OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING

March 3, 2014

Mayor Carl R. Gerlach called the Overland Park City Council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present, constituting a quorum:

Mr. David White, Council President; Mr. Terry Goodman; Mr. Richard Collins; Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier; Mr. Fred Spears; Mr. John Skubal; Mr. Dave Janson; Mr. Jim Kite; Mr. Curt Skoog; Mr. Dan Stock; and Mr. Paul Lyons. Mr. John H. Thompson was absent (excused).

Also present were: Mr. Bill Ebel, City Manager; Mrs. Kristy Stallings, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Santos, City Attorney; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Tammy Owens, Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Greg Ruether, Director of Parks Services; Mr. Bryan Dehner, Fire Chief; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Manager; Mr. Mark Kessler, Police Lieutenant Colonel; Mrs. Vicki Irey, Chief Information Officer; Mr. Doug Brown, Director of Public Works; Mr. Dave Scott, Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Mike Garcia, Chief Human Resources Officer; Mr. Sean Reilly, Communications Manager; Mr. Tony Meyers, Engineering Services Manager; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Ms. Pam Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. Approximately 55 people were in the audience.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Carl R. Gerlach led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mayor Gerlach recognized Social Studies students from Hocker Grove Middle School; Boy Scout Troop No. 251, sponsored by Holy Cross Catholic Church; Troop No. 247, sponsored by Merriam Christian Church; and Troop No. 91, sponsored by Village Presbyterian Church.

PUBLIC HEARING:

2015-2019 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

Chief Financial Officer Dave Scott presented the 2015-2019 Five-Year Financial Plan, Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and Maintenance Program. The Goal Area Committees and the Committee-of-the-Whole discussed and reviewed these projects earlier this year. Public hearings were held before the Planning Commission to discuss these programs and a public hearing was previously held before the Council. The plans include the recommended changes to the CIP that were discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on February 17, 2014. Following the public hearing, no formal action is required by the City Council.

The Council will consider adoption of the 2015-2019 Five-Year Financial Plan, Capital Improvements Program, and Maintenance Program at their March 24, 2014, meeting.

Mayor Gerlach opened the public hearing regarding this item.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 2 Ms. Vicki Lilly, executive director, Arts and Recreation Foundation of Overland Park, 4209 West 104th Terrace, stated the Governing Body approved a master plan in Fall 2013, for the creation of the International Sculpture Garden at the Overland Park Arboretum and Botanical Gardens. She informed the Community Development Committee at that time that the Arts and Recreation Foundation of Overland Park (ARFOP) and Friends of Overland Park Arts (FOA) are committed to do all they can to make this plan a reality. They believe in what its creation will do for Overland Park. It is a tremendous opportunity to create a metropolitan, regional, national, and inter-national destination in the City. It will add to Overland Park’s growing list of cultural amenities that make it one of the best places in America to live and work. It will foster cultural exchange, provide educational opportunities, draw visitors to the Arboretum, and be a showcase for artists around the world. It will blend artistic expression with place, by enhancing the use of the Kemper Farm property and connect our local community with the world. Ms. Lilly stated ARFOP was formed to be part of a public/private partnership. That partnership has been a win/win for Overland Park residents and visitors. Through their efforts, they have donated millions of dollars for capital expenditures and oper-ating expenses and added immense experiential value to the Arboretum, the Deanna Rose Children’s Farmstead, and to the cultural stature of the City. Ms. Lilly asked the Governing Body to consider approval of the funds for the initial stages of the International Sculpture Garden in the CIP as they move forward. She said that ARFOP is willing to embark on a path that will lead to a capital campaign to fund as much of the garden as possible. They cannot take on such a large project without relying on a partnership. She understood there was little probability that funds could be added to the budget, but hoped to start the process. Historically, the partnership worked best when they were able to leverage the City’s contribution to a project through private contributions that equal or exceed the amount invested by the City. Since its inception, ARFOP has totally funded many capital projects, while several others have been the result of a joint funding partner-ship. Because of its magnitude, this project will fall into the partnership category; especially, because their research shows that raising funds for the sculpture garden will be most successful if done in conjunction with the completion of the Arboretum’s Visitor Center and starting the Water Rill. Ms. Lilly stated the funds earmarked for the Water Rill in 2008, were taken out of the CIP budget and have not made it back in. There have been no matching funds contributed for ARFOP projects since the completion of the $250,000 matching Public Arts Program in 2009. Ms. Lilly thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak to them. She looks forward to a dialogue about how the City and the ARFOP might continue to work together to enhance the Arboretum with the addition of the International Sculpture Garden, the Visitor’s Center, and the Water Rill. Mr. Mike Jones, resident, 14004 Hayes, stated he was an advocate to perform an eco-nomic feasibility study for the development of an ice sports facility in Overland Park. He served as a community input member on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee. That committee clearly identified the significant demand for an ice sports

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 3 facility in Overland Park, which resulted from the closure of the Pepsi Ice Midwest private facility. Mr. Jones is the president of Kansas City Stars Youth Hockey which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Currently, over 400 families participate in the program. When Pepsi Ice Midwest closed in 2011, they lost approximately 50 families. They have since recovered and now have more children and families in their program than they did three years ago. They are currently housed out of a private ice rink in Shawnee. It has expanded to add an outdoor pavilion sheet of ice. Today, that rink is fully overused. Ice sports experience a numbers bump during Olympic years. Last year, they held a Try Hockey For Free event that was attended by 59 children. Of that number, 35 to 40 became participants in the sport. The event drew 91 children this year, which will account for the addition of 60 to 70 children into the program. Mr. Jones said no facility exists in Overland Park that could house the growth of the sport of ice hockey. Ice sports also include figure skating, curling, adult hockey, and recreational skating. He travels significantly with his sons to cities such as St. Louis, Omaha, Des Moines, Chicago, and Dallas, to participate in the sport. Mr. Jones said his goal is to raise awareness of the need for an ice sports facility in the community. He has seen how well these facilities work when they are integrated with other types of recreational facilities such as workout rooms, meeting rooms, and con-ference rooms. It would become a significant draw to the City, not dissimilar to the soccer complex that has become a major asset to the community. He asked the Council to consider approval of an ice sports facility feasibility study to be integrated into the Parks Master Plan and that the CIP be revised to include a line item to pursue that goal. Mr. Fred Spears asked what this type of a feasibility study would cost. Mr. Jones was unsure. He spoke with Director of Parks Services Greg Ruether who encouraged him to begin the process and conversation by attending tonight's meeting. Mr. Spears asked how much a sheet of ice would cost to construct, along with annual mainten-ance costs. Mr. Jones said he is closely involved with the group who acquired the rink in Shawnee. Exact cost would depend on the size of the structure. A bare bones facility for a single sheet of ice, although they would probably want to construct a two-sheet facility, would cost approximately $5 million. A complete community facility would cost anywhere from $9 million to $12 million. Based on what he has seen at similar facilities, the revenues generated, including debt service, would essentially run a profit in the range of $500,000, net of capital money that would be set aside for long-term maintenance improvements. He believed it would be a net positive revenue generator for the City. Mr. Spears asked if people paid enough attention to hockey to justify the cost. Mr. Jones said the Council would be amazed at how much people pay to utilize ice rinks. It is an expensive sport. Since Mr. Jones was indicating that ice rink facilities were money generators, Mr. Spears asked why the private sector had not jumped onboard. Mr. Jones said that was a good question. The private sector has joined the effort in some cities. The sport is fully developed in cities such as Chicago and Dallas. In order to be success-ful, it generally takes a publicly-funded facility with the ability to make long-term capital investments, improvements, and professional management. It can be done and has been done. Some cities have blended public and private funded programs, along

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 4 with management. Generally speaking, cities do not set aside enough money to maintain this type of a facility. He used the King Louie facility located at Metcalf and 87th Street as an example. Mr. Spears believed Pepsi Ice Midwest was another example. Mr. Jones agreed. Mr. Dan Stock asked Mr. Ruether to elaborate on the cost of a feasibility study for an ice rink, and how typically that type of facility is budgeted. Director of Parks Services Greg Ruether replied that a lot would depend on the scope of the feasibility study. Typically, a City master plan costs in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. When they created the Parks Master Plan, one-third to one-quarter of the study consisted of the City’s pool facilities. It was not a fully developed feasibility study, but more of a study of existing facilities and conditions. Mr. Stock asked if the City performed a feasibility study before they constructed the soccer fields. Mr. Ruether answered yes. He was unsure of the cost because he was not involved in that study. Mr. Stock clarified if the Council were to approve a feasibility study to be included in the CIP, Mr. Ruether believed it would cost in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. Mr. Ruether said that was his guess at this time, but restated it would be dependent on the overall scope of the facility. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Gerlach closed the public hearing. No action was taken at this time. MAYOR CARL R. GERLACH

INFORMATIONAL ITEM – Reschedule the March 17, 2014, City Council meeting to 7:30 p.m., Monday, March 24, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chamber.

