OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING. February 2, 2015

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 2, 2015 Mayor Carl R. Gerlach called the Overland Park City Council meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. John Skubal, Council President; Mr. Terry Goodman; Mr. Richard Collins; Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier; Mr. John H. Thompson; Mr. David White; Mr. Dave Janson; Mr. Jim Kite; Mr. Curt Skoog; Mr. Dan Stock; and Mr. Paul Lyons. Mr. Fred Spears was absent. Also present were: Mrs. Kristy Stallings, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Santos, City Attorney; Mrs. Tammy Owens, Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Manager; Mr. Tony Cosby, Director of Recreation Services; Mr. Greg Ruether, Director of Parks Services; Mr. Frank Donchez, Chief of Police; Mr. Simon Happer, Police Lieutenant Colonel; Mr. Bryan Dehner, Fire Chief; Mr. Anthony Hofmann, Director of Public Works; Mr. Brian Shields, City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Dave Scott, Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Mike Garcia, Chief Human Resources Officer; Mr. Sean Reilly, Communications Manager; Mr. Ryan Bohrer, PC Technician; and Ms. Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary. Approximately 35 people were in the audience. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Carl R. Gerlach led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Gerlach recognized boy scouts from Troop No. 222, sponsored by Stanley Presbyterian Church; Troop No. 218, sponsored by Ascension Catholic Church; Troop No. 201, sponsored by Hillcrest Christian Church; and Troop No. 265, sponsored by Holy Spirit Catholic Church. MAYOR CARL. R. GERLACH PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming Wednesday, February 11, 2015, as Overland Park Day. Mayor Gerlach read a proclamation declaring Wednesday, February 11, 2015, as Overland Park Day. He urged all citizens to join in the recognition and awareness of the services that United Way provides in Overland Park and throughout the greater Kansas City region. Mr. Todd Pleimann, chair, Johnson County United Way Advisory Council, accepted the proclamation on the behalf of the United Way. He thanked the City for its support of the United Way and the program. He said United Way is a very important service to the community. Their hotline is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and connects citizens with necessary resources. Over the past two years, the Johnson County United Way program received over 16,000 calls. The City of Overland Park received the highest number of calls in the County. Over the past two

2 Page 2 years, over 70 percent were first time callers. Roughly one-third of those individuals hold full-time jobs and approximately 60 percent have children. Mr. Pleimann provided the Council with one example of the United Way services. A gentleman recently called the program that needed new glasses for himself and his wife. He did not have any insurance or the funds to purchase new glasses. The United Way program connected him with an agency that assisted him to get new glasses. The man's employer was so impressed with how much better he could now see, he was moved from part-time to full-time status. Mr. Pleimann thanked the Mayor and Council for their support. Mayor Gerlach extended his appreciation to the United Way for their service to the community. REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS: James Haas Term to John L. Kaiser - Term to Council President John Skubal moved to approve the reappointments to the Code Board of Appeals, as presented. Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. CITY MANAGER BILL EBEL Deputy City Manager Kristy Stallings advised there was no report. CONSENT AGENDA FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS: APPROVE SELECTION PROCESS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT - Unite Private Networks, for Internet provider services in the amount of $35,400 per year for a three-year term. AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE GLENWOOD COMMONS REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Wichita/Metcalf, L.L.C., related to the Community Improvement District located on the southeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf (SEC 91st and Metcalf CID). STAFF ITEMS: CONFIRMATION OF INVESTMENTS - In Agency Securities in the amount of $25,000,000. EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 1A - Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for December 31, 2014, through January 13, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 1A - Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for December 31, 2014, through January 13, 2015.

3 Page 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 1B - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Fund for January 8 through January 14, CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 1C - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Fund for January 15 through January 21, CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 1D - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Fund for January 22 through January 28, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ITEMS: ORDINANCE NO. TR Relating to truck routes in the City; adding Switzer, 151st Street to 159th Street. AGREEMENT - TransCore ITS, L.L.C., for the Traffic Adaptive Pilot Program in the amount of $232,100. APPROVE QUIT CLAIM DEED AND EXECUTION OF UTILITY EASEMENT BY PROPERTY OWNER - Eugene R. and Norma J. McCorkendale, conveying to the property owner all City interest in property north of the originally intended 30 feet of right-of-way, located at 6470 West 151st Street, and accepting the rededication by the property owner of the 30 feet of street right-of-way and the subsequently acquired additional 5 feet of utility easement. STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM - Adding support for the removal or amendment of K.S.A d, or other state statutes related to bike lanes adjacent to a useable path or bicycle facilities MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - Revise the 2015 Maintenance Program to add the mill and overlay of 103rd Street, between Metcalf and Nall. Mr. Skubal moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Paul Lyons seconded the motion, which carried by a roll-call vote of 11 to 0. REGULAR AGENDA FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Terry Goodman, Chair No report. STAFF REPORT: RESOLUTION NO Rescinding resolution consenting to the sublease by Sprint/United Management Company of a portion of the Sprint Headquarters to

