City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm going to call to order this regular meeting of the Olathe City Council for Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. The first item on our agenda is an executive session. Do I hear a motion?

Yes. On item A, I move that the Olathe City Council recess into an executive session for consultation with the city attorney to discuss matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship regarding a development agreement pursuant to the exception provided in KSA 75-4319B2 for a time not to exceed 20 minutes. The open meeting will resume here in city council chambers not later than 6.50 p.m. Second.

We have a motion and a second with the city clerk. Please call the roll.

Mr. Bacon? Yes. Mr. Schoonover? Yes. Mr. Vakas? Yes. Ms. Essex?

Yes.

Mr. Creighton? Yes. Mr. Dinault? Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

We are reconvening from executive session item A. We have one more executive session item. Motion to be in order.

So I move that on item B, that the City of Olathe City Council recess into an executive session for the preliminary discussion of the acquisition of real property in downtown Olathe. Pursuant to the exception provided in KSA 754319B6, for a time not to exceed 10 minutes, the open meeting will resume by 7 p.m. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Mr. Schoonover? Yes.

Mr. Bacchus?

Yes.

Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Creighton? Yes. Mr. Denault? Yes. Mr. Bacon? Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

Good evening. We are reconvening from an executive session. We have two items. A motion to be in order.

Thank you, Mayor. Regarding our first meeting, I move to authorize the city attorney to finalize and the mayor to execute a second amendment to the development agreement with Loretto Commercial Development, LLC.

Second.

We have a motion and a second with the city clerk. Please call the roll.

Mr. Creighton. Yes. Mr. Denault. Yes. Mr. Bacon. Yes. Mr. Schoonover. Yes. Mr. Vacas. Yes. Ms. Essex. Yes. Motion passes 6-0. Item 2.

Good. On item B, I move to authorize the city attorney to finalize in the mayor or city manager to execute an agreement in related documents pertaining to the acquisition of certain real property in downtown Olathe. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Mr. Bacon? Yes.

Mr. Skinover?

Yes. Mr. Vakas?

Yes. Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Creighton? Yes.

Mr. Denault?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0. Welcome everyone to City Hall and to the regular meeting of the Olathe City Council for Tuesday, September 15, 2026. The next item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. So would you please stand with me for the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We'll now move to special business.

Item A is a proclamation recognizing September 20th through the 26th of 2026 as Family Week. Our partners in the Olathe communities that care coalition are reminding families of one of the easiest ways to protect your kids by spending time together. Joining us tonight to accept this proclamation are Tim Kruse and Jamie Schlapp from Johnson County. So would both of you please join me up here? So I'll read the proclamation. The proclamation reads, whereas the Olathe Communities That Care Coalition was established in 2008 by local agencies with a shared commitment to keep Olathe safe for young people and families, focusing on positive youth development. And whereas through a collaborative effort by the city of Olathe, Olathe Public Schools, the Olathe Police Department, the Olathe Public Library, Johnson County Mental Health, and Johnson County, CTC consistently encourages families to participate in important conversations about the risks associated with underage drug and alcohol abuse. And whereas studies show children in strong families who have frequent dinners together have a decreased risk of smoking, drinking, and drug use, and lower risk of anxiety and depression. And whereas coming together as a family, participating in fun activities together, and discussing the events of the day can foster open communication, provide opportunities to share concerns, and help guide children toward healthy decision making. Now therefore, I, John Bacon, Mayor of the City of Olathe, do hereby proclaim September 20th to 26th, 2026, as Family Week in Olathe, encouraging all our residents to dedicate time to their family during this time to strengthen bonds and engage in meaningful conversations.

Thanks for being here. Do you want to share a few words about Family Week?

Hello, my name is Jamie Schaaf. I'm with Johnson County Mental Health. And yeah, thank you so much for having us. And like you said, Family Week is all about just spending time together. It's really important that we work on the protective factors within the community. And so a big project that we work on every year, it's called Family Day. So that will be this year, October 3rd. at the Indian Creek Library from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and it's just a day that we invite the community to come out and spend time together. We have a lot of different fun activities for the kids, and it's a great partnership that we have with the library. So yeah, please come out and join us.

Hi, I'm a little tall here. My name is Tim, and I work for Johnson County Mental Health, and I'm just going to mirror what Jamie said. One of the most important things is getting together as a family, and I see a lot of youth here. I see a lot of folks here that could really benefit coming together, and there's a lot going on right now, so doing something positive, coming together, And enjoying a nice family day with lots of activities is going to be an amazing experience. So we look forward to, we have flyers out there for our family day. And we also have a drug take back event on October 24th at the admin building. And we look forward to seeing you on October 3rd for family day. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Tim and Jamie, for being here tonight and good luck in Family Week. You know, I know dining rooms aren't often used. Maybe that's our issue. We just use our dining rooms. A lot of our problems might go away, and that would be nice. All right. We will now move to consent agenda. The items listed below are considered to be routine by the city council and may be approved in one motion. These may include items that have been reviewed by the city council in a prior planning session. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Council, are there any such items this evening? Seeing none, a motion to approve the consent agenda would be in order.

Very good. I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented, items A through F, six items. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Will the city clerk please call the roll?

Mr. Creighton?

Yes.

Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Bakas? Yes. Mr. Schoonover? Yes. Mr. Bacon? Yes. Mr. Dinault? Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

We'll now move to new business. Item A is consideration of ordinance number 26-24, which is RZ 26-0009, requesting approval of a rezoning from the BP Business Park District to the C2 Community Center District and a conceptual preliminary site development plan for Sunnybrook commercial development on approximately 11 acres located southwest of College Boulevard and Sunnybrook Road. Planning Commission recommends approval seven to zero This development is for a commercial area next to the upcoming Dillon's Grocery Store that's planned in this area. It would also be adjacent to a proposed multifamily project, which is the next item on our agenda. To begin this presentation, I'd like to introduce Planning and Development Manager Kim Hollingsworth to provide us with a presentation. Welcome, Kim.