Mayor Gerlach announced that the March 17, 2014, City Council meeting had been rescheduled to March 24, 2014, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber.

NEW APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Jordan D. (JD) Smith – Term 1-1-14 to 1-1-15 REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Term 1-1-14 TO 1-1-15. Patrick Davis Kathy S. Flentie Arnold Ginsberg Martha Kidd Jerry Lechtenberg Coleen Oberle Barbara Olberding Laura Reschke Vincent Sabia Kenneth Schaefer Bruce Southard Cyndi Van Hengel

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 5

Kenneth Williams Nicole Wilson Patricia Zerrer APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Term 1-1-14 to 1-1-15. Martha Kidd, Chair Barbara Olberding, CoChair

Mayor Gerlach presented the new appointments and reappointments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Advisory Committee for approval. Council President White moved to approve the appointment of Jordan D. (JD) Smith to the Community Development Block Grant Citizens Advisory Committee, for a term January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015. Mr. Spears seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. Council President White moved to approve the reappointments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Advisory Committee, as outlined on the agenda for a term January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier and carried with a vote of 11 to 0. Council President White moved to approve the appointments of Chair and CoChair to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Advisory Committee, as outlined on the agenda for a term January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Happer Scheier and carried with a vote of 11 to 0. CITY MANAGER BILL EBEL No report. CONSENT AGENDA: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ITEMS: AGREEMENT - Affinis Corp., for engineering/architectural services for 159th Street, Nall to Mission, in an amount not to exceed $887,944. STAFF ITEMS: ORDINANCE NO. CON-3036 - Authorizing and providing for the acquisition of lands or interests therein by condemnation for the construction of a Flood Control Project along Negro Creek between Metcalf and Glenwood, south of 151st Terrace in the City. (Improvement District No. 11-198)

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 6 FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS: DISPOSITION OF CITY PROPERTY - Overland Park Convention Center Furnishings and Equipment. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE BID PROCESS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE - Dell Corporation, using the Western States Contracting Alliance Contract, for the purchase of replacement computers, laptops, and servers in an amount not to exceed $237,650. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AND NEGOTIATE CONTRACT - Exucom Systems, Inc., for data backup and recovery equipment in the amount of $355,253.60. STAFF ITEMS: EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 2A - Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for January 29 through February 11, 2014. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AUTOMATION EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 2A - Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for January 29 through February 11, 2014. CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 2C - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Fund for February 13 through February 19, 2014. CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 2D - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Fund for February 20 through February 26, 2014. Council President White moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Paul Lyons seconded the motion, which carried with a roll-call vote of 11 to 0. REGULAR AGENDA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Terry Happer Scheier, Chair No report. STAFF REPORT: No report. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT: Fred Spears, Chair

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Spears reported that the City experienced a snow event over the weekend and received good television and radio press for the now removal efforts. STAFF REPORT: BID TABLULATION - Switzer Road, 159th Street to 151st Street. Director of Public Works Doug Brown stated staff was recommending the acceptance of the lowest and best responsible bidder, O'Donnell and Sons Construction Company, Inc., for a total bid of $4,359,867.65, for the Switzer Road, 159th Street to 151st Street, project. When staff opened bids for the project on February 18, 2014, Phaze Concrete, Inc., was the apparent low bidder on the project with a total bid of $4,339,239. After a review of their qualifications, staff determined they never served as a prime contractor on any street construction projects in Overland Park. They have limited experience as a subcontractor, primarily for concrete and drainage work on road construction projects. To date, they have not performed any road construction work in the Kansas City metropolitan area; although, they do have an office here and work as a subcon-tractor on various building construction projects. On that basis, staff recommended awarding the bid to O'Donnell and Sons Construction Company, Inc. Mayor Gerlach asked what the process was for a company to move to the point of being awarded projects of this size in the City. Mr. Brown said staff would first need to review their work on smaller projects in the area. That would provide them the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to serve as a general contractor for Overland Park. Mr. Spears moved to accept the bid from O'Donnell and Sons Construction Company, Inc., for the Switzer Road, 159th Street to 151st Street, project, as recommended by staff. Mr. John Skubal seconded the motion. Mr. Jacob Jessop, contractor, Phaze Concrete, Inc., 345 East Jessop Avenue, Hildale, Utah, stated he began his employment with Phaze Concrete, Inc., approximately one year ago. Prior to that, he was part owner of a company for 12 years. He worked for a major highway contractor for 19 years in the states of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. He sent his resume in with the bid proposal. While Phaze Concrete, Inc., has not done an extensive amount of this type of work under their own name, he had worked on jobs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars on these types of projects in the past as a project manager. In his estimation, this project would be relatively simple. He was surprised the City engineer did not recommend them for the project. Mayor Gerlach explained that Mr. Jessop was asking the Council to depend on his experience alone. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Jessop answered no. He said many employees currently employed by Phaze Concrete, Inc., had done this type of work for other companies. Their staff has well over 100 years of experience in this field of construction. Mayor Gerlach asked if they had done any work of this size and scope in the Kansas City area. Mr. Jessop answered no. Mayor Gerlach asked if it would be a problem for Phaze Concrete, Inc., to begin to work in this area on smaller projects to provide staff the opportunity to review their performance. He understood staff's hesitance to recommend award of a project this size to a company that had not done any work of this magnitude in the Kansas City area in the past. It was not a

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 8 matter of their ability to perform, but City projects require a lot of timing and Overland Park is restrictive with how surrounding roads are shut down. It involves the experience a contractor can bring to a project. Mr. Jessop stressed that he had worked on many other projects that involved much more intensity with regard to traffic concerns. He has worked on metropolitan projects in Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Salt Lake City, Utah; as well as major highway projects. He has also managed airport projects. The staff at Phaze Concrete, Inc., have performed many jobs of this size for various contractors. He encouraged the Council to let the competitive process work. When staff made their decision that Phaze Concrete, Inc., did not have the required experience for this size of a project, Mr. Stock asked if they considered the company itself as a firm. Mr. Brown answered yes. As Mr. Jessop indicated, staff was in possession of his resume, as well as the resumes of other senior individuals in the company. Staff reviewed each bidder's record of performance with a job of this size and scope. The motion carried with a vote of 11 to 0. Mayor Gerlach encouraged Mr. Jessop to speak with staff. The City has many projects happening at any given time. If Phaze Concrete, Inc., desired to get involved in other projects presented to them, it would serve both them and staff well. Staff's deter-mination on who to recommend for a project has never involved going with the lowest bid, but who they and the Council ultimately consider the most reputable bidder. BID TABULATION - 2014 Street Improvement Program. Mr. Brown stated staff was recommending acceptance of the low bid from Miles Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $6,015,676.41, for the 2014 Street Improvement Program. Mr. Spears noted that on the last item, as well as this project, the low bid came in more than $1 million under the engineer's estimate. He asked if current times involved a good bid environment. Mr. Brown answered yes. Staff anticipated the bidding environment would not be as good as it had been in the past because there has been a pickup in the amount of construction going on in the area. In the case of this project, the bids were comparable to last year. The City allocated near the amount of the bid for the 2014 Street Improvement Program. They will essentially be able to get all of the work completed that they had hoped as was presented to the Public Works Committee last fall. Mr. Spears moved to accept the low bid from Miles Excavating, Inc., for the 2014 Street Improvement Program. Mr. Skubal seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. AGREEMENT - Parsons Brinckerhoff for engineering/architectural services for the 2015 Major Storm Sewer Repair - 87th Street, U.S. 69 Highway to Antioch project, in the amount of $256,146.69. Mr. Brown indicated that staff was recommending approval to the Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff for engineering/architectural services for the 2015 Major Storm