4 Page 4 SB U.S., Inc., relating to Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds (Sprint/United Management Company Project). Mrs. Stallings presented Resolution No to the Council for their consideration. Resolution No would rescind a resolution adopted by the Council in December 2014, consenting to a sublease at the Sprint campus to SB U.S., Inc. On January 26, 2015, representatives from Sprint advised that the parties had elected not to enter into the sublease. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 4122, which would rescind the Governing Body's prior consent to the sublease with SB U.S., Inc. Mr. Jim Kite stated he would abstain from voting on this item because it involved his employer. Mr. Terry Goodman moved to approve Resolution No. 4122, to rescind the Governing Body's prior consent to the sublease by Sprint/United Management Company with SB US., Inc. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion, which carried by a roll-vote of 10 to 0 to 1, with Mr. Kite abstained. RESOLUTION NO Providing for the notice of a public hearing concerning the establishment of a redevelopment district within the City (Northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf - City Square Redevelopment TIF Project). Mrs. Stallings presented Resolution No and its companion, Resolution No. 4113, together, but stated they would require separate votes from the Council. Mrs. Stallings stated that Resolution No would provide for notice of a public hearing concerning the establishment of a redevelopment district, also known as a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, for the City Square Redevelopment TIF Project located on the northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf, commonly referred to today as 95 West Shopping Center and Metcalf South Mall. The 95 West Shopping Center is also referred to as the French Market by some of the long-term residents in the community. The City Council heard an initial presentation at the January 5, 2015, Committee-ofthe-Whole meeting of the proposed project and directed staff at that time to prepare a resolution for their consideration. Resolution No implements that direction and approval of the resolution would schedule a public hearing for Monday, March 16, Staff recommended approval of Resolution No Mrs. Stallings informed that Resolution No would approve the execution of a funding agreement. At their meeting on January 5, 2015, the Committee of the Whole directed staff to prepare a funding agreement with the developer, 95Metcalf Properties, Inc., and was approved by the Council. The Council directed that the funding agreement be made by 95Metcalf Properties, Inc., and not with Arbor Development, L.L.C., which was incorrectly included in the staff comments in relation to the next two items on the agenda. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No

5 Page 5 Mrs. Stallings recognized Mr. Owen Buckley, president, Lane4 Property Group, Inc., and other members of his team who were present to answer any questions. Pursuant to the request made by the Committee of the Whole at the January 5, 2015, meeting, Mr. Buckley and his team had provided staff with copies of their concept plan, which was the subject of a press release last week and had received considerable press coverage over the past few days. Mr. Goodman moved to approve Resolution No. 4120, providing for the notice of a public hearing concerning the establishment of a redevelopment district within the City (northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf - Central Square Redevelopment TIF Project), as presented. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. Similar to his line of discussion and vote on the Brookridge Country Club property, Mr. Curt Skoog did not believe it was appropriate for the Council, at this point in its development, to approve TIF districts with an active developer that did not include a design plan that had first been filed through the Planning Commission. He would vote to deny the motion. Mayor Gerlach reminded the Council that they were not voting to approve a TIF for the proposed project, but merely establishing the district and a public hearing. Staff took direction from the Council to bring these two items together at one time. Review by the Planning Commission would happen at a future meeting. Mrs. Stallings explained there was no set schedule at this point for the developer to submit their land use plan or a project plan. Approval of the subject resolution would schedule a public hearing to consider the creation of a TIF district. A TIF district is the required first step in the approval of any tax increment financing incentives. The specific amount of a TIF can only be approved after a project plan has been developed. A project plan requires the development of a feasibility study, as well as additional items that the City has done, as past practice and policy, and includes a gap analysis and other policy considerations. That project plan would be the subject of a public hearing. Staff schedules project plan approval along with a development agreement consideration, and all of that would be presented and acted on at the same time as a land use plan for the project. She said Mr. Buckley could comment on the developer's plans for submission of rezoning and/or preliminary development plans, in terms of how they intend to phase the project. She reiterated that this action would only call for a public hearing to consider the creation of a TIF district. Mayor Gerlach stated if Council did not vote to start the process this evening, the evaluation could not happen which is a requirement of the next step in the process. Mrs. Stallings responded that more evaluation could certainly take place prior to calling a public hearing for consideration of whether to create a TIF district. The Council is allowed to continue to consider the project without holding a public hearing. The developer requested that the TIF district first be created for their own purposes, in terms of planning for their project. Mr. Skoog said he understood the process when he made his earlier comment. His point involved the fact that the City had gone through the TIF process with past projects, but had not approved a TIF prior to having a development plan in place. He pointed out that the next two agenda items involved the creation of a TIF district for a developer that already filed a plan and began the development process. He did not believe it was an unreasonable expectation for the Council to be presented with a plan prior to them considering the approval of a TIF district.