Thank you. Good evening. Kim Hollingsworth, Planning and Development Manager. So I'm going to take a moment just to do a brief presentation, introduction to you, an overview before the next two rezoning applications. And this is really due to their background, the newly adopted comprehensive plan. and the unique interrelatedness of these applications. So I'm going to start by showing the Sunnybrook area, which extends from College Boulevard to 119th Street, 314 acres west of Lone Elm Road. And you can see there was some cohesive zoning that was done this whole area in 1998. significant amounts of business park. And I'm going to circle these subject properties that we're going to talk about tonight within that business park area. We've seen a progression over the years, kind of more commercial districts and then also quite a few, a variety of residential districts that have occurred here. So there's been a progression away from that business park zoning, which does allow flex space, warehousing, some light industrial, and also manufacturing. And we're really seeing limited office being constructed right now in the market. So after extensive work over two years in updating our comprehensive plan, we did public open house events, online engagement specific to this K7 area, knowing that it was critical for future development. So a couple highlights of K7 are looking at complete neighborhoods, cohesive centers with commercial along arterial roadways, also a range of multifamily and higher density housing transitioning to neighborhoods. So those are a couple things we looked at and I'm going to circle the area that we're talking about this evening over here and really this is the only mixed use area out of these that is seeing current construction. The others are kind of coming in the future. So it has a unique situation that there's already been some active construction there. And one other thing to highlight is their BP area has been offset more to the north, north of college. So we did retain that where we're already seeing some of that type of development. So mixed use, this is in the mixed use designation of our comprehensive plan, which really does call for residential and commercial employment uses within a larger development area, as you can see depicted here. Also, we have a vertical mixed use overlay in this area. So that's where it's encouraged that you have multi-story buildings, not required, but encouraged with ground floor commercial and residential or office above. So the two development teams that came forward on this area are working together very collaboratively. It's somewhat unique that they came, submitted a conceptual development plan for the entire area, came in at the same time and staff really said, hey, these need to be interconnected. They're really interdependent upon each other to meet that comprehensive plan, mixed use designation. So what you're gonna see tonight is concept plan. And so what that means is we're really gonna hone in on the zoning district piece within these presentations and less on the site plan, which would come back through the process. Full architecture, landscaping, details, utilities, that all comes back through the review process. So just those are some highlights I wanted to give before we go right into the first application. So we're just going to keep moving. Ms. Vandevelde will join me up here if we can go right into the first Sunnybrook commercial rezoning application. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. Taylor Vandevelde, Planner 2. So as introduced, the request for RZ26-009 is to rezone 11 acres to the C2 commercial district. It includes a conceptual preliminary site development plan for commercial development located along College and Lone Elm. As Kim just mentioned, the applicant is working with the adjacent residential application to the south to create a more connected and mixed-use development to align with the future land use map. The subject property, Friends College Boulevard, within the overall Sunnybrook area, and as mentioned, the same developer who recently approved Dillon's Grocery Store is proposing a continuation of the complimentary commercial uses, including restaurants, a bank, and conceptual retail. The property is currently zoned to the BP Business District, which allows for office warehousing, light manufacturing, and flex space uses by right. The applicant is requesting to rezone to the C2 commercial district, which allows a variety of commercial uses in alignment with the Dillon's development to the east there. Staff is recommending several land use restrictions, which mostly align with the restricted uses on the Dillon site, which the applicant is agreeable to. The site is designated as mixed use and vertical mixed use along College Boulevard as designated on the Elevate Olathe Future Land Use Map. This proposal brings together a mix of commercial uses and connection to the residential to the south meeting the overall mixed use designation for the area. While the proposed development does not directly align with the vertical mixed-use, the requested C2 district and conceptual plan does align with the overall mixed-use designation, as well as several key strategies of the Elevated Olathe Comprehensive Plan, mostly related to land use and economic development, and also encouraging density to provide neighborhood commercial. The overall conceptual master plan includes several connections and amenities such as a public plaza central to the commercial area and a trail connection in conjunction with the residential to the south to provide a more cohesive and connected development between the two applications. The conceptual site plan provides four commercial buildings along Sunnybrook Boulevard and College. The plan shows three access points off Sunnybrook Boulevard, as well as an internal connection to the south adjacent residential application. Oops. Sorry. Conceptual plan is preliminary at this time to establish zoning. No waivers are necessary at this time. However, a revised preliminary plan is required to further evaluate the plan details, such as architecture, landscaping, tree preservation, and stormwater, which will come after. The applicant met all public notice requirements, including a neighborhood meeting. At the request of staff, the applicant held a joint meeting with the residential application with approximately 50 attendees from the surrounding area. Topics related to this specific case include traffic, access, timeline, and other similar questions which the applicant responded to during the meeting. No additional correspondence was received related to this application for RZ26-0009. Public hearing was held on August 24th, and the Planning Commission recommended approval 7-0. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following use restrictions and stipulated revised preliminary plan. This concludes our presentation, and the applicant is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor and Kim. Is there questions of staff? Can you tell, there was, I don't know if it was, well, we have a couple of folks that have asked to speak. So Council Member Schoonover, I'll let you go first.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't know if this is a question for staff or for the applicant, but I see on the conceptual drawings, it looks like the, what is that, the easternmost portion of this parcel, closest to College Boulevard, those two buildings, it looks like we have said, hey, we encourage vertical mixed use in that particular area. And these look a lot like drive-throughs to me. I mean, I know it's a conceptual plan, but yes. Do we know what, I mean, what's planned to go in there? Because I will say, I mean, right along College Boulevard there, I do like the vertical mixed use concept. And if we're just going to have a, you know, Arby's or whatever, is Arby's still a thing? If we're just going to have, you know, a drive-through or whatever that's there, I'm not super wild about putting it right there on College Boulevard.

Sure. So we discussed this with the applicant and the vertical mixed use overlay is a preferred location for the vertical mixed use, but the overall underlining future land use designation is the mixed use one. So that does include a mix of uses, which doesn't have to be vertically aligned. So the applicant is pursuing the underlying zoning district or future land use designation.

Okay. And am I correct that basically at least the plan as it exists now would be to put a couple of drive-through restaurants on that parcel?

Correct. They are showing restaurant and bank on those two properties.

Thank you.

Councilmember Baucus.

Thank you, Mayor. Thanks for the presentation, Taylor. So just for clarity's sake, so, you know, we use the term vertical mixed use and then mixed use. I think of this as horizontal mixed use. That's correct. Because what we really do is we have two applications from two separate developers. One is retail. The other is apartments. But together they are mixed use. And so for the sites that we're talking about now, there'll be no apartments in there. They're purely going to be commercial in some form or fashion. Is that correct?

Yes. Both the applications are providing the horizontal mix of uses. So we're having those internal connections to meet that designation.

And for the four pad sites that we're talking about tonight, they're going to be retail in some form or fashion. Is that our understanding? A bank, a drive-thru restaurant?

Could you repeat the question slightly louder, please? Sure.

For the application before us right now, the commercial portion of the mixed use, those buildings will be commercial, whatever they are. There won't be any apartments or anything above them, purely a commercial application.

Correct. So there is no vertical mixed use provided in the commercial application there. They will be horizontal commercial uses.

You know, I'd take for a moment and just reflect. I continue to have a level of frustration that we can't seem to sell vertical mixed use in Olathe at this stage. We end up with something like this, which is good, but still it falls short of our comprehensive development plan preference for vertical mixed use. I think we'll see that in downtown Olathe. That's where we'll really get serious about it. We may see it in the Chiefs area over off of College and Ridgeview, but not here. And that's not necessarily bad. So with approval now, is the process, assuming we approve the rezoning and the preliminary site development plan, does this come back to Council or does it only come back to the Planning Commission?