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 9 Sewer Repair project on 87th Street, U.S. 69 Highway to Antioch, in the amount of $256,146.69. Mr. Spears moved to approve the Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff for engineering/architectural services for the 2015 Major Storm Sewer Repair project on 87th Street, U.S. 69 Highway to Antioch, in the amount of $256,146.69. Mr. Skubal seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Terry Goodman, Chair INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Review of Resolution No. 3724, regarding Memberships and Dues in certain organizations. Mr. Terry Goodman stated the Committee reviewed Resolution No. 3724 and made the determination that no changes were necessary. No action was required. REPORT FROM FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTE MEETING HELD ON MARCH 3, 2014. 2014-2015 PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE - Approval of an insurance program with Travelers Insurance Company for the term of April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015, in an amount not to exceed $510,000. Mr. Goodman said the Committee recommended approval of the 2014-2015 Property and Liability Insurance Program with Travelers Insurance Company for the term of April 1 2014, to April 1, 2015, in an amount not to exceed $510,000. Mr. Goodman moved to approve the 2014-2015 Property and Liability Insurance Program with Travelers Insurance Company, as outlined. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE AGENT/BROKER SERVICES - CBIZ for the term April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015, in the amount of $25,000. Mr. Goodman stated the Committee recommended approval to authorize an Agreement for Property and Liability Insurance Agent/Broker Services with CBIZ, for the term April 1, 2014 to April 1, 2015, in the amount of $25,000. Mr. Goodman moved to authorize the Law Department to deform and approve the Agreement for Property and Liability Insurance Agent/Broker Services with CBIZ, as outlined, and to be signed by the Mayor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried with a vote of 11 to 0.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 10 AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENT FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE THIRD- PARTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES - Thomas McGee, L.C., for the term April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015. Mr. Goodman stated the Committee recommended approval to authorize an Agreement for Liability Insurance Third-Party Administration Services with Thomas McGee, L.C., for the term April 1, 2014, to April 2015. Mr. Goodman moved to authorize the Law Department to deform and approve the Agreement for Property and Liability Insurance Third-Party Administration Services with Thomas McGee, L.C., for the term April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015, and to be signed by the Mayor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried with a vote of 11 to 0. INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Cancellation of March 19, 2014 Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee meeting. Since a Special Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee meeting was held this evening prior to the Council meeting, Mr. Goodman informed that the March 19, 2014, Committee meeting was cancelled. STAFF REPORT: No report. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT: Dave Janson, Chair No report. STAFF REPORT: AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE - Ten (10) Police Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles, utilizing the existing pricing from last year's bid provided by Shawnee Mission Ford in the amount of $26,957 per unit for the total purchase price of $269,570. Police Lieutenant Colonel Mark Kessler stated staff was recommending the purchase of ten Police Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles, utilizing the existing pricing from last year's bid provided by the low bidder, Shawnee Mission Ford, in the amount of $26,957 per unit for the total purchase price of $269,570. The Police Department will purchase the replacement vehicles this year using replacement budget funds. Shawnee Mission Ford informed them if the vehicles are ordered prior to March 14, 2014, they would be received earlier in the year, in May or June. If not, Shawnee Mission Ford will begin to roll over their vehicles into the new 2015 models and the City would not receive the vehicles until September or October. Mr. Janson moved to approve the purchase of ten Police Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles, utilizing the existing pricing from the previously approved bid tabulation provided by Shawnee Mission Ford and approved by the Council on July 15, 2013, in

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 11 the amount of $26,957 per unit, for the total purchase price of $269,570. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stock, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA: SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-86 - 6995 West 151st Street. A special event permit is requested from March 17 to March 18, 2014, to allow a St. Patrick's Day celebration event. Application made by Llywelyn's Pub. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-116 - 9401 Indian Creek Parkway. A special event permit is requested to allow a jazz festival and 5K run in the Corporate Woods development from June 7 to June 22, 2014. Application made by Jay Beebe, representing the Overland Park South Rotary Club. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-132 - 10850 Lowell. A special event permit is requested to allow various events and detached signage at Cleveland Chiropractic College for 2014. Application made by Jalonna Bowie, representing Cleveland Chiropractic College. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-133 - 8804 Grant. A special event permit is requested for May 31, 2014, to allow a Bark N Blues Festival. Application made by Jim Lilleston, representing VFW Post 846. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-139 - Vicinity of Santa Fe Drive, between 79th Street and 80th Street. A special event permit is requested for April 5, 2014, to allow a Downtown Dog Day event. Application made by the Downtown Overland Park Partnership, Inc. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO. 2014-140 - 7950 Marty. A special event permit is requested to allow a Farmers Market from April 12 to November 22, 2014, at the Downtown Overland Park Market Pavilion. Application made by the City of Overland Park. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - FINAL PLAT NO. 2013-62 - Strayer Estates, vicinity of the southwest corner of 156th Terrace and Switzer. Application made by Adam J. Godderz. The Planning Commission approved this item on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - FINAL PLAT NO. 2013-68 - TopGolf Overland Park, vicinity of the northeast corner of 107th Street and Nall. Application made by Polsinelli PC. The Planning Commission approved this item on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-48 - 10146 West 119th Street. A special use permit is requested for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. Application made by Tanner's Bar and Grill. The Planning Commission approved this item for a two-year period of time on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-3641.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-49 - 9559 Nall. A special use permit is requested for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Sushi Gin. The Planning Commission approved this item for a five-year period of time on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-3642. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-50 - 11851 West 95th Street. A special use permit is requested for a five-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Houlihan's. The Planning Commission approved this item for a five-year period of time on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. Ordinance No. Z-3643. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZRR-3029 - Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 18.460.310 pertaining to street signs. Application made by the City of Overland Park. The Planning Commission approved this item on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 9 to 0. Ordinance No. ZRR-3029. Mayor Gerlach provided an opportunity for members of the audience to comment on Special Use Permit Nos. 2013-48, 2013-49, and 2013-50, and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment No. ZRR-3029. There was no response and the hearing was closed. Council President White moved to approve the Planning Commission Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Happer Scheier and carried with a roll-call vote of 11 to 0. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION NO. 2014-1 - Vicinity of Larsen, south of 156th Terrace. Application made by Adam and Margaret Godderz. Ordinance No. VAC-3035. Current Planning Manager Lesie Karr indicated that this item was a request from Adam and Margaret Godderz to vacate a stub of Larsen that was built when the property was originally part of the Colton Lake South development. The applicant recently requested that the property be zoned AG, Agricultural District, which was denied. They were then approved for RP-OE, Planned Open Space Estate Residential District. Previously on this agenda, the Council approved their plat for Strayer Estates that platted this property. One requirement is that they vacate this stub of Larsen. Staff contacted all public utility companies, none of which objected to the right-of-way vacation. Staff recommended approval, subject to stipulations a and b. Mayor Gerlach opened the public hearing regarding this item. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. Council President White moved to approve Right-of-Way Vacation No. 2014-1, vicinity of Larsen, south of 156th Terrace, subject to stipulations a and b. Mrs. Happer Scheier seconded the motion, which carried by a roll-call vote of 11 to 0.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 13 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-41 - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 75th Street and Antioch. A special use permit is requested for an indefinite period of time to allow an assisted living facility. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Polsinelli PC. The Planning Commission approved this item for an indefinite period of time on February 10, 2014, by a vote of 8 to 1. Ordinance No. Z-3629. Mrs. Karr indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of Special Use Permit No. 2013-41, vicinity of the southwest corner of 75th Street and Antioch, for an inde-finite period of time to allow an assisted living facility. The Council remanded this request back to the Planning Commission at the January 6, 2014, City Council meeting. Mrs. Karr presented a vicinity map that outlined the application area. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. The surrounding properties to the east, west, and south are also zoned R-1. There is an existing commercial develop-ment to the north of the property. An aerial photograph was presented that showed the existing property included a church. At the January 6, 2014 Council meeting, the primary issues identified for the remand were density and mass of the building, height of the building, number of stories, setback of the drive and building from the neigh-bors to the south, and screening of headlights for the property owners to the south. Mrs. Karr stated the previous application involved a three-story portion on the east. This was an area of concern by the City Council. She presented the revised appli-cation that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant reduced the square footage of the building, but maintained the same number of beds. They increased the setback from the drive to the south by approximately 10 feet. The building itself is set back just over 77 feet from the nearest single-family property line. The three-story portion of the building is now set back 125 feet from the nearest property line. The building varies in height. The entry portion is one and one-half to two stories in height. A one-story portion is located at the south-west corner of the building. The eastern portion of the building is two stories in height and the middle portion is now three stories. Again, the three-story portion had extended farther to the east. The maximum height of the building is 36 feet. By comparison, in the City's R-1 District, the maximum allowable building height is 35 feet. The applicant has proposed some screening walls along the drive on the south property line. Staff has approved screening walls for several developments in the City. Mrs. Karr presented a photograph of the QuikTrip store located at 87th Street and Farley which has a three-foot tall screening wall. For reference, staff parked an SUV by that wall so the Council was able to get a visual picture of the sufficient height to screen headlights. The applicant provided updated sight lines to show the relationship of their proposal to the existing neighborhood to the south. There are three sight line sections. The first one will look through the screening wall into the parking area. The second will face slightly to the northeast towards the three-story portion of the building. The final section is located farther to the east and faces directly north to the two-story portion of the building.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 14 Mrs. Karr presented a photograph of the property located at 7616 Slater, looking slightly north to northwest. She noted the change in grade and the proposed three-foot landscape wall in that area. The second section looks to the north and east towards the three-story portion of the building. The one and one-half story portion of the building sits in front. She noted the proposed three-foot screening wall near the entry drive, the additional landscaping, and the existing fence on the property located at 7612 Slater. The final elevation section will go through where the church currently sits on the property. The shadowed portion on the area map indicated what the current impact was of that development. The church will be removed and a detention basin will be placed on the property. Mrs. Karr presented the initial elevations that were presented at the January 6, 2014, Council meeting. One item discussed at that time was the architectural 'hats' on the building that provide architectural interest. The applicant modified that item, in addition to some other changes. Some of those elements are now no taller than the three-story portion of the building. The Planning Commission considered this item at their February 10, 2014, meeting. They voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval of the special use permit, with the revisions presented and stipulations a through q. Those stipulations do not include a require-ment for the Council to review the final plans. If they were to recommend approval and wanted to view the final plans, it would require a modification to the stipulations being presented today. Mrs. Karr noted there was an invalid protest petition submitted with the initial approval. The remand did not reopen the protest petition area, so there is no change and it remains invalid. The petition was provided to the Council. She offered to answer any questions. Council President White asked if staff knew what the exterior building materials were at this point. Mrs. Karr replied there is a very short wainscot of brick and the remain-der is two different patterns of Hardiplank siding. The amount of brick was a concern of staff. Council President White asked if the building would be articulated back and forth, or just one solid wall. Mrs. Karr said there would be a lot of articulation along the building. Council President White believed with the amount of mass, it should be broken up. He assumed that would be determined between the applicant and staff by the time of final plan. Mrs. Karr said that was correct. Mayor Gerlach clarified that Mrs. Karr said there was concern about the brick, but the indication was that in staff's opinion it was not a sufficient amount. Mrs. Karr said that was correct. With respect to their outlined concerns, Mr. Janson asked for the specific instructions given by staff to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Karr explained that those were the concerns, as they were presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Janson asked if the Site Plan Review Committee, who met prior to that meeting, had the same con-cerns. Mrs. Karr replied that staff's concerns were shared with the Site Plan Review Committee, and they were included in their discussion. They talked about the changes proposed by the applicant, which were to reduce a significant portion of the

