDC.

A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.

AND IT JUST KIND OF GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE STARTING TO GET ALL THESE EMAILS IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW GONE, BECAUSE THAT WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

BUT NOW WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF PUBLIC OPINION AFTER THAT.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS THAT THE THAT THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE BLINDERS ON.

YOU DON'T YOU DON'T REALLY GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE OF THE UDC.

AND SO, I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN MORE BY ALLOWING THIS TO REMAND.

AND NOW THAT IT'S KIND OF COME, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

NOW, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC MORE INSTEAD OF AFTER THE FACT, AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER.

THAT'S A THAT'S KIND OF WHY I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH. AND I RECALL YOU SAYING THAT AT OUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.

AND AGAIN, SIX YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WILL TELL US THAT WE WILL GET 1200 EMAILS AND 600 OF THEM WILL OPPOSE, AND 600 OF THEM WILL SUPPORT. IT'S BEEN 50/50 EVERY TIME THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

AND I HAVE VERY LITTLE FAITH. PARDON THE PUN, THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE.

WELL, I HAVE ONE OTHER FINAL COMMENT, AND THIS HIT ME HARD ON SUNDAY.

WE HAD A VISITING PRIEST GIVE A LITTLE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE ARCHDIOCESE AND HOW IMPORTANT HOLY TRINITY IS TO THE ARCHDIOCESE IN THIS AREA, AND HOW IT PULLS TO THIS LOCATION AND WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN LENEXA.

AND HE SAID SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'D DO WITHOUT HOLY TRINITY IN LENEXA.

I'LL LEAVE WITH THAT STATEMENT. OKAY. CORRECT.

CHRIS, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

WHICH AGAIN, WAS REMOVING THE STIPULATION OF THE 250.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NO. MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 12. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPEAR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE FIRE DAMAGED STRUCTURE AT 19430 WEST 87TH LANE SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED AND ORDERED

[12. Public hearing to appear and show cause why the fire damaged structure at 19430 W. 87th Lane should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as an unsafe or dangerous structure]

REPAIRED OR DEMOLISHED AS AN UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS STRUCTURE.

THIS HEARING HAS BEEN CANCELED AT STAFF'S REQUEST.

WE HAVE NO NEW BUSINESS THIS EVENING. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS?

[COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS]

CRAIG. WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THE CITY IS IN GOOD HANDS WITH STAFF AND GOVERNING BODY AS PRESENTED AT YOUR STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS TODAY AT NOON.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT WAS A FUN WAY TO PUT PUNCTUATION ON A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON SINCE COVID TIMES. SO I ENJOYED PRESENTING IT IN THAT WAY, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THE MAYOR'S TOP TEN LIST.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS? STAFF.

NONE THIS EVENING MAYOR. THANK YOU. ENDS THE RECORDED PORTION OF THE MEETING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Feb 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item