So if the rezoning requests are approved, the revised preliminary plan requires approval from Planning Commission. But not the council? Yeah, standard procedure is correct.

Okay, good. And so could I ask the applicant to step up to the mic? I have a few more questions for them.

Thanks so much for being here tonight. Please give us your name and address for the record, ma'am.

Absolutely. I'm Melissa Van Crum with Rouse Fred's White Law Firm, 5250 West 116th Place, Suite 400, Leawood, Kansas.

Thanks, Melissa. And so this commercial area to the west of Dillon's, this will be designed in a manner and the facades will be built in a manner that are complementary to the Dillon's?

That's correct, yes.

Can you talk a little bit about that, how you ensure that complementary nature? Sure.

Sure. You know, we have given conceptual designs to staff and they've given us feedback on them to make them more consistent with the Dillon's. And so we've provided revisions to that as well. And that, again, when we go through the preliminary plan process will be further refined as well.

Okay. And so as I think about this, I really think of what we're proposing tonight for you all, plus the Dylans, complementary in the development to the extent possible be occurring at the same time.

Well, the Dillon's will start shortly before because the Dillon's has already been approved. In a typical situation, they would be approved together. But the Dillon's, you know, since it's the first one to this area, wanted to get going first. But we do expect that the commercial that goes in here will want to be open as soon as possible, you know, with the Dillon's as well. So we do expect to have at least some of the buildings ready to go, you know. on as quick a timeline as possible.

So we should see the grading then later this fall?

I would anticipate, you know, I'm not sure exact timeline, but I would anticipate, yes, it would hit.

Yeah. Okay, good. Hey, thanks very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor.

Any other questions for the applicant? Council Member Essex or for staff. Thank you, Melissa. This is a question for staff. Council Member Essex.

Thank you. I had a constituent write with some concerns about the R3 standards. It sounds like it's the structure of the apartments I'm talking about are being built on a hill. So one side is three stories, one side is four stories. Is that correct? Does that exceed?

Yeah, but we haven't talked about that yet.

We haven't talked about that yet.

Okay.

I'm going to save that question. They're related, but they're separate. Yeah. So we'll talk about the apartments in a second.

I'll follow up with a presentation separately.

My question is, as far as all the egress into this shopping area is all off of Sunnybrook Boulevard. It's all oriented to the east, correct? Correct. There's nothing to the west. No. Okay. Yeah. Any other need for questions, comments? A motion to be in order. Thank you.

Thank you. I would move to approve Ordinance 26-45. Second. We have a motion and a second.

Will the City Clerk please call the roll?

Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Creighton? Yes. Mr. Dinault?

Yes.

Mr. Bacon?

Yes. Mr. Schoonover? I support the rezoning. I don't support the preliminary site plan, so I'm going to say no.

Mr. Bacchus? Yes. Motion passes 5-1.

We'll now move to item B, which is related in a similar area anyway. Consideration of ordinance number 26-46, which is RZ260006, requesting approval of a rezoning from the BP Business Park District to the R3 Low Density Multifamily District and a conceptual preliminary site development plan for College and Sunnybrook Multifamily on approximately 20 acres located southwest of College Boulevard and South Valley Road. Planning Commission recommends approval 6-1. Taylor's here for a presentation. Welcome again.

Yes, back again. As a continuation of our discussion this evening, the following was a request for RZ26-006 to rezone 20 acres of the site we just spoke of to the R3 residential district with a conceptual plan for the multifamily development portion, which is southwest of College and Lone Elm. The site is located just south of the previously presented commercial application along the future Sunnybrook Boulevard. The property is also zoned to the BP Business Park District, which allows for the office warehousing, light manufacturing, and flex space uses. The surrounding area has developed with a mix of commercial and residential, including single family, duplexes, townhomes, and multifamily, providing a variety of existing land uses in the overall area. The existing BP district is a higher intensity district that permits buildings up to 12 stories tall and is no longer compatible with how the surrounding area has developed out. The applicant is requesting to rezone to the R3 low density multifamily district to allow for the construction of 333 residential units with a density of 16.65 per acre, which is permitted in the third column of the R3 district. This site is also designated as mixed use on the Elevate Olathe Future Land Use Map, which includes an integrated mix of commercial and residential uses. This proposal aligns with the mixed use designation, which supports multifamily uses, such as apartments and complimentary townhomes within a pedestrian-oriented development. This proposal is also identified as an opportunity site within the overall K-7 sub area plan of the comprehensive plan. So phrases from the plan include encouraging commercial along College Boulevard, as well as denser residential to the rear of the site with connections to the existing Meadow Lane Trail to the west. So this plan supports housing types such as multiplexes and apartments, which directly aligns with this proposal this evening. The requested R3 district also meets several policies of the comprehensive plan by supporting a range of housing options in close proximity to services and future commercial and corridor areas. The application provides the residential component of the overall conceptual master plan and provides several pedestrian connections, including the shared amenity space between the Meadow Lane Trail, which is a city-owned trail, and several internal private outdoor amenity spaces as well. The residential application is proposing nine apartment buildings and six townhome buildings with private amenities such as the clubhouse and active open space internal to the site. This plan also shows two access drives to Sunnybrook Boulevard as well as one internal drive connecting north to the previously presented commercial portion. As this is conceptual to the established zoning, no waivers are being requested at this time. However, a revised preliminary site development plan is required to further evaluate the same plan details such as architecture, landscaping, tree preservation, and stormwater. The applicant met all public notice requirements. As mentioned previously, the applicant held a joint meeting with the commercial application. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received correspondence from residents as well as an informal petition signed by 37 of the nearby residents. A public hearing was held on August 24th with several individuals available to speak. Following the public hearing, several letters and phone calls were received with additional questions and comments from nearby residents as well, similar concerns. Overall, public concerns are related to traffic congestion and safety, noise, lighting, building heights, and stormwater and stream corridor protections as well as compatibility. Since residents have expressed concern with the traffic in the area, we wanted to provide a little bit more clarity and an overall picture of the traffic and improvements proposed by these applications this evening. Both applicants provided a traffic impact study for evaluation and accounted for the previously approved Dillon site, existing conditions, as well as the proposed developments on the agenda this evening. The site will be served by Sunnybrook Boulevard, which is identified as a collector road on the city's major streets map, which leads to College Boulevard and 119th, which are arterial streets. The Sunnybrook extension will be constructed by the commercial developer and is designed to accommodate the existing developments and applications presented this evening. The site will also be served by a signalized intersection at College and Sunnybrook Boulevard, The commercial developer will also be constructing turn lanes, including a middle turn lane along a portion of Sunnybrook Boulevard, which is highlighted on the screen. Planning Commission recommended approval 6-1 at the August 24th public hearing. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and conceptual plans as stipulated. This concludes my presentation. The applicant is available for questions.