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 15 three-story section of the building and increase the setbacks along the south. The Site Plan Review Committee was comfortable with those changes. Mr. Janson asked for the height of the existing church on the property. Mrs. Karr said the information provided to staff indicated the church height was near 36 feet. The applicant would have to confirm the exact height. Mr. Janson asked if a 98-space parking lot was being proposed. Mrs. Karr answered yes. Mr. Janson asked how that number was determined. Mrs. Karr explained that the applicant is required to provide one parking space for every three beds, and one parking space for every employee on the largest shift. Mr. Janson asked if there were ever exceptions to that calculation. Mrs. Karr said the applicant could certainly pro-pose more parking spaces, or ask the Council to consider less parking. Mr. Janson asked because this facility is a rehabilitation center and he questioned if the residents, or patients, would even be driving vehicles. He asked if the applicant asked for fewer parking spaces. Mrs. Karr answered no. Part of the proposed parking count would also accommodate visitors at the facility. Mr. Skubal asked staff to go over the elevations. He wanted approximate distances from the neighboring lots to the building faces. Mrs. Karr presented the revised elevation. She noted there was a lot of variety in the site, and it might be easier to look at the set-backs on the site plan. From the southernmost portion, the setback is 77.8 feet at the closest point. The three-story portion is 125 feet at the closest point to the south. Mr. Spears asked when this item was remanded back to the Planning Commission, if any specific instructions were given with regard to the number of stories. Mrs. Karr said there was some indication by the Council that two stories would be preferable for this development, but no specific direction was given to indicate that was an absolute requirement. Mr. Kurt Petersen, applicant, Polsinelli PC, 6201 College Boulevard, was present representing Mainstreet Property Group, L.L.C. He was joined by Mr. Doug Pedersen, director of development, Mainstreet Property Group, L.L.C.; Mr. Todd Mosher, senior development manager, Atwell, L.L.C.; and Mr. Neal Fister, principal and chief architect, Lawrence Group. Mr. Petersen said staff gave a good overview of where the project stood up to this point. This project was remanded back to the Planning Commission to review some general parameters. The list of concerns included massing and height of the building, setback of the drive and building, and the screening of headlights. The applicant met with the neighbors and staff at City Hall. He believed that several hour meeting was productive. On that same day, the applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee who approved the plan by a 3 to 0 vote. They then met with the Planning Commission who approved this item by a vote of 8 to 1. Mr. Petersen explained seven fundamental changes that were made to the plan, compared to what the Council considered last month. All of the changes were in response to the issues raised. The first change pertained to the reduction of the third-story portion of the building. Mr. Petersen presented a color-coded exhibit. The yellow area referred to the eastern

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 16 portion of the building at Antioch. This two-story piece was on the previous plan. The green area was the north to south prolongation of the building that backs up to the retail to the north. That part of the building was three stories in the initial plan and remains three stories. The orange area between those two pieces was the fundamental change. That portion was initially three-story and extended to the far west and east between the green and yellow areas. That part of the building was reduced to two stories. He called it a significant reduction, because it is approximately 100 feet and leaves the third story, east to west, at about 95 feet and exposure to the property owners to the south. He felt it was important to recognize on the new plan that the 95 feet of third story facing to the south was stepped up from a one and one-half story entry piece. The distance was 125 to 126 feet from the property line up to the first part of the third story, and another 35 to 40 feet to the closest home. This first change was a significant reduction in the third story presence, vis-à-vis, the neighbors to the south compared to what was seen at the January 6, 2014, Council meeting. Mr. Petersen believed the second change was a good metric to independently evaluate the plan. The designers made a 9,000 square foot reduction in the third story alone. That led to a reduction of approximately 2,100 square feet to the overall design. In their attempt to find a financially feasible way to listen to the concerns expressed and still maintain the desired number of patients and residents at the facility, the setback was moved approximately 15 feet closer to Antioch. There is still a significant setback to Antioch but by extending it out, they were able to acquire additional space. He noted the jut out on the green area of the plan that headed west. In addition to the main dining area and other amenities, there will be localized dining on all three stories of the bump out. This was an efficient way to regain some area. The third change was the determination of how to shift the setback of the building. Staff expressed that earnest efforts had been taken to best fit the project onto the site. The developer eliminated many movements of the building and was able to move the building three feet. The closest setback on the building is 78 feet and a small vesti-bule. The closest setback on the main part of the building at 81 feet. The setback is 108 feet behind the gardens. The revised plan is not a huge difference, but the building was moved three feet to the north. Mr. Petersen said the fourth change was to the drive that ran east to west at the south of the building. The property was moved a full 10 feet, which moved them to 38 feet from the property line to the neighbors. The fifth change pertained to the roof features. The plan presented to the Council in January included four roof features, or what Mr. Petersen referred to as ‘hats.’ The new plan included a side-by-side rendering of before and after. He presented a van-tage point looking from the cul-de-sac. The first roof feature is located on the third- story piece that runs north to south to the retail. The second roof feature is located on the vestibule entry area. The third roof feature is midway on the east to west piece of the building. The last hat is located on the side of Antioch. One roof feature was initially located on a one and one-half story piece of the building. Two roof features were located on the three-story portion, and the last roof feature was located on the two-story portion of the building. The new plan eliminated one roof feature. There is no longer a roof feature on the three-story portion. The applicant understood the issue was to reduce the overall height of the structure. A roof feature remains on the one and one-half story portion. A roof feature remains at the mid point of the building. He reminded the Council that part of the building was originally three