6 Page 6 Mr. John H. Thompson confirmed there was no set requirement to hold a public hearing until such time as there has been more development, in terms of an actual plan. In other words, there was no required timetable. He asked if the March 16, 2015, date for a public hearing had been worked out by staff and the applicant. Mrs. Stallings explained that every project includes its own unique characteristics. Developers request timing of various elements of the process based on their own investments, and their own sense about how to best plan for a project. She said March 16, 2015, was the earliest date that a public hearing could be held on this item, given timing considerations as required by the TIF Act, in concert when City Council meetings can be held. The TIF Act does not include a requirement that a land use plan be presented before a public hearing can be held. In the case of the next agenda item referenced earlier by Mr. Skoog, where a plan has been through the Planning Commission process, Mrs. Stallings relayed that plan would be continued for consideration by the Council until it has been through the TIF process. That applicant relayed their intent to request other tax incentives and the public hearing for that project is currently anticipated to take place sometime in July. Although the land use plan has gone through the Planning Commission, it will not be presented to the City Council for approval until it comes together along with the other elements of the incentive process. To that point, Mr. Thompson acknowledged that this request was the minimum requirement by the statute. Mrs. Stallings explained that every TIF project involves different characteristics, in terms of when the land use plan is filed and what state it was in at the time the Council considered or created a TIF district. There is no set procedure. With regard to the subject project, Mrs. Stallings stated the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting took place on January 5, 2015, and the Committee recommended scheduling the approval to call for a public hearing at tonight's Council meeting. As requested by staff, the developer provided a conceptual plan in advance of tonight's meeting. The earliest opportunity, with the approval of the subject resolution, would be to hold a public hearing, in compliance with the TIF Act, on March 16, Mr. Thompson said in reality, the Council had considered prior TIFs without being supplied with consistent information, in terms of the point of process. Mrs. Stallings replied the Council had not had to do that in the past, but had elected to. Creation of a TIF district is a separate consideration from the land use plan. The Council has the authority to indicate they will not consider the creation of a TIF district, as suggested by Mr. Skoog, until a land use plan has been filed, as in the case with the Brookridge property, or until it has gone through the Planning Commission, as is the case with the next agenda item, which is the Promontory Redevelopment Project. There is not one specific procedure in place that the City has required of developers. Mr. Lyons understood Mr. Skoog's position. He personally opposed the creation of a TIF district for the Brookridge property redevelopment project, but supported moving the project forward in order to hold the public hearing. He would support the motion on the table to schedule a public hearing for this item. Once the Council reached the point where they actually voted on the creation of a TIF district for the subject project, he questioned if this project would be well enough defined to provide him with a good perspective of the overall plan. At this point, the plan is conceptual. His vote to approve a public hearing on this item did not mean he would support the creation of a TIF district until it is further defined.

7 Page 7 Mr. Chase Simmons, attorney for the applicant, Polsinelli PC, 6201 College Boulevard, stated that from their perspective and from a procedural standpoint, the applicant understood the motion on the table simply involved setting a date for a public hearing. At that point, the Council will have the opportunity to review the conservation study and consider the TIF district plan. Under the TIF Act, a developer cannot file for a TIF under State statute. The Council is required to approve the initiation of the process. It will start the process for the project and release public notices to move the project forward. Mr. Simmons stated that the developer attempted to discern from the discussion that took place at the Finance, Administration and Economic Development (FAED) Committee meeting and the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on this item, in terms of what needed to be inserted into public record to begin the overall process. The developer understood that the process would begin by releasing the conceptual plan, and they will continue their conversations with the surrounding neighborhood groups and others in the area. Approval of the notice for a public hearing simply involves placing a date on the calendar. The developer will make sure they understand the Council's direction, so when they return on March 16, 2015, they are able to provide the Council and staff with what they believe is appropriate. Over the next 45 days, before they return to the March 16, 2015, Council meeting, the developer will work to ensure all of the necessary information is available to present. Mr. Simmons stated that the design team continues to work on the development plan on a daily basis. The developer will receive any and all direction from staff about what is required to place them in the best position possible to answer the Council's questions at the March meeting. If they are not prepared to present on March 16, 2015, they will request a continuance, but at this time he stressed that approving a notice of public hearing would not result in a point of no return, but assist the developer as they move the process forward. The motion carried by a roll-call vote of 10 to 1, with Mr. Skoog voting no. RESOLUTION NO Approving the execution of a funding agreement with 95Metcalf Properties, Inc., related to a proposed redevelopment project within the City (Northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf - City Square Redevelopment Project). Mr. Goodman moved to approve Resolution No. 4113, the execution of a funding agreement with 95Metcalf Properties, Inc., related to a proposed redevelopment project within the City (Northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf - City Square Redevelopment Project). The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried by a roll-vote of 11 to 0. RESOLUTION NO Providing for the notice of a public hearing concerning the establishment of a redevelopment district within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment TIF Project). Mrs. Stallings stated Resolution No and Resolution No were related items. Resolution No would schedule a public hearing to establish a redevelopment district within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment TIF Project). Resolution No would authorize the execution of a