Thank you, Taylor. We have a couple of questions. Council Member Creighton.

Taylor, just a real quick question, and then I want to withhold comments until I hear some more questions from some of my fellow council members, because I know Ms. Ethic started with the question. You mentioned this past 6 to 1. Always pick up on those dissenting votes. Can you explain what some of the thought process was of the dissenting commissioner and how you overcame those or are trying to overcome it?

Sure. So the commissioner did not provide a definitive answer with the no vote. However, his questions ranged from building heights of the proposed structure as well as tree preservation as well and density questions.

Thank you. Council Member Vaucus.

Thanks, Mayor. Taylor, does the applicant not have a presentation?

The applicant does not have a presentation. They're available for questions.

This is an out-of-town developer that we've never worked with before?

What's that?

This is an out-of-town developer that we've never worked with before?

Not with a recent application, no.

Okay. So can we look at a map of the road network? And I want to look at the map north of college. I want to see the Lone Elm upcoming interchange with K-10.

How far north do you want to look?

Just take it north to K-10 so I can see K-10 and Lone Elm.

Okay. Give me just a moment. Is this the area you want to?

So we're going to begin a Lone Elm interchange sometime next year, I think. And we'll end up with a turning circle just south of K-10 in Lone Elm, on Lone Elm, with a parallel road running to the west. And that road will access down through K-State Olathe directly into the new road that we're creating here. Is that correct?

Yes.

I'm going to have to let Charlie Love answer that, please.

Thanks, Charlie. Thank you. Charlie Love, Chief Development Engineer. I believe that... That road that you're speaking of, Council Member Baucus, will be coming through this area and it circles down.

Yeah, show me where K-State Olathe entrance is.

K-State Olathe entrance is in this direction.

So that road right there, that road is where the new parallel road that's being constructed that runs west of the Lone Elm intersection. That will connect to this road, right?

No, that future road, whenever this develops through here, there's actually a north-south collector that actually comes down through here and actually aligns with Woodsonia.

So there's no connection to the, what's the road there?

It'll be via 107th Street.

107th. So there will be a connection there? Yes. Okay. And taking 107th South on Claiborough Boulevard, you'll be able to come south across College and go down into this development?

Yes, you will be able to, yes, sir.

I'm just, you know, College is carrying so much traffic. and I'm trying to understand what's coming that will help alleviate some of this traffic, and certainly that will. because that will give people coming out of this area the ability to go north conveniently without necessarily traveling on college. Now, they certainly can go east if they want to to Lone Elm and then go north, but either way, they can access K-10 more conveniently.

Yes, and this whole region has a lot of things going on with it traffic-wise. You could also jump down to even the Northgate, 119th and Northgate, and if you think right now the traffic's... that's traveling along college some of that traffic's just due to the fact that they can't take 119th and go across and so right now and even some of those things they're all going to have major major impacts into this area and lone elm interchange is one yeah the northgate project of course is one and there's a lot of other pro even this collector road that we're constructing here is going to really kind of change some traveling patterns that are out there

On the map, can you take me then south that shows me where this road will connect down to 119th? So it'll run directly to 119th.

Yes.

And so truly, the increase of traffic tied to Dillon's, the increase of traffic tied to these proposed departments, it's not an issue for us. True statement?

Yes, true statement. I mean, basically, everything that's been modeled and studied and shown in that traffic study, all these applications that are coming in, we've been able to model that. And all those improvements that are coming there at that intersection, they're taking into account all this additional traffic from this commercial development that's going on.

Okay, good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Taylor, a couple more questions, if I could. How many units are proposed in this development?

Units?

Yeah, individual rental units.

333. Okay.

And the townhomes are rentals also? They're all rental property?

I believe the applicant indicated that the units proposed are rental at this time.

Okay. What does the zoning allow in terms of density?

And for density?

Yeah.

It allows up to 17 units per acre in the third column.

Which would be how many then on this site?

How many for this site? It would be, I would have to look at the number. It's over what they're proposing.

Yeah. Could we do that math real quick so I understand how far below allowed density we are with the proposed application? Kim, could you maybe run a calculator on that? Yeah.

Any of the engineers are also welcome to do the math quickly. 340.

That would be the allowed amount? Correct. And what's this proposal for?

333. Okay.

So we're under the proposal. Okay. Could I ask, Kim, could you come to the mic? entirely independent of this application or the merits of the application, could we talk a little bit about, you know, the continued proliferation of apartments? Is it fair to say that we still grow about 2,000 people every year?

Yeah, it's approximately, right, as far as overall population growth?

Yeah, and that's a real number. We're not making that up. That's a real number. And that population, incoming population new to Olathe is looking for a mix of living options, single-family home, duplex apartment. So we still see a strong demand for apartments. Whether we like them or not, there's a definite demand there.

I would say yes.

And we should serve that demand.

Yeah, we see a variety of things. We are leading in single family building permits out of other surrounding jurisdictions right now, but we also are hearing a lot of apartment development cases. We've looked at historical numbers over the years. There was a time where we were behind in apartment development compared to some adjacent jurisdictions. It was almost an inverse where they were having more apartments and we were having more single family. But over the past couple of years, we've been kind of catching up in that balance.

And so we, I think we have in excess of 1,200 apartments already approved for development.

That might be, I can get that number. Yeah, it continues to change.

I try and keep track of it, but it's somewhere around that number. We can look at that for you. And so this is added to that, and we have several more apartment applications coming forward. But even with that amount, still, we will have more demand for apartments. Fair statement.

The market seems to be driving us. That's what we're seeing as far as inquiries. And also during our comprehensive plan feedback, we heard that folks are interested in a variety of housing types, the full spectrum. And we heard that very clearly during that engagement.

Yeah. So we don't have any elevations to look at at this time?

We have some imagery that is very conceptual that Taylor could pull up for you. Could we look at that? Yeah, it's just very conceptual what they produced to other communities, and we'll make sure that we do a full review against our architecture code and really push the boundary here, right? Like in the Sunnybrook area, there's a certain style of development, so we'll make sure that we're compatible with that. So I can have Taylor pull that up.

And Taylor, you're going to pull up what the applicant has presented to us so far? Okay. Okay.

Correct. So the applicant does not have elevations. However, they did provide example imagery of potential products for this case.

Okay. And are these examples of work they have done in other parts of the country?

These are the examples that they have provided, yes.