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 17 stories which had now been reduced to two stories. The roof feature on the far end of the building was left in place on two stories. There are no decorative roof features on the three-story portion, which reduced the overall height of the building. He said some may ask why the developer did not simply remove the roof features, and he explained that the design team believes the roof features add significance to the structure. The sixth change involved the addition of the landscape screening walls. The land-scaping was strategically placed where headlights would possibly shine to the neigh-bors to the south. Mr. Petersen noted the screen walls on the map. The applicant was cooperative on the height issue to whatever it might take to screen headlights. Staff performed an onsite study. They investigated what is typically done in Overland Park and State regulations on headlight ranges on vehicles, in terms of height. That is how they arrived at this proposal. The seventh and final change was in regard to the significant increase in landscaping. The applicant heard the Council’s concerns with screening in general, in addition to screening headlights. He referred to the southern property line to the west. The design team spent a significant amount of time focusing on the subject cul-de-sac. He referred to a double layer of evergreen trees that will be planted at 6 to 8 feet. They will grow approximately one foot per year. The applicant will work with staff to determine the exact species. The plantings will be scheduled so a full two rows of trees will extend to the property line on the west, as well as behind the screening walls. That will result in a triple layer of light protection. Mr. Petersen referred to the native trees on the property, noting they had nice canopies. The engineering grading plan will ensure the root zone is not disturbed. Hopefully none of the existing trees will be disturbed. The plan includes double the typical landscaping required on similar projects. Quantitatively, approximately 60 evergreen trees will be planted on the property to create a nice buffer to the nearby neighbors. Mr. Petersen was happy to discuss further the landscaping. With regard to building materials since the first submission of the plan, he believed staff would confirm that the design team had been open minded. They did not submit an official submittal and acquired feedback from staff. A significant amount of additional stone or masonry was placed on the front of the building. He was confident everyone would reach an agree-ment at the time of final development plan on the building materials. Mr. Petersen stated the developer continues to believe this project would be a great transitional use from retail to residential. The City has typically done apartments, a senior living facility, or semi-public facilities, such as a church, on transitional properties. They believe the changes made in response to the concerns of Council, the Planning Commission, the Site Plan Review Committee, staff, and the neighbors made the project an even better physical transition for the neighboring properties to the south. As a backdrop, they know the church on the property will go dark and become vacant property. This is a multi-million dollar project investment and a service that no one would disagree Overland Park desperately needs. It is a difficult site since it is infill redevelopment. He asked the Council for approval of Special Use Permit No. 2013-41.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 18 Mr. Janson stated that staff comments indicated the developer agreed to construct a 36-inch screening wall to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto the neighbors' homes to the south. He was copied on an email from resident Mr. Chris Weber. That email indicated that Mr. Weber had repeatedly requested the wall be constructed to a height of 6 to 10 feet and apparently his requests have been ignored. Mr. Petersen agreed that Mr. Weber and other neighbors had repeatedly suggested that they would like a 6 to 10 foot screening wall erected, but he took strong issue that their requests had been ignored. A significant amount of dialogue has taken place with the applicant and the neighbors and sometimes in front of staff. The applicant has always said if the issue was screening of headlights and vehicles in the best aesthetic manner for both the neighbors and building side, they would screen headlights pursuant to the research done by staff with regard to the required height of the screening wall. They staggered double layers of 6-foot evergreen trees that will eventually grow to 30 feet tall. They believe the trees will give a better aesthetic look to the property than to place a 6 to 10 foot institutional-type screening wall in a residential area. From an aesthetic standpoint, the design team does not believe a wall of that height would be a good fit on the property. It is simply a difference of opinion between the design team and the neighbors. Mr. Janson asked if the developer would agree to the placement of a 6-foot wall. Mr. Petersen said the design team does not believe that even a 6-foot wall would fit properly from an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Petersen recognized that significant dollars had been put into the landscape plan since the last meeting. Doubling the City's requirements has been expensive. The design team believes the best place to spend additional money for screening purposes, would be to put in the proposed trees. Mr. Janson said he was only talking about the screening portion and a wall that would run the entire length of the property. Mr. Petersen understood. Mr. Janson asked for the length of the screening wall. Director of Planning and Development Services Jack Messer replied that both walls are approximately 80 feet in length. Mr. Janson asked if a study was performed that indicated three feet was the ideal height to screen headlights. Mr. Messer was unsure of what Mr. Petersen referenced and if an ideal height for a screening wall for head-lights was studied. The State statute regulates that headlight heights are between 24 and 54 inches. Staff studied all of the screening walls the City has required on various projects in the past, and they have all been in the range of three feet tall. Staff randomly tested with various vehicles in the parking lot and found that most head-lights are at a level of approximately 30 to 35 inches from the ground, even SUVs. Staff was generally referring to a height of 30 to 35 inches to screen headlights. Mr. Janson acknowledged that Mr. Goodman made a motion on January 6, 2014, to approve this project with stipulation s inserted into the document that would, “Require the construction of a fence acceptable to the neighborhood.” He believed the applicant agreed to that stipulation in January. Mr. Petersen did not think he was at the podium at that time. He said if their mission is to shield visual and light, the design team truly believes what has been proposed will aesthetically look best. Mr. Janson asked for the square foot percentage of the total amount of area repre-sented on the third floor. Mr. Petersen replied it is approximately 22 percent. With regard to the three-story section of the building, Mr. Lyons indicated that the design team cut it down to where the north and south parts of the building are three stories, but the east and west parts of the building are primarily two stories. Part of the east/west section remained three stories. He asked for the length of that section

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 19 that sticks out from the building. Mrs. Karr replied that section appeared to be approximately 45 to 50 feet long. Mayor Gerlach opened the public hearing on this item. Mr. David Lewis, resident, 7612 Slater, asked his neighbors from the Clearing subdivision and those who live along Antioch to stand and be recognized. He read from the January 6, 2014, City Council meeting minutes. “Mr. Goodman indicated if they are going to remand this item back to the Planning Commission, they need to have some specificity. They need to be specific as to the structure, such as if it must be a two-story structure.” Mr. Lewis stated exactly what was said at the January meeting, was that the structure must be one or two stories only and not three stories. He believed another statement from that meeting was that the facility would be 62,000 square feet in size. He pre-sented a model of the revised plan and noted there was not much of a difference from the original plan. He acknowledged that Mr. Petersen did a very good job explaining the difference. He pointed out the previous three-story section that was reduced to two stories in the revised plan. He asked the Council to pay close attention to the height of the existing one-story strip shopping center. He noted where the neighbors would see the lights, and he said there would still be three stories in the back of the development. Mr. Lewis said the revised plan was an overall reduction of 2.6 percent. The developer increased the footprint, kept the facility at 130 beds, and the building remains at 86,229 square feet on a small piece of property. He said the building is still too big. He recognized the Council struggled as they attempted to give specific guidance. Their guidance was either ignored or simply not heard. Mr. Lewis asked staff to display the photograph of the convenience store screening wall. He noted it was not a good representation of a three-foot screening wall, because a portion of that area had already dropped. He apologized for presenting this issue to the Council again, but reiterated that the building is still too big. The size and density did not decrease with the new plan and the Council’s request was ignored. He asked the Council to deny the special use permit. Mrs. Erma Burnell, 5412 Walmer, Mission, Kansas, explained that she began attend-ing Antioch Church almost 25 years ago. The church became a place of worship and solace for her and is where she met and married her second husband. Her husband broke his hip and on the recommendation of an orthopedic surgeon from Shawnee Mission Medical Center, he was admitted to the Olathe Medical Center Hoeger House. They were told that was the best facility for his needs. For six weeks, she drove from the Olathe Medical Center Hoeger House downtown to work. When her husband came home, he woke up one morning and told her he couldn’t breathe. He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and partial renal failure. The next morning she found out he had total renal failure. The family medical doctor called in hospice. She had his funeral at the Antioch Church. She would have given up her church three years ago to be able to have a quality rehabilitation center to place her husband. Mrs. Burnell said she knew this issue was difficult for the Council. She assured every person in the Chamber one of three things. They were either going to casually know of