8 Page 8 funding agreement with Arbor Development, L.L.C., related to a proposed redevelopment project within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment TIF Project). Mr. Goodman recognized that there seemed to be some confusion about the Alaskan Fur building on the project site, and whether it would be included in all, or part, of the redevelopment project, or even under what terms it could be included in the project. He asked for clarification, because he heard Alaskan Fur did not want to be included in the improvement district. He later heard they did want to be involved in the improvement district. He later heard that the owner of Alaskan Fur was concerned if they might be forced to make improvements to their building at their own expense if they decided to join in on the redevelopment. Mrs. Stallings pointed out that the only action required by the Council this evening was to schedule a public hearing to consider the creation of a redevelopment TIF district for the project. The applicant has indicated their intention to also submit a Community Improvement District (CID) application. Staff is unsure of the boundaries of the proposed CID. If the Council called a public hearing, as the applicant applied for a TIF redevelopment district for this resolution, the legal description and sketch for the resolution would exclude the Alaskan Fur building, which is separately owned from the property currently under contract by the applicant. She believed the applicant had the property within the proposed district under contract, hence the district boundaries that had been proposed. If the Council were to adopt the resolution this evening, it would schedule a public hearing to consider boundaries for a redevelopment district that would exclude the Alaskan Fur building. She said it is possible under State statute to add the Alaskan Fur building in the future, subject to the same public hearing process that was outlined this evening. A public hearing is required to amend a district and another resolution would be necessary to make that happen. The boundaries remain to be seen, upon which the applicant intends to submit a CID application in accordance with the terms of the City's CID policy. She anticipated that would be considered by the FAED Committee at their April meeting. The applicant will be required to submit their CID application by March 1, Mr. Goodman appreciated the clarification provided by Mrs. Stallings. He felt the creation of the TIF district was still somewhat linked to how the Alaskan Fur building would be incorporated in the overall development. Mr. Curt Petersen, attorney for the applicant, Polsinelli PC, 6201 College Boulevard, stated Mrs. Stallings described the situation with the Alaskan Fur building precisely as it remains today. The applicant does not have the Alaskan Fur building under contract at this time. With respect to Mr. Goodman's question, the CID was unclear at this point as to whether the Alaskan Fur building would become a part of the redevelopment. Since the discussion that was held at the FAED meeting, discussions between the Alaskan Fur owner and the developer remain ongoing. The applicant would be happy to include the Alaskan Fur building in the redevelopment, if they are willing and able to join the overall project. Mr. Goodman assumed there was no interest or benefit on the side of the Alaskan Fur owner or the developer to have Alaskan Fur participate in the TIF district. Mr. Petersen responded that from the beginning of the process, the project had unanimously been approved by the Planning Commission and is shovel-ready for The applicant did not believe they could wait for Alaskan Fur to come on board

9 Page 9 and delay the approval of the TIF district because of their indecision. The applicant is devoted to the redevelopment of the entire shopping center. If opportunities arise in the future to work with the Alaskan Fur property owner and receive their consent to join the project, the applicant is happy to work with them in accordance to plan. Mr. Dan Stock relayed that was concerned with the lack of the Alaskan Fur building becoming a part of the TIF district. He said the overall property is all tied together and includes the Alaskan Fur building. The Council would prefer the entire development, including the entire parking lot, to look the same. They want the treed landscaped areas in the parking lots to meld into one look and not have the Alaskan Fur building separate in the overall look of the development. He was concerned with how the development will be perceived from Metcalf without having the Alaskan Fur building tied into the overall development. Mr. Petersen said the applicant could not agree more with Mr. Stock's concerns. If possible, the developer's desire is to work with the Alaskan Fur owner and work out an agreement. Overall, he felt the City was beginning to delve into redevelopment on a much larger scale. Two other developers attempted to redevelop the shopping center. The applicant has an approved plan and financing is in place to move forward with the project. In all due respect to Mr. Stock's concerns, he asked the Council to move forward with the redevelopment. He reiterated that it is shovel-ready and the situation with the Alaskan Fur building remains to be a difficult component with regard to overall redevelopment. Mr. Goodman moved to approve Resolution No. 4119, to provide for the notice of a public hearing concerning the establishment of a redevelopment district within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment TIF Project). Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. Mayor Gerlach stated there are different portions of importance to any redevelopment. The Council, staff, and the overall City are all learning about redevelopment in today's age. He believed the proposed project was in direct relation with the City's Vision Metcalf plan. Throughout the entire Vision Metcalf process, from the beginning up to this point, it has been understood that incentives will be required to redevelop the plan. He believed the Alaskan Fur building was an important consideration because it would allow for the true Vision Metcalf plan, as it relates to pulling the existing buildings along the corridor out to the main street of Metcalf. The Alaskan Fur building is positioned within this redevelopment and is important, but it is something the Council will be required to measure if the owner of Alaskan Fur decides not to follow the Vision Metcalf plan with regard to incentives. He encouraged the Council to continue the process and learn from all of the elements involved with the redevelopment of this property. The motion carried by a roll-call vote of 11 to 0. RESOLUTION NO Approving the execution of a funding agreement with Arbor Development, L.L.C., related to a proposed redevelopment project within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment Project). Mr. Goodman moved to approve Resolution No. 4118, pertaining to the execution of a funding agreement with Arbor Development, L.L.C., related to a proposed redevelop-