Okay. Are these real? They're not made up? You've actually built these somewhere? Okay. Okay, good. So we, you know, I would offer to you in the lower right, baton board is hideous. It's not something we're looking for. So certainly in our final review, we're going to be very cognizant of the quality of the external facades of these buildings.

Yes.

Good. Can you pull up the site development plan?

I wouldn't think batten board is even permitted. It has to be masonry, right? There's no batten board on these products. It's not permitted in multifamily in Olathe, I don't believe. It might look like it, but it's going to be a masonry product.

Could you pull up the site development plan? Sure. Okay. So my quandary is it's a lot of units, but it's below the threshold. It's with what's allowed. I think we do a great job on the south, southeast with the townhomes and how they blend with the adjacent homes to the east. But on the west-hand side, we've got three-story apartment buildings on high ground overlooking another single-family neighborhood. Why didn't we create some appropriate transition for that area?

So in terms of the transition that's being provided there is coming in the form of increased open space and tree preservation that isn't as present on the southern side where the townhomes are proposed.

The quandary is we're not able to look at an actual, you know, a visual of where the three-story buildings are versus where the street to the east. Is that Montclair, if I remember right? how the backyard of Montclair Homes will look into those apartments. And I think that third floor is going to be staring right down into the back of those homes. We really shouldn't be agreeing to three-story apartments. For those three buildings, I think those should be reduced to two stories. Have we talked to the developer about that?

So we did discuss... reducing these from three-story to two-story. And the applicant stated that the number of units that are proposed is what is viable for the site.

You know, this number seems to be the predictable number for an apartment builder, and I get the math. What precludes us from taking the third story on these three buildings and adding them to a fourth story on some of the other buildings further to the east?

We would have to work with the applicant on reducing the number of stories, but right now the R3 district allows for up to three stories, so that's what would be approved.

So would we need to go to R4 if we wanted four stories?

Correct. Yeah, they can exceed more than three stories.

Could I ask the applicant to come to the mic? Okay, so we'll We'll get the applicant's lawyer, and that's okay because he's a good lawyer. How are you?

Councilman, Kurt Peterson with Pulsatelli here on behalf of the applicant, which is Platform Multifamily, 900 West 48th Place, Kansas City, Missouri. I'm still disappointed that you were disappointed. I've never heard you say that, that I didn't give a presentation. I have a presentation. You better watch it.

I was looking forward to it.

It's right here. Well. By the way, local developer, I'm so sorry, right out of the gate. We have a local developer based here in Kansas City that actually has built a stone's throw, maybe not my throw, to the south, beautiful villas called Canyon Ridge Villas. It's at 116th Terrace and south of Lakeview. So I just wanted to clear that up. I don't blame staff. They don't keep track of every applicant. But this is a really well-known, wonderful Kansas City developer. Okay.

And I'm familiar with those villas. Those are nice. Good. Yeah, yeah. So my quandary is I'm just struggling with the third story on these three buildings to the west. How do we get around that? Yeah, I understand. I mean, I can't support this the way it is.

Can I unpack some more facts, though, and then see if you're in the same place? Okay, sure. Because sometimes we look at these, one piece of paper, right, and it's hard to really understand what's going on. So a couple of things I draw your attention to. one is we have at the closest point give me 10 feet plus or minus it's about 250 foot from the closest homes to the west on the other side of the creek and other side of the trail and the trees to uh the closest multi-family building to these so start setting your mind that's close to 300 which i always do football field because that's what i can visualize how far away so we're not talking overly close one The second piece is you have extensive tree, which you can see on the screen. And the first question that's coming to everybody's mind is how many of those trees are going to stay? I can say substantially all. This is a concept plan, so we don't go in with final engineering on purpose, but we are preserving. I have confidence in this, both the west, which you're addressing, but I'll just jump to that. We have south too. We have a single family to the south. In both locations overall, we preserve 75% or more of the trees, so a substantial amount of the tree preservation. The other thing that you wouldn't necessarily know, which again, you're asking me to comment on it, saying that those multifamily buildings that are across the creek, across the trees, are up on a hill is not right. So the relative elevation is almost equal to the foot. Now, as you move up, just always, again, a flat piece of paper. It's not helpful. But if you start at the upper right of the screen, and you went to the lower left, you would be following how the grade goes. So you're falling towards the Creek. It's true. And you're falling. Actually, there's another tributary little that runs on the South. So you're falling always to the, to the Creeks, right? Um, but when you are at that place where those multifamily buildings you're asking about, you are about equal elevation. And then you just tend to climb a little bit as you go to the distance. But at that point, you're well over a football field before you're getting to other buildings. Hope that's my somewhat short response, but I want to keep talking about it. If you feel like you have more questions about that.

Well, no, and I appreciate that. That's great perspective. You know, I've gone to the cul-de-sac at the end of Montclair. I've stood and I've looked east to try and imagine what these apartment buildings are going to look like. And it's still going to be imposing into the backyards on Montclair. So until I see, and I appreciate your additional verbiage, but until I see an actual no fooling accurate rendering of what that elevation is going to look like, I would not be supportive of this preliminary site development plan.

And Councilman, when you say rendering, do you mean, so sometimes like I have, Just so you know, we're at concept stage. So you don't think, why are you holding back? Why aren't you showing? We haven't even designed all the skin. We'll meet code. We'll exceed code.

Oh, absolutely.

I'm going to say something just so you know. This is by design. We do it this way. Sure. So you can make sure you can get approved. Then you go back and spend all the engineering and architectural dollars.

Oh, I understand. And I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud for the application. I just want to make sure everyone understands my objective to the concern based on the information available to us. That's right. The sideline is just not going to be attractive.

Well, I was going to say, I have this. Sorry, finishing the thought, I was giving you the precursor to, I have a sideline. I'm always hesitant to get things out that we haven't fully, fully engineered. But I think it's where you're, I don't want to say stuck, it's what you're focused on. I can put it, Ms. Sherman, I ask because I'm not an IT person. I always know we can do the... But if you would like or, Mayor, if you want to put a site plan up, it's the lawyer in me that's saying it's not fully, fully engineered, but it's very helpful and it's very close and it shows what I think you're asking for, Councilman. But, Mayor, you tell me. It's a concept plan.

Yeah, it's fine with me if you want to. Yeah, pull it up, Kurt. Okay, sure.

And it's fair to say I'm stuck. Yeah, I didn't.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay. You can say that. I'm moving. You can help me. I'm sorry. Like, do we still have it? Do you remember? Is it? I know it's in there somewhere.

What are we trying to do? What are we trying to do? He's talking about taking his newspaper and showing it.

Oh, got you.

Ah, see, it is there.

Yeah.

I would just say, as far as the elevations that were shared in our packet, you would like us to ignore the two-story one then that's included in those pictures?