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 20 a person, personally know a person, or would someday need the facility for their own benefit. She implored the Council to think beyond petty differences and to the future. Overland Park needs more facilities like the proposed development. Ms. Linda Neville, resident, 8713 West 76th Street, lives in the Clearing subdivision. She agreed that more facilities like the proposed project were needed in Overland Park. Two similar facilities are in the planning stages in her neighborhood and about to be constructed. One is in the vicinity of 75th Street and Antioch in the medical complex. Ms. Neville said the whole point of this discussion was that they were dealing with minor changes from what came out of the January 6, 2014, meeting. She apologized that they had to return to this issue again in disagreement, but the Council’s instructions seemed to have been ignored. Ms. Neville understood that developers and managers of commercial businesses need to make a profit, but asked how much is too much and at what expense to the nearby citizens. If the numbers are crunched for Medicare payment per bed in a rehabili-tation home with 130 beds, minus the cost of doing business with mortgages, salaries, and miscellaneous expenses, there is a lot of profit to be made with this facility. The profit is as massive as the structure, but the developer says ‘no.’ She performed some research and was told by healthcare experts that the average cost per day, per bed in this type of a facility was close to $600. She multiplied 130 beds by $600 a day and came up with $76,000. She multiplied $76,000 by 30 days, on an average month, and then by 12 months. The final total calculated to $28,080,000. She said that is a lot of money. By figuring a 25 percent profit, assuming there is a 75 percent overhead, the annual profit income would be $7,020,000. When the facility is sold, the owner would make even more profit. The profit does not include any tax credits, financial write-offs, or depreciation. Ms. Neville gave another example of what she referred to as corporate greed taken at the expense of this community and its surrounding neighborhoods. She reminded the Council that the applicant’s stock is traded in Canada, not in the United States. She said the neighbors want to be reasonable, but believe the proposed project is simply too large for the property. The Council agreed with them in the past. This project would not be in sync with the neighborhood characteristics. She could not believe other viable buyers had not made reasonable offers on the property, perhaps at a lower price. She asked the Council to consider that the property may now be over-priced. Only a multi-million dollar corporation is willing to pay the price because they will be able to get away with overbuilding on the property and recoup their minor upfront expense. Ms. Neville said construction had taken off in recent months which relates to people's confidence in the economy. Healthcare facilities are needed and new ones are being built in this community. This is not the City’s only chance for a viable and reasonable project on that transitional piece of land. She asked the Council to be reasonable. She said Mainstreet’s cavalier attitude of 'take it or leave it,' is an insult to the Council and to every citizen of Overland Park. She asked the Council to remand this project back to the Planning Commission with explicit instructions to follow or the project will be denied. Two months ago, there was an 11 to 1 consensus by the Council that this plan was inappropriate. Ms. Neville said not much had changed on the positive side, so she

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 21 could not understand how 11 of the councilmembers could have possibly changed their position. Mr. Mike Everhart, resident, 7620 Slater, stated his property is adjacent to the pro-posed development. He does not like this situation at all. He said the Planning Commission is made up of; people who primarily make their living in the business of planning and development. He and his neighbors, the property owners, are voters. The Council is the only Body that listens to the residents. The Planning Commission made a very strong point that they did not have to, and had no intention of paying any attention to what the affected property owners adjacent to this project had to say. He was tired of coming before City officials and being ignored. The Council represents the people of this City and not the other way around. Mr. Everhart said City staff allows factual misrepresentations by its developers to be made without comment to correct those misrepresentations. He said he had facts to back up his statements. He heard two councilmembers say after the last Council meeting that if the Planning Commission came back with another recommendation to approve, they may have to approve the plan. He truly wanted to believe that the Council was representing the citizens, but said he was having a hard time with what he had seen happen so far in this city. He reiterated that the Planning Commission did not pay attention to the Council's concerns with this project. He attended the last Council meeting and heard from at least two councilmembers, as well as Mr. Goodman, their desire for specificity. The list of concerns presented by the applicant's attorney did not mention specificity, but density. He agreed that the site was too dense and too high for this project. He asked the Council to look at the representation which is to scale, compared to the single story strip center located on 75th Street and the surrounding houses. Mr. Everhart indicated the Council was their last chance to deal with a process that they have tried very hard to ignore them. The revised plan changed very little from the original plan. Mr. Everhart noted during the last City Council meeting when this development was brought before them, they heard clear critical thinking and true concern for what is best for Overland Park and for the neighbors of this community. He asked the Council to stand by the commitment they demonstrated at the last meeting and reject the project. Mr. Goodman went on record and said he rejected nearly 100 percent of Mr. Everhart's comments. He has been a councilmember for 13 years and spent 7 years as a Planning Commissioner. In his estimation, how Mr. Everhart described the Planning Commission was completely and totally inaccurate. He assured there are no back-room deals made by Planning Commissioners or by any member of this Council. As far as his direction was concerned, when he said the Council should not remand something back to the Planning Commission without specificity, he meant that the Council should not send a project back without outlining their concerns with the project and suggestions on how improve it. Those opinions and ideas vary seat by seat. Some councilmembers might not want to approve this project unless it is reduced to two stories. Others may say they are not as focused on the number of stories, as on other elements of the design that they would like the Planning Commission to take another look at. Some of them may not agree with the project at all.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 22 Mr. Goodman said the word 'explicit' was used by a previous speaker which he felt was a good word. As a unit, the Council did not say 'Reduce this project to two stories.' Some councilmembers may have voiced that opinion, but it was not universal among the entire Governing Body. Mr. Goodman said Planning Commissioners are independent and make the best decisions possible outside of the political arena. They are not concerned about whether the citizens vote for them or do not vote for them. They are not elected officials, but appointed volunteers. As far as their professional expertise is concerned, the Planning Commission is made up of architects, landscape planners, and retired business people that have absolutely nothing to do with the construction or real estate industry. One long time member of the Planning Commission is an attorney and his specialty is estate planning, which has nothing to do with real estate. By virtue of the experience they gain by their service on the Planning Commission, those individuals are there to make the best decision possible for the City, taking into account the facts that are presented to them. Mr. Goodman did not want a response argument from Mr. Everhart. He did not believe there was anything he could say that might convince Mr. Everhart otherwise, other than to say he was offended by his comments. He was offended by his characterization of the Planning Commission, by the characterization of what he personally considers to be the finest professional staff in this community, and by his characterization of the applicant's attorney as someone that has lied to the Planning Commission and Council. He believed Mr. Everhart owed everyone he mentioned an apology. Mr. Everhart said he would not entertain an argument with Mr. Goodman, but stood ready to provide actual words from the Planning Commission and City staff to prove his statements. He listened to the characterizations of meeting with the neighbors. He had not seen much in the way of meetings and had not seen much in the way of paying attention to what was of concern to the residents. Mr. Phil Rude, resident, 7628 Slater, stated that he and his wife have lived in their home for over 24 years. They chose its location because of the quality neighborhood. It is a quiet oasis consisting of approximately six dozen homes located along 76th Terrace, Slater, Eby, and Antioch. They all have large lots with large trees. He has great neighbors and it has been an extraordinarily wonderful place to live. He said the neighborhood was healthy and vibrant and now consists of a mix of young families with children, middle-aged residents, and retirees. It is not a neighborhood in decline, but one with a quality of life that deserves to be protected. Mr. Rude said for most of the surrounding residents, their home is their major invest-ment. For some, it might be the largest single investment they ever make. These are investments that must be protected. The residents have done their part to protect these investments and some invested heavily to update, repair, remodel, and beautify their homes. The empty lots that were in existence when he moved into the neighbor-hood have had new homes built on them in recent years. One older home was completely demolished and a new home was rebuilt on the property. He said it should be clear to any impartial observer that the intrusion of this three-story oversized structure perched at the highest point in the neighborhood will loom over the neighbors and be totally out of character for the neighborhood. It is not a good

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 23 transition between the existing one-story retail strip to the north and the neighbor-hood to the south. Mr. Rude expects to see a significant increase in traffic driving through his neigh-borhood due to the difficulty of making a left turn out of the proposed development to go north on Antioch to 75th Street. He expects many vehicles will turn south on Antioch and go west on 76th Terrace to Eby to access 75th Street. He predicts that he and many of his neighbors will endure ongoing issues with lights and noise during the daily operations of this business. Most of all, he expects the existence of this ridiculously large structure perched high above the entrance to his small neighbor-hood to negatively affect their property values. The residents directly across Antioch may financially suffer the most. If a future street widening project were to take place to accommodate a left turn lane off Antioch into the development is found to be necessary, the residents on Antioch could lose a significant portion of their front yards. He lives 300 feet away. Mr. Rude said he would not have purchased a home in this neighborhood if this project had existed at the time of sale. Nor would he have purchased his home if he had not had the confidence in the strength of the City's zoning restrictions to protect his investment and keep out inappropriate and ill conceived projects. He and his neighbors are residents, citizens, taxpayers, and voters. They are asking the Council to protect their quality of life, homes, and property values. At the very least, he asked the Council to remand the project back to the Planning Commission in another attempt to come up with a reasonably sized structure for the site, but he would prefer that they simply turn down the project. Council President White said between what had been said by Mr. Rude and with what Mr. Lewis presented to the Council and staff, it showed topographic lines of either 10 or 20 feet. He asked if those elevations were correct. Mr. Rude was unsure how to answer that question with any certainty. From looking at the existing topographic map, Mr. Messer believed the north property line jutted out about 10 feet to the drive. The building is 36 feet tall, or 40 feet from the property line in elevation to the top. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Gerlach closed the public hearing. Mr. Spears said the Council hears about light pollution and lights from buildings similar to this project shining into adjacent single-family properties. He asked if that concern had been resolved by staff. Mrs. Karr explained that staff typically looks at lighting as part of the final plan. Staff receives detailed photometric cut sheets of the light fixtures to minimize that concern. Mr. Spears said the Council heard about setbacks and the building height involved with this project. He asked if a three-story building was approximately three feet taller than what is traditionally allowed on R-1 structures. Mrs. Karr said it is about the same height. She explained that 35 feet is the maximum height for R-1 structures and this plan is at 36 feet. Mr. Spears referred to backyard depths in R-1 subdivisions. Mrs. Karr said the minimum backyard depth is 25 feet, but depending on lot size could be more. Mr. Spears asked to put this project into a different perspective. He said the building was anywhere from 81 to 120 feet back from the property line. Mrs. Karr said the closest portion of the building is at approximately 78 feet and the three-story portion