10 Page 10 ment project within the City (Northeast corner of 91st Street and Metcalf - Promontory Redevelopment Project). The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried by a rollcall vote of 11 to 0. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT: Dave Janson, Chair No report. STAFF REPORT: WAIVE BID PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE - Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., using the State of Kansas Procurement Contract, for the purchase of sixteen (16) Ford Police Interceptor all-wheel drive utility vehicles, in the amount of $27,137, per unit for a total amount of $434,192. Chief of Police Frank Donchez indicated staff was requesting to waive the bid process and authorize the purchase of sixteen (16) Ford Police Interceptor all-wheel-drive utility vehicles in the amount of $27,137 a piece, for a total price of $434,192. These vehicles are included in the City's 2014 budget, but the Police Department was alerted last Tuesday that the deadline to order the new vehicles is February 13, The Police Department was requesting Council approval to acquire the new vehicles by the deadline, which would replace a fleet of 21 vehicles with over 111,000 miles each. Mr. Goodman stated one issue that arose from the citizen's survey was the visibility of police vehicles in residential neighborhoods. He indicated at the meeting that residents may not believe police vehicles were present in their neighborhoods nearly as much as they are due to the prevalence of the newly acquired stealth patrol cars. He asked if the recent change to the Ford Interceptor vehicles changed the City's focus on the stealth vehicles. Police Chief Donchez did not believe that interpretation was correct, because the Ford Interceptors include the exact paint scheme as the stealth vehicles. The paint scheme makes the vehicles less visible to people. The Ford Interceptors are larger inside as compared to the Taurus all-wheel-drive vehicles and are built on the same chassis but have a different body type, which provides more room and comfort for the officers. The Overland Park Police Department carries more equipment in their vehicles than in the past, certainly from what they contained in Mr. Dave Janson moved to waive the bid process and authorize the purchase of sixteen (16) Ford Police Interceptor all-wheel-drive utility vehicles, in the amount of $434,192 from Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stock and carried by a vote of 11 to 0. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Terry Happer Scheier, Chair No report.

11 Page 11 STAFF REPORT: RESOLUTION NO Regarding the Cornerstone Properties application for housing tax credits for a mixed-income senior living apartment development project located near 78th Street and Antioch. Director of Planning and Development Services Jack Messer stated that timeframes did not allow staff to move this item through the Community Development Committee before tonight's meeting. It is the exact resolution the Council considered and approved one year ago for Cornerstone Properties, in the vicinity of Antioch and 79th Street. It is a vacant piece of property that the applicant is attempting to develop into a 48-unit apartment project. The developer is seeking tax credits from the State of Kansas. In order to obtain those tax credits, the developer is required to make the Council aware of the project. Mayor Gerlach said it had been stated that the applicant was willing to designate 20 percent of the units for limited income families. He asked for the difference in those numbers since the last public hearing on this item. Mr. Messer was unsure of the difference in the numbers. As presented, the resolution reads that 27 units will be offered to individuals at or below 50 percent of the median area income, and 6 units will be offered to individuals at or below 60 percent of the median area income. He believed those numbers were in the income range of $70,000, so his guess would be that limited income families were in the $40,000 range. Mayor Gerlach recalled a percentage that the Council was comfortable with where half, or three-quarters, of the complex would remain at market rate, while less would be at submarket rate. Mr. Messer stated the applicant was not able to attend the meeting this evening. He assured the Mayor that the numbers presented today were exactly the same as previously presented. The only change involved the dates reflected in the resolution text. Mrs. Happer Scheier moved to approve Resolution No. 4116, regarding Cornerstone Properties application for housing tax credits for a mixed-income senior living apartment development project located near 78th Street and Antioch. Mr. Skoog seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT: Fred Spears, Chair No report. STAFF REPORT: No report. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Switzer. A special event permit is requested to allow multiple events from February 21 to December 31,