Oh, the concept? Yes. A lot of that's for skin and architecture. I'll ignore the two-story. Are you giving me a hard time?

I'm just giving you a little bit of grief, Kurt. Yeah, if Councilman Essex wants to ask a question while we're sitting up here. That's great.

Yes, hello. Back to my question at the wrong time a little while ago. Was there a different picture shared with the residents when you guys did your neighborhood meeting? Because one was shared with me that there was four stories on the back. And three stories on the front, and then it was a hill. And that four stories is outside the R3 zoning. The other thing, the other concern while we're at it, is that there's a complimentary buffer that was offered to the south neighborhoods with the low-rise buildings that work their way up to the higher-rise apartments. And that wasn't given to the neighborhood on the west. And so they were just wondering if they get that same buffer. low rise working into the apartments would be ideal for them. I just wanted to ask.

So good. You've got to watch me with compound questions though. I'm sorry. No, you're good. So we'll go back to that. I do not recall. I was there. There was no drawing showing that. So sometimes, to say what you're probably, when we walk down hills sometimes, so it's a three-story and we expose just like a house, a basement, and that becomes a four-story. We actually, because of what I described, it's still on the screen, that we're at equal elevation, that's not happening. So someone could have been a misunderstanding, but we didn't show anything like that. Um, second question was about the South and you talked about, it's kind of stepping up for transitioning. So we really have almost, even though they're different product types, we have almost the exact same buffering going on and I'll speed say it again. We're trying to there to the South it's from building the building approximately. I think it's 216 feet right now. So over 200 feet of separation from building to building, north to south, and then more like 250 feet to the west. We have great tree preservation in both cases. But the reason I'm saying all that is that was all very... uh deliberate when we did all that but the even though those are town homes to the south with you know two-story i'm sorry two-story um the way they're designed is they have everybody has two garage parking stalls underneath their building so then you put the two-story on top of it so it's three-story as well so it's not that it's step that's there and then on the west we're doing three both of them are the same three-story are you giving me the thumbs up okay So, Councilman Baucus, one is going to give you the perspective of what we're going to look at, and the second sheet will be the actual sightlines. So there's going to be two perspectives when it comes on the screen. We're going to have kind of for usual an east-west perspective to really focus on what the main questions you had were, but I'm going to also show to Council Member Essex's question kind of the north-south as well.

Okay.

I have one quick question of staff while we're waiting. And this is probably for you, Taylor, or Kim, either one. So on the north side of the residential, the apartments, it looks like there's a trail connection, which could include a bridge to the west. And who's going to be responsible for that connection?

So the trail connection that I can't show you. But the trail connection that connects to the existing trail on the west and goes to Sunnybrook will be constructed by the developers. So that'll be in most likely a tract of some sort. So it won't be city maintained.

Okay. Very good. Thanks. Are we getting any closer? It's something that we could just pass around. And I'm fine with that if we can't get the technology working. I think I have a pretty good idea of what we've seen typical apartments look like recently. And this is very similar to what we've seen. So if you want to just pass it, do you mind if we...

I'll do a 10-second description so you know what you're looking at. Okay. Is that okay? Yep. The first page you're going to look at, like I described, is going to give you... Am I holding it north-south? You'll see an east-west. Yes. and you'll see a north-south and that's getting you oriented so that when you look at line drawings and you look at relative elevation, you'll pay close attention that what I said is right, that the elevation on each side, north-south is similar, there's not any towering. And then I would just note, look at the tree stands and the distance so that you can get that sense of your very question, which is when someone's looking out from single family, what will they see? Will they see just a peak of a roof? That's the answer. But you can evaluate that for yourself. Thank you.

Council Member Essex, did you get all your questions answered? I did. Any other further questions for the applicant or staff?

For the applicant, no. But for staff, yes, sir. Quickly, while I look at the picture. Okay. So, Taylor, please. Thanks for coming back up to the mic. So I want to make sure I understand. We've looked at two applications tonight. We've approved one with the preliminary site development plan. It marches along at its own pace. These two are not tied together at this stage. We would expect the first application, which we approved, to see grading going on on college fairly soon, probably at the same time that Dillon's begins grading because they're complementary projects. Well, I don't want to slow down the apartment application. It doesn't have to move at the same speed. Is that correct?

It doesn't have to move at the same speed, but they will continue to work together, especially because they have those shared connections as well.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. The shared connection is extremely important for the package to work. Yeah, yeah.

Is that it? Yeah. Okay. So Taylor, I was looking at those elevations and maybe it might be a clarification for Kurt too. It looks to me like the comment about the third story looking down at the backyards is going to be pretty difficult if the trees have leaves on them. I don't know how many deciduous trees are there.

That and, I'm repeating myself, but almost football field is a really long way to look down on somebody. Just really picture that at Arrowhead, 250 feet approximately. Yeah.

Thanks for the elevation. I think it is helpful. Yes, sir. Any other questions or comments? Would you like to make comments? Council Member Creighton.

Yes. Thank you. I GUESS I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING I'VE SAID COUNTLESS TIMES WHEN I WAS ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND I'VE SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES SINCE THEN ON THIS BODY. I AM TIRED OF CHIPPING AWAY AT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TURNING IT INTO RESIDENTIAL. IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE TRY TO GET LESS DEPENDENT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAXES, WE NEED MORE COMMERCIAL. I'M FRUSTRATED THAT WE KEEP CHIPPING AWAY AS A CITY AND ALLOWING IT. EARLIER THIS YEAR IT HAPPENED AT 119TH AND LONE ELM BECAUSE IT CHIPPED AWAY SO LONG THAT WE WERE DOWN TO JUST A FEW ACRES AND IT WASN'T VIABLE. IT HAPPENED AT ANOTHER SPOT IN THE SOUTHEAST, FAR SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY. I think there's a lot of exciting things that are happening in the northwest part of the city that we would be short-sighted if we didn't think about what is going to be different in this area in five years. IF EVERYTHING GOES AS PLANNED, 119th STREET OPENS THIS YEAR, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC THAN ANYBODY HAD EXPECTED. I THINK THAT WILL HELP THE BUSINESSES TO THE NORTH. WE AS A CITY MAY NOT CARE FOR THE INTERCHANGE AT K-10 AND LONE ELM, BUT THE FACT IS, KDOT HAS TOLD US IT'S COMING. I think that if we are not careful, then all of our commercial tax dollars are going to go to Lenexa. That is a concern. And then you go to the east two miles, the Chiefs facility. This entire northwest quadrant is going to fall. change a lot. And I think we as a city need to quit doing the same old thing all the time, which is giving up our commercial for residential. And there's a lot of things that I think we as a city need to be looking at in changing how we think about things that we have done in the past. And I love the way the visionaries on this council long before I ever came here started talking about changing downtown and that's what you have to be visionary and just to keep chipping away and down zoning is a struggle for me and I am I'm not going to support this rezoning to residential