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 24 is 125 feet. She believed Mr. Petersen had referred to the 81-foot portion, being the main portion of the one-story building. Mr. Spears asked if this plan was triple to four or five times the minimum setback for an R-1 house in this area. Mrs. Karr answered for the minimum required, yes. Mr. Spears asked for the minimum setback in a typical R-1 area. Mrs. Karr said it varied. Frequently, staff receives requests for more than 25 feet to 35 feet, it but depends on depth of the lot and size of the house. Mr. Messer stated that the City has quite a few 70-foot by 110-foot lots, so there is a front yard setback at 25 feet typically 45 feet for a rear setback. Mr. Spears said in the front yard facing the two 25-foot setbacks plus 30 feet for the street, it equates to an approximate 80-foot setback between the houses front to front. Mr. Messer said that was correct. Mr. Curt Skoog referred to the landscaping and double rows of evergreen trees. In 10 to 15 years when those trees begin to die out, he asked what obligation the property owner had to maintain the area. He asked what mechanism was in place to trigger that maintenance. Mrs. Karr explained that the property owner would be bound by the plan. At any point when plantings begin to die, the City has the ability to enforce action. It is not an uncommon action by the City on properties where landscaping has died and has not been properly maintained. Mr. Skoog said the City did not look for that kind of activity, and he asked if it would be a situation where someone might contact staff and notify them of the situation. Mrs. Karr said the City may notice it in some cases, but oftentimes it is complaint based. Mr. Stock moved to approve Special Use Permit No. 2013-41, vicinity of the southwest corner of 75th Street and Antioch, and Ordinance No. Z-3629. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. Mr. Stock said he supported both the original plan and the new plan. The Council has a responsibility that extends beyond the concerns voiced at today's public hearing. In his opinion, one of the most important duties in their role as a Council is their attempt to maintain the character of neighborhoods. One way they do that is with quality reinvestment beyond what homeowners invest themselves. The Council understands the impact that Hy-Vee brought to 95th Street and Antioch, and the Walgreens in the Cherokee South Shopping Center. The impact of that redevelopment has been sub-stantial. The impact of a project and investment of this size in the northern part of the City where the Council is worried about potential blight and increased crime is a significant need for the community. Mr. Stock said this was also an opportunity for an infill site. He understood people's concerns and that some were against the project. He said most people do not welcome a change of this degree in their neighborhoods, and he sympathized with every one of the residents. However, he could not turn his back on the fact that this is a signifi-cant contribution to northern Overland Park. He recognized his obligation to the City as a whole to support a project of this type and quality. Because of the neighborhood involvement, he believed they had gotten a better project. It was not a waste for the neighbors to invest their time into this project. Nor was it a waste of time for the Council, Planning Commission, or staff in their efforts to get a better project. Mr. Lyons echoed Mr. Goodman's earlier statement. He, too, took exception to nearly all of Mr. Everhart's statement. He understood Mr. Everhart's feelings and recognized that it was an emotional issue for him. It is a change that will potentially impact

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 25 Mr. Everhart's neighborhood, where the residents are used to an empty lot on that site. He understood the impact the residents may experience if this development is sent forward. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the Council, Planning Commission, staff, and applicant were all honorable people who are obviously representing a particular interest. There are no hidden agendas or backroom deals going on. These are people who are trying to do the best job they possibly can for this city. Mr. Lyons heard several times that the Council should take offense because the Planning Commission did not listen to their concerns. He disagreed. The applicant made changes to the original plan. As mentioned earlier by Mayor Gerlach, the Planning Commission approved the previous plan so it should not be a surprise to anyone that they would approve this plan. He was one of the councilmembers who said he would prefer the development be limited to two stories. The applicant came back with changes to reduce the size of the three-story building. They made other adjustments so that the overall square footage of the building was less impacted by adding one-story or two-story spaces elsewhere. His view pertained to the impact of the three-story building as it faced north to south. There will be less of a dramatic impact to the neighborhood from the part of the three-story building that runs east to west. If he still had concerns, they would be relative to the small section of the roughly 45-foot portion of the three-story building located on the east/west side. He was unsure if that was significant enough for him to vote against the motion. Mr. Lyons agreed with Mr. Stock that the efforts of everyone involved in the planning of this development were not wasted. This project resulted in the applicant returning with a better plan. The church is going to close. If the expectation is that this property is going to become single-family residential homes, that is simply not the case. If the Council turned down this project today, a new proposal coming before them could include an office building or some other type of fairly massive building. It could be a retail-type of proposal that would have similar or greater impact to the neighborhood as this plan. An office building could be proposed for the property that could end up being even taller. He believed the changes made were all positive. He understood from the residents it is not the solution they wanted, but overall it is a better solution, and he will support the motion. Mr. Skoog addressed an earlier comment. The job of the Council is to represent the residents of their individual wards, but also to represent the City as a whole. They are tasked with making decisions they believe will be best for the residents. When he first considered this project and stood in the nearby backyards, his main concern for the residents looking over into the field was having three stories facing them, as well as how close the drive was planned to their backyards. At the January meeting, he believed the Council, as a group, effectively communicated their concerns. The revised plan presents a building that has been dramatically reduced in the three-story section facing south, so the sight lines from the south will be much improved. The drive and distance of the building from the back of those lots moved north. Some of the archi-tectural additions were removed. As they consider infill redevelopment in Overland Park, these are the exact issues the Council is asked to deal with on a regular basis. When he asked himself if this development was the right use for this property, his answer was yes. Once people are able to get past the use issue, it becomes a question of if the building is appropriate for the site in conjunction with the surrounding neighborhoods. He gave this project a lot of thought and came to the agreement that it is an appropriate use for the area. Based on his experience on the Council with similar projects built in the City, although, some of the neighbors may never come to

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 26 like it, he believed they will eventually find it fits in well with the rest of the neighbor-hood. He stated the residents effectively voiced their opinions and had influenced the project in a way that will be of benefit. Mr. Goodman said when this project first came before the Council, he made a motion to approve it and attempted to add a stipulation that would lead to the requirement of the screening walls. When that failed to proceed, he voted for the remand. He believed in the project then and continues to believe in it. Instead of rejecting the project overall, he felt it would be advisable to send it back to the Planning Commission to see what changes could be made. Mr. Goodman understood the concerns and apprehension of the neighbors. He recalled when the Council approved the Target store at Oak Park Mall. It was aggressively opposed by the neighborhood for all the same reasons stated for this project. Yet when people look at the Target store today with the berming, the wall, and the landscaping that has been installed, he was sure people wonder how anyone could be opposed to that kind of improvement to their neighborhood. The Target store at 119th Street and Blue Valley Parkway has become an integral part of that area. Initially, residents in that neighbor-hood indicated that store would completely devastate their home values. The Wal-Mart store at 159th Street and Metcalf is a model of what Wal-Mart stores can and should look like. It came about as a result of neighborhood participation. Again, those who were involved in that development years ago may remember that the Wal-Mart store was supposedly going to completely devastate the surrounding neighborhoods. That did not happen. At the last Council meeting, Mr. Goodman said they discussed the Overland Park Regional Medical Center expansion. One member on the Council said the difference with that expansion was that the people who purchased homes in that neighborhood already knew of the hospital. He previously owned a home at 10403 Caenen. He recalled arriving home one night when he saw a big crane down behind the houses to the south of him and immediately questioned what was happening. He was not involved in City government at that time. His wife told him that was where the new hospital was being readied for construction. The homes in that area of the City were there well before the hospital and certainly before the recent expansion which will bring a five-story building in much closer proximity to those residents than what is being proposed with this project. The residents that lived near the hospital worked well with the development team to reach many compromises. Mr. Goodman referred to the Kelly Green Apartments located in his ward at 129th Street and Quivira. Both he and Mr. Spears supported that development. The neighbors in Nottingham by the Green swore that development would completely devastate their area. Another example given was the assisted living facility located at 127th Street and Switzer. Over the past 20 years, there has been many decisions made by the Council to approve similar developments in residential neighborhoods. The concerns, as earnest and sincere as they have been, have not panned out once the developments have been completed. Fear has proven to be baseless, as far as time is concerned. Mr. Goodman said Overland Park has built up to be a very good city. The Council hears that from their constituents quite often. He recalled the speech former Council-member Byron Loudon made at his retirement reception. Mr. Loudon advised the Council to do what was right for the City as a whole, because by doing so there is a 99