12 Page Application made by Mike Laplante, representing the Overland Park Soccer Complex. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO West 107th Street. A special event permit is requested to allow an externally-illuminated logo promoting the American Heart Association s Go Red event from February 22 through February 28, Application made by Mary Fisher, representing Sunlighten, Inc. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Vicinity of Santa Fe Drive, between 79th Street and 80th Street. A special event permit is requested to allow a series of special events in Downtown Overland Park for Application made by the Downtown Overland Park Partnership, Inc. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Lowell. A special event permit is requested to allow various events and detached signage at Cleveland Chiropractic College for Application made by Jalonna Bowie, representing Cleveland Chiropractic College. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Grant. A special event permit is requested from April 17 through April 18, 2015, to allow a BBQ cook-off fundraiser for VFW Post No Application made by Tom Garvey, representing VFW Post No SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Marty. A special event permit is requested to allow a Farmers Market from April 18 to November 21, 2015, at the Downtown Overland Park Market Pavilion. Application made by the City of Overland Park. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FINAL PLAT NO Villas at Ironwoods, 3044 West 151st Street. Application made by Ironwoods Development, L.L.C. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 11 to 0. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FINAL PLAT NO Watersedge Fourth Plat, vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Mission. Application made by Watersedge Investment, L.L.C. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FINAL PLAT NO Bluhawk Marketplace Second Plat, vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Application made by Price Brothers Construction. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FINAL PLAT NO Blue Valley Hilltop Campus, vicinity of the northeast corner of 143rd Street and U.S. 69 Highway. Application made by Unified School District No The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 8 to 0.

13 Page 13 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN NO Prairiefire, vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 10 to 0. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO City Place Parcel IV, vicinity of 113th Street and Switzer. Application made by NSPJ Architects. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Village Church Children and Family Development Center, 9900 Mission. Application made by Village Presbyterian Church. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 11 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 75th Street. A special use permit is requested for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment for Dos Reales. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Alvaro Quezada. The Planning Commission approved this item for a five-year period of time on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 11 to 0. Ordinance No. Z REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 110th Street and Roe. Rezoning is requested from CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to allow a new office development. Application made by Polsinelli PC. The Planning Commission approved this item on January 12, 2015, by a vote of 11 to 0. Ordinance No. Z Mr. Thompson asked that Revised Preliminary Plan No be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion. Mayor Gerlach provided an opportunity for members of the audience to address the Council regarding Special Use Permit No and Rezoning No There was no response. Council President Skubal moved to approve the Planning Commission Consent Agenda, with the exception of Revised Preliminary Plan No , which was removed for a separate vote. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried with a roll-call vote of 11 to 0. With regard to Revised Preliminary Plan No , Mr. Thompson said he understood the revised plan included a proposal to add 290 units of residential to the development. He asked what type of residential was being proposed. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr believed the additional residential units would be apartments. The applicant was present to answer any questions. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the plan had been revised in 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2013, and the Council was now being presented with a newly revised plan. He said the current plan reduced the planned office space and increased the amount of residential in the development with more apartments. He asked for a perspective of the differences that had occurred in the number of apartments from 2006 and 2008 to present day. Mrs. Karr did not have that information with her and deferred to the applicant to respond to Mr. Thompson s question.