Councilmember Schoonover.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you to my friend, Councilmember Creighton. I think those are all great points. And I share the concern about chipping away at properties that would, in theory, be viable commercial properties. One would think that up here in this area, that would certainly be something that would be possible, especially with the new Dylans. Let me, I do have, I'm struggling with this on a basically two sides. First of all, the chipping away at the commercial, I think, is a very, very valid point. I also recognize that certainly we need housing in Olathe, and we need to bring people in, and hopefully, I'm no economist, but supply and demand, if we have more housing, hopefully that will bring the cost of housing down for everybody, or at least help kind of control it. I... Let me ask... Like, my hope is that if we were to bring this development in, we would have... YOUNGER FAMILIES AND MORE KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL. I KNOW METAL LANE IS RIGHT THERE, WOODLAND IS NOT FAR. CERTAINLY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS, YOU KNOW, SUFFERING FROM DECLINING ENROLLMENT. AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY HOPE IS TO BRING THIS STUFF IN. BUT I DO SHARE COUNCILMEMBER CRAIGTON'S CONCERN AND I'M WONDERING IF IN THIS AREA THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT MIXED USE vertical or horizontal, however we want to say it, concept over in this area? Whomever. Anybody over here can answer that one too.

It was a joke. I'll start with staff's perspective and maybe you'd like the applicant's perspective on that as well. I am going to try to go back and find that overall K7 subarea map that I showed you. I believe it's on a different PowerPoint here. Because I think this is the big picture. view right when i showed this sub-area map so what we looked at was holistically across this entire area we had in plan olathe just mixed use and kind of vague land descriptions called out in this area and we tried to be more clear about what we mean when we want to front areas with commercial right along college and these mixed use brown shaded areas it's a little more dependent upon the depth of the property. So that's really critical here. We always start the conversation with looking at, hey, this is what the comprehensive plan is guiding. This is where we're going to start. But then ultimately we vet each development against this subarea, the newly just adopted subarea map that perfectly describes this land use pattern here. That staff perspective that we took a big picture view. And the other piece that kind of keeps coming up is we took all that employment area and we moved it north of college. North of college was called out for more residential development. Well, you have the industrial zoning there. You have all of the innovation campus here. So it made more sense to us to push that more north where that land use pattern is already occurring.

Well, that's a good point. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that this currently is... Zoned BP. And in BP, I think one of the first slides that you guys showed, and I don't know all of the type of things that can go into a BP, but certainly I think on that list, this apartment complex would be more desirable than perhaps some of those more industrial type uses for that land.

Yeah, business part can be office, but where we're seeing develop lately is flex warehousing, light industrial, because that's what the market is driving. This would allow that buy right here, 12 stories tall, long hours of operation, noise, light, those kind of things that are appropriate in certain areas. And so we've seen this area evolve over time and think the uses allowed by right maybe aren't the best fit anymore here.

And to be clear, if we were to vote this down, the applicant could turn around and say, I'm going to find a 12-story flex space to put on that land if somebody will pay. And they could do that just of their own. They wouldn't have to come before council or do anything like that.

That's correct. There'd be no public hearing. It would just be a simple plan review process.

That is not lost on me in this discussion either. I also recognize that A lot of the time, we as a body may have preferences to say, here's what I would like to be in this area. But the reality of it is, is the market decides that. It's not like we as a city are going and building these things on these parcels. So I want to respect the work that the developer has put in, the business judgment that the developer is making, the investment that the developer is making. But your point, Jeff, is certainly one that's well taken, that I would like to see more and stronger commercial.

Council Member Dinnall.

Thank you, Mayor. I will make this quick. A lot of really, really great points, pros and cons. I only have one comment to add. And it is when I was doing my research, I was looking at the housing in the area, and there are a lot of what I would not call starter homes. So the homes that newlyweds and people starting families might try to do as a first-time starter home. So one thing I think I've been thinking about A lot lately is how are these schools going to continue getting kindergartners? I think that's going to be with housing. That encourages newlyweds and families starting. I think this could be helpful in that respect. So one piece that I found to offer.

Thank you. I'll offer a few comments. You know, when we work on a land use map on the comprehensive plan, a lot of times we have these general areas, and we do try to preserve as much as we can, what's sensible anyway, for commercial employment areas. But, you know, it's not an exact science. And we know. that as land become, as you start developing it out, you're going to have these transition areas. And I see this as a transitional area. It's not, maybe not the perfect transition from single family to commercial, but it is, I think it serves the purpose. So, and I think that based on the tree preservation and the space that you are trying to minimize the negative impacts that the apartments would have on the single family to the west. You know, I I, too, hate giving up land that's designated commercial on a land use map to residential. But, you know, and it's good that you think about it, but I don't know that it makes sense to always do that or you'll never have development occur. So I'm in favor of moving forward. I don't know if we have the votes here to take a whack at it tonight, but we can try. I would entertain a motion to approve this. Let me see if I can. RZ 26-46.

Yes, ma'am. I'm prepared to make a motion. I've got one quick question for Kim. So just to be clear, Kim, these are market-rate apartments. This is a high-quality development.

Yeah, that's my understanding, market-rate apartments.

I mean, these are not going to be affordable in that sense, but it's certainly going to be complementary to the neighborhood. There's no question about that.

Yeah.

And there's a pool. There's a dog park. There's just a lot going on there that's going to be nice in terms of amenitization.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of amenities already shown on the concept plan, and we continue to vet that in much more detail. That trail connection is a big piece of it, so we will continue to look at that if the rezoning is approved.

Well, Mayor, thank you. So, Mayor, I'll make a motion. We'll see how it goes. Okay. I would recommend to approve Ordinance 26-46 with an added stipulation. And I do want to see the site development plan come back to city council. There's enough going on here that we just, although we have a great planning staff, we have a wonderful planning commission, I think we want to bring it back to city council to see definitively the final elevations. And I would ask staff and the developer to take take a hard look as you drill down to this and finalize your plans to see if there's some way you can moderate the impact on Montclair to the west. And I would also ask that as you consider your portfolio facades, that you pick the absolute best one for this area. But with that in mind, I recommend approval with the understanding, the stipulation, that the final site development plan will come back to City Council for approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Can I ask a question? Is that already the?

No. My understanding is that staff already recommended

It's not exactly what our recommendation is. We recommended our standard process, which would be the preliminary plan. It doesn't spell all of it out, but it goes to the planning commission. It's this right here. The one question I want to have, you said final site development plan. Do you mean preliminary or final?

Okay, so we don't even have... We don't even have a preliminary site. We have a conceptual preliminary. We have a conceptual.