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 27 percent probability they will do what is right for their ward. He has always paid heed to that statement and it applied to this situation as well. Mr. Goodman believed the applicant listened to the Council's concerns. He under-stood that some people might characterize the changes made as minor, but did not believe that to be the case. When a building is completely reoriented from the original plan, that is major and significant change. When setbacks are increased, archi-tectural elements are revised by lowering or eliminating them, and screening walls and landscaping is added to a plan, they are major changes. Mr. Goodman asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to add stipulation r, which would require the final development plan to return to the Council for approval. Mr. Stock agreed to that amendment. With regard to stipulation r, Mr. Goodman hoped that staff and the applicant could specifically deal with two things. First, the height of the screening wall. He was unsure of the appropriate height, but did not believe that would cause the applicant to pull out of the project. If a 6-foot wall is what it takes to make the project more agreeable to the neighborhood and staff agrees that a wall of that height could be constructed to be aesthetically pleasing, then the final development plan could reflect whatever height is agreed to. With regard to the trees and the types of plantings, the Council received a letter that mentioned the species Green Giant. That resident believed Green Giant would be a better choice than Pine. The applicant indicated their desire to reach a compromise and was flexible with regard to species in the landscape plan. It is his hope that the final development plan will reflect some focus on these two concerns. With his second to the motion, he remained in support of the project. Council President White stated that Mr. Everhart had made his decision difficult. Mr. Everhart managed to identify everything he is, as an attorney, a councilmember, and a former planning commissioner and bashed him on a personal level throughout his entire statement. However, despite those remarks, he maintained that he was still not in favor of the project. He referred to Google Maps and a photograph that was included in the packet material. His main concern pertained to the narrowest part of the lot, where the commercial comes down the site and across to a nearby home. The tallest part of the building is located at that point. He said the nearby residents in that area will have a view of the three-story section of the building. He was quoted at the January Council meeting as saying this project related to attempting to put 50 pounds in a 5-pound sack. He believes for the structure to be three stories, elevated at least 20 feet, and only 30 to 35 yards from some of the residents' backyards was too much for that space. With regard to the footprint of the plan, Council President White felt the size and mass of the project was fine. The screening wall was fine as well. His argument remained with the third story being so close to the residents. If the motion did not pass, he would send the plan back to the Planning Commission for a third time. He served on the Planning Commission in the past and recalled one project that went through the Council three times before they came to an agreement. It was not because the Planning Commission did not listen to the Council, but because they were attempting to do their best to come up with something that would be acceptable and fit into the locale. Council President White noted that Mr. Goodman mentioned the Target store at Oak Park Mall. A lot of people shop at Target. He has not seen any residents boycotting

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 28 that store. The residents may not be in favor of this project, but it will fit on the site. He reiterated his only concern with the last section of the building being three stories. Two stories would be fine with him. Mr. Janson stated there is a need for this type of facility in Overland Park. He did not believe there was a person in the room who did not know of an individual who had an elderly parent that required 30 days of rehabilitation or more. As the population continues to age in this country, the need for these types of facilities only increases. He believes this is a quality project and liked it from an architectural standpoint. He did not particularly like the roof features, but was not opposed to them. This was not a typical nursing home. The applicant knows what they are doing and are not amateurs. Mr. Janson said if he were to purchase this piece of property, he could construct a 10,000 square foot house that was 35 feet high and no one could do anything about it. Ms. Neville spoke about perhaps putting in a better project with a residential or office structure. When Mr. Goodman spoke about the residential aspect at the January 6, 2014, Council meeting, he said it was suggested that the site could be broken out into six or seven lots. He said $500,000 homes would have to be placed on those lots to make it financially feasible. By his account, this property had been for sale for at least four years. If a builder wanted to purchase the property and build residential homes on it, they would have by now. He reminded the assembly that a For Sale sign had been in place on that property for at least one year. Part of that sign read 'Medical Building.' A resident phoned him asking to know the particulars. The broker who listed the property decided on their own that it would be a prime spot for a medical building. He thought a medical building was a good idea, because it most likely would not have been constructed over two stories high and most likely would not have been 86,000 square feet in size. That did not come to pass. With regard to traffic, Mr. Janson said he had to go to Shawnee Mission Medical Center a couple of weeks ago. He drove south on Antioch and turned right onto 74th Street into the campus area at 9:00 a.m. The parking lot was already full. He recognized the abundant amount of traffic exiting onto Antioch from 74th Street, Grandview, and 75th Street. He did not have any trouble getting in or out of the campus and does not believe traffic will be a concern for the proposed facility. Mr. Janson stated that Mr. Everhart mentioned an issue where the public was not allowed to speak at the Planning Commission meeting. He confirmed that Mr. Everhart had been allowed to speak at the December 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Janson attended the February 10, 2014, Planning Commission meeting and recognized that Mr. Lewis spoke that day. Chair Mike Flanagan asked at that meeting if anyone else wished to speak during the public hearing. Apparently, no one else wished to speak besides Mr. Lewis that day. The fact that Mr. Everhart implied that the public did not have their say is not a true statement. He was unsure if Mr. Everhart attended the February Planning Commission meeting. With respect to the screening wall, Mr. Janson asked for a compromise at the time of final plan by the applicant, staff, and the residents. Mr. Petersen stated earlier that, "We thought that was the best solution." Mr. Janson said 'We' did not live in the neighborhood, so a compromise would be appreciated.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 29 Mrs. Happer Scheier said this project had been a long journey. When they first met at Mr. Lewis' house to discuss the proposed project and after listening to the resident issues, she predicted there would be conflicting opinions brought forth for the Council to con-sider before the process was over. When she saw the original plan, she agreed that three stories would not be a good decision that close to the residents. She reiter-ated that only one person, Mr. Lewis, spoke at the second Planning Commission meeting on this item. She expected more people would have attended that public hearing to voice their concerns or opposition. The Planning Commission did what they were asked by the Council to do and should be respected for their efforts. Mrs. Happer Scheier believed the plan had been reworked to a significant extent. She understood the concerns of the nearby residents. She grew up next to a similar situation, where a development was constructed close to her backyard. Her family put in a fence and initially believed the development would be horrible, but it worked out. She agreed with Mr. Goodman with regard to the screening wall, because in her opinion a 3-foot wall would not work. She would like to see the Green Giant trees included in the landscape plan. She believed the revised plan to be a better com-promise. She realized some of the residents were not happy with the three-story portion of the building, but at the end of the day, she believed it would become a quality project for the City. She would support the motion. Mr. Richard Collins could not argue with any of the statements made by his colleagues. He thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting, for their comments, and for their engagement in the community. That type of involvement has made the City of Overland Park what it is today. He thanked Mrs. Burnell for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the project. She is not a neighbor, but has sincere concerns about an important aspect of this project of which everyone should remain cognizant. He said it took a lot of initiative on her part to attend the meeting, and he thanked her personally for her statement. Mayor Gerlach stated that he, too, would prefer the structure to be two stories. He stated that strongly at the January 6, 2014, Council meeting. At this time, the Council needed to consider what would happen to the property if the project is turned down. It would not be good for the neighborhood for that piece of land to sit vacant as it has for so long. If the project is denied, the next developer that shows interest in the property could propose a four-story building. The Mayor asked for the amended motion to be restated. Mr. Stock moved to approve Special Use Permit No. 2013-41, vicinity of the southwest corner of 75th Street and Antioch, and Ordinance No. Z-3629, with the added stipulation r to require the final development plan to return to the Council for approval. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion, which carried with a roll-call vote of 10 to 1, with Council President White voting nay. OLD BUSINESS: No report. NEW BUSINESS: No report.

Overland Park City Council Meeting March 3, 2014 Page 30 ADJOURNMENT: At 10:00 p.m., Mr. Goodman moved to adjourn the meeting. Council President White seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. _______________________________ Carl Gerlach, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Marian Cook, City Clerk