14 Page 14 Mr. Thompson stated a revised preliminary plan is required to come before the Council if it is representative of a substantial or significant change. He asked for the definition of a substantial or significant change. Mrs. Karr explained that City ordinance outlined a number of criteria. The most common changes involve stipulations, squarefootage, number of units, building height, perimeter setbacks, or reductions in open space. Mr. Stock referred to item No. 5 of the staff report which was entitled Analysis. He read, Staff typically stipulates a limit on the amount of allowable building area for a development, and in the past, has stipulated the specific building area for retail and office uses and the number of residential units in a mixed use project. After reviewing several of the mixed-use developments in the City, staff has observed that this stipulation has not allowed the flexibility intended in the mixed-use zoning district. Staff is providing stipulation b, which puts a cap on the overall square-footage for the development, but would allow flexibility in reallocating the mix of residential and nonresidential square-footages in the project. Mr. Stock was concerned with a 23 percent increase in the overall square-footage of the development. He felt if staff was allowed the ability to approve reallocations without first presenting them to the Council, the development would end up with more apartments. Mrs. Karr responded the intent of stipulation b is that the mixed-use development is intended to allow a variety of uses. When the City applies its traditional stipulation of specifically limiting the numbers, a developer might request to reduce the amount of residential and add office space, or vice versa. Staff somewhat hamstrung themselves, even if there is not necessarily a change in the square-footage of the development, or the footprint of the buildings. It is merely an internal change in how the space is used. Staff attempted to come up with a way to allow some kind of flexibility for developers as they fine tune their projects. Parking ultimately ends up being a cap. Parking for apartments may be higher than for office or retail spaces. If a developer makes a change that requires them to provide more parking, or because it changes building footprints or building heights, those types of things would require final approval by the Council. Mr. Stock asked if the developer decided to eliminate 100,000 square feet of office space and add 100,000 square feet of apartment space, would it return to the Council for approval. Mrs. Karr explained that in the way the stipulation is proposed, that would be allowed. Mr. Stock said that was his concern. There are no parameters built around the stipulation to control that type of a change to return to the Council for approval. Mr. Stock felt the signage deviation request was open-ended. It merely states it requires a deviation that the Council will approve later. He questioned what they would be asked to approve. With regard to the south side of 135th Street and the north side of the development, Mr. Stock asked if anything changed to the streetscape in the revised plan. Mrs. Karr stated some of the buildings at the ends of the parking garage had changed over time. The current plan includes a more substantial building on the east end of the property. The signage deviation primarily involved the north façade of the parking garage. The applicant s preliminary concept showed a number of signs on that façade that would not meet City ordinance. Staff had concerns with the overall design of the parking

15 Page 15 garage and that is a detail they would like to work on at the time of final development plan. Mr. Stock asked if staff had any concern with a 23 percent increase in density. Mrs. Karr replied that staff was comfortable with the site plan and the mix of uses. Their concerns were more related to some of the design architecture, particularly to the north parking garage. With regard to the trail system, Mr. Stock said he read through the staff comments and felt the public taxpayer was losing something with the proposal by eliminating some of the crossings. The revised plan is set up to cost less for the developer. He was concerned that those concessions would happen in the public areas. Mrs. Karr relayed that the Planning Commission recommended that one of the three trail crossings remain incorporated in the plan. Staff supported all three of the crossings. It is the prerogative of the Council to determine how to ultimately incorporate the trails in the final plan. Mr. Stock said the trails were included in the 2013 revised preliminary plan. Mrs. Karr said that was correct. Mr. Stock said the trails would remain in the plan, unless the Council decided to approve that change. Mrs. Karr stated the trails were not yet installed and the developer asked that they be removed. The Planning Commission recommended the removal of at least one of the three trails. Mr. Stock asked if the trails were a major reason the Council approved the plan in the first place. They are now being asked to remove public elements that were considerations in their determination to vote in favor of project. Mrs. Karr replied the trails were certainly one element that created the public education piece within the wetlands area. Mr. Goodman said the Council initially reviews photographs for the City's major complicated projects at the onset. The Council makes the decision from the beginning of any development project if they are in favor of a concept and agree to approve certain incentive packages for what they are shown at that time. Over time, complicated multi-year projects tend to change. In some cases they change significantly from the original plan that is shown to the Council and served as a basis for any type of approval for an incentive. He asked as projects evolve, at what time is it appropriate for the Council to ask to revisit the incentive package that was initially approved based on the original concept. Mrs. Stallings replied it would be appropriate for the Council to revisit any incentive package if they so chose. Mrs. Stallings explained that the incentives approved by the Council up to this point only include a Community Improvement District (CID) connected to the first phase. The Council, in partnership with the State Department of Commerce, approved Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) bonds for the project. There is a STAR Bond project plan that can be modified. The Council would certainly be allowed to modify their willingness to support, or the amount of support, they are willing to give a CID for the second phase. The actual CID and amount of tax has already been created for the elements involved in the project. The STAR Bond second phase may bring a different view to the Council, as well as to the State. The developer has not engaged with staff about the incentives, as it relates to this change in the plan. She pointed out that the wetlands interpretative education area was a key feature in the STAR Bond project plan, so that may be something to discuss further with the State's Department of Commerce.

16 Page 16 Mr. Goodman stated his question pertained more to general policy, than specifically to the Prairiefire development. For example, he asked if the Council approved a TIF district for the Metcalf South Mall property based on a plan that showed 400 multifamily units and two years later the developer returned to the City stating there was no longer a demand for more multi-family in the area and asked to change the plan to build a big box retail store, how would the Council respond to that request. Mrs. Stallings replied that the City has always connected its development agreements and the requirements involved in those agreements to approved land use plans that include things such as rezonings, preliminary development plans, and final development plans. Staff s philosophy, in partnership with the Governing Body, has always been that they are giving a tax incentive tool in exchange for something they believe is in the interest of the public. That could include a redevelopment, a new project, or public improvements. To the extent the Council wishes to look at how a change in a plan might impact a development agreement, or the terms of a development agreement, now would be the time to raise those questions. Once the Council approves a plan, the plan then becomes what the developer has a right to do under the terms of the agreement. The Council has modified development agreements based on a modification of the initial plan, as they did with the Corbin Park development. When there was a change in the hotel parking and some of the incentives were provided under the theory that there was a cost to incentivize parking, that the tax incentives would assist with. When the developer made a change in their plan, the City reduced the amount of their incentive. The Council could direct staff to consider any changes to the existing incentives involved with the subject project, and bring that discussion back before they take action. Mr. Skoog asked to further the discussion on the reallocation of uses in mixed-use space. In concept, he questioned if those spaces could be used for multiple things, or were the dynamics of a project, by moving the square footage among uses, simply adjusted to market forces. Mrs. Karr replied it could be both. The idea of mixed-use is to construct buildings that can transition over time as market demands change. Transitions of that sort may require interior work or other structural changes, so it may not result in a quick or easy turnaround. Staff s thought was to allow more flexibility as those projects finalize, so changes that do not impact a building s footprint or height can be handled without a public hearing. Mr. Skoog asked if this revised plan moved around any buildings. Mrs. Karr stated the applicant increased the square footage to the plan, so there were some building size and footprint changes. As the project moved forward, staff anticipated the tool of specifically stipulating a percentage, or square footage, for each use might not make as much sense in a mixeduse district where the intent is to allow and encourage that mix of uses. Mr. Skoog agreed with that intent if the use was for office or retail, because they are built to similar design standards. Residential is not easily converted into different uses unless the City requires the development to be built to a different standard. Mr. Stock was concerned with the massing of the buildings. The proposed four-story buildings are huge. A new five-story building is now being proposed and he asked if it would be built in the center of the development. Mrs. Karr answered yes. Staff is comfortable with the proposed five-story building. Mr. Stock asked if staff was comfortable with the massing of the buildings. Mrs. Karr said staff had concerns with some of the specifics of the building design and some of the proposed materials and articulation, particularly as it relates to the parking garage on the north façade.

17 Page 17 Mr. Fred Merrill, applicant, Merrill Companies, L.L.C., 6240 West 135th Street, stated the Prairiefire project began approximately 10 years ago, which started with initial discussions with City staff. The original plan involved office above retail on the north side, which is exactly how it is shown in the plan today. The original plan included condominiums, or residential use, on the south property. The original plans were drawn up in 2006 and As the market changed and economic conditions changed, the condominium market went away so the plan was changed to include office space above retail on the south side of the core. Those changes took place through iterations that took place in 2009 and The plan has returned to residential use in those areas. Luxury residential multi-family units are now proposed above the retail and similar to the original plan. Mr. Merrill stated two parking garages were always included in the plan, one on the south side and another on the north side. The parking garages on the south side were originally wrapped with residential. When the plan was changed to office, the condominiums were removed and parking structures remained on the plan to the south. The plan has since changed back to residential above the retail, with residential wrapping the parking structures, so no parking structures are exposed on the south. Mr. Merrill stated the buildings have not been repositioned on the development. The plan is basically exactly the same as when it was first designed. The major change in use involves the reduction of office space, and the increase in residential use. He said that is a function of what has been successful at Prairiefire and involves market conditions. With regard to the wetlands area, Mr. Merrill said the hike and bike paths that stretch around the entire complex have not changed from the original plan. The development team brought in Dr. Ted Cable, a graphic designer and a professor of horticulture at Kansas State University, who performed a real interpretation of the wetlands. Dr. Cable was concerned with the amount of human activity happening directly in the center of the wetlands. Dr. Cable recommended decreasing the number of crossings from three to one. The trails on either side of the wetland areas have remained the same from the original plan. Some sitting areas were added closer to the actual creek, but they will now allow a passage across the wetlands. The design team was concerned with safety and liability issues. There is usually a trickle of water that passes through the wetlands area. Occasionally during a heavy rain, four to five feet of water will run through that area and it becomes dangerous. The Planning Commission felt one other crossing could be inserted into the plan similar to what is there now, which is a natural stone crossing. The development team told the Planning Commission they would be happy to consider another crossing and would figure out a location. Mr. Thompson referred to some meeting minutes he found from a May meeting in Those minutes summarized his earlier question about the development plan from 2006 through In 2006, it was anticipated that 712,000 square feet of the development was to be devoted to residential and include 333 units. The revised plan includes 1,047,538 square feet of residential with 734 units. The big change in the plan came in 2012, when the Council approved the unit increase to 563. Mr. Thompson felt the focus of the development significantly changed since the initial plan. He understood some of the reasons involved market conditions. The proposed change to the plan today heightens the residential portion to 734 units. He asked if the sizeable changes were based purely on market conditions. Mr. Merrill believed the