Yeah, the preliminaries that you see maybe more often have almost all the details. The difference with the final is some very final landscaping and lighting. So I think the preliminary, the revised preliminaries.

So the preliminary, and it's conceivable depending on how that comes out. We may want to see then again the final, but to be determined.

Typically, we wouldn't see that because not much changes to the final. The final is really just solidifying the details.

So I should revise my motion then. Make sure I've got the right words that we approve ordinance 26-46 with the added stipulation that the preliminary site development plan comes back to City Council for review and subsequent, presumably subsequent approval.

Understood. So there is on our page 126, the last item on there, it says staff recommends approval. And C1, it says a revised preliminary site development plan must be approved prior to submittal. They're talking about staff approval, but we're just adding a step that it would also be approved by the council. That stipulation would be modified to add also coming back to the council for final on the preliminary. Is that correct?

Yes, we'll modify it. I'll second that.

Okay. We have a motion and a second with the city clerk. Please call the roll.

Mr. Bacon. Yes. Mr. Spinover.

Yes.

Mr. Vakas.

Yes.

Ms. Essex. Yes. Mr. Creighton. No. Mr. Dinault.

Yes.

Motion passes 5-1.

We'll now move to item C. Thank you. We'll now move to item C, consideration of ordinance number 26-47, amending the title 6. of the Olathe Municipal Code by adopting the 2025 Johnson County Environmental Sanitarian Aquatic Health Codes. This update aligns our codes with the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment Codes. This item was a report at our September 1 meeting. Is there a need for a presentation on this item? Seeing none, a motion to approve would be in order.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve.

26.

Yes. 26-47. Thank you. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Will the city clerk please call the roll?

Mr. Schoonover.

Yes.

Mr. Vacas.

Yes.

Ms. Essex. Yes. Mr. Creighton.

Yes.

Mr. Dinault. Yes. Mr. Bacon. Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

The next three items set our 2027 budget. Our goal with the budget this year is the same, to fund exceptional city services and the community's highest priorities at the lowest sustainable tax rate. We take very seriously our role as stewards of our taxpayer dollars, especially when costs and inflation are rising, and that impacts the city just like it does everybody else. So thank you to our staff for all their hard work and guiding us through our workshops. And thank you to all the residents that engaged with us throughout the process. With that, I'll move to item D, which is consideration of ordinance number 26-48, adopting the 2027 City of Olathe budget.

I move to approve ordinance number 26-48. Second. We have a motion and a second.

Did Council Member Creighton, was that a blight that was from a previous?

No, I just wanted to make a comment. If I may. Councilman Creighton. Thank you, Mayor, for your comments. Yes, I appreciate everything our staff did. being my first budget, one of the things that was very important to me was looking at how the city has changed from what I understood previous budgets to be in the past. Reducing the planned rate or expected rate of growth in property taxes and sales taxes. I think that is very important to being more realistic about what it is. It's the acknowledgement that looking ahead, we've got some tough times if we don't do something. So we've made the tough decision through this budget to do a hiring freeze, which that's not going to be Long term that's not going to be sustainable, but right now it offers some help. And then the significant changes to the capital improvement projects, losing some things that I wanted to see, but I get that. Scaling back some things. And so I just wanted to commend that. And as I said last week, I came into this looking for a way to be revenue neutral. where a growing city wasn't possible. But with these new safeguards, thank you to our staff for doing that, and I'm supportive of that. So I just wanted to make that comment, and I appreciate other council members last week saying that this is a change that they're recognizing as well. So thank you. Council Member Essex.

Thank you for the chance to comment real quick before we vote. I wanted to also thank staff. I mean, I know they have worked for months, years in some cases on what we're doing this year. And I really feel like we've been responsible with tightening our budgets and reducing CIP like has already been mentioned. But like I said last week, we have constituents who are seriously concerned about the consistently rising property taxes that they're considering whether they can even afford to stay in Olathe. So I will be consistent and I will be voting no on the budget tonight. I just want us to work towards making Olathe a place where the people who built their lives here can afford to stay here. Thank you.

Council Member Schoonover. Thank you, Mayor. I echo the sentiments that have been shared. I want to thank City Manager Sherman and the team for all of their hard work putting together a budget that I do think you know, really does help address some of the structural issues that we're seeing long-term. I know it's not been easy. Difficult choices have been made, and certainly commend you for making those choices. I'm going to support these motions tonight. I will say that's not to a deaf ear of people who have raised concerns, as Councilmember Essex has mentioned, certainly about rising property taxes or continued strain on household budgets. I know that none of us, nobody that works for the city wants it to be that, you know, when somebody gets a bill from the city of Olathe for water or trash or something, all of a sudden they're, you know, considering moving out of Olathe or wondering whether or not they can afford to stay here. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERHAPS IN FUTURE BUDGETS, MAYBE IF WE DID AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, AS EASY AS PREPARING A BUDGET IS FOR THE CITY, LET'S DO TWO OF THEM. But if there was something that we could do that would give council the option to say, if you wanted to stay revenue neutral, this is what that would look like. And these are the choices that you would have to make. Or, you know, I know when my friend Kevin Gilmore was on the council, he was always an advocate for us as the policy setting body, setting that kind of guardrail at the beginning of the process to say, city, you have... 3% to work with. You have whatever the case may be. I think that that makes a lot of sense. I know historically we haven't done it that way, but I think earlier in the process for, what would that be, the 2028 budget, perhaps that's something that we as a governing body should think about providing that direction early in the process. I know others might have different thoughts with regard to that, but that might that might help put some guardrails in place that shows, hey, we're trying to tighten things here. And we understand that there are going to be difficult choices that go along with that. But that's why the seven of us are here, to make those decisions. So I'm going to support this tonight. Again, I appreciate all of staff's hard work. And thank you.

Thank you for those comments. We have a motion and a second on the floor. I will just say that it is important to remind folks that we are not raising the mill rate in Olathe. The only reason you have a property increase from the Olathe's perspective is because the value of your home has gone up and that's not the case in all for all buildings in Olathe. Some values are actually going down. And I would say and remind folks that Olathe has the second lowest mill rate in the state of Kansas next to Over-the-Park. So there's not too many other places you can go and have a lower assessment for your municipality. So we're still a great place and a great choice in Olathe. So with that, I would ask the city clerk to please call the roll.

Mr. Bacon?

Yes.

Mr. Schoonover?

Yes.

Mr. Vakas? Yes. Ms. Essex?

No.

Mr. Creighton? Yes. Mr. Dinnall?

Yes.

Motion passes 5-1.

Item E is consideration of resolution number 26-1078 adopting the 2027 to 2031 capital improvement plan. Motion be in order.

Thank you. I move to approve resolution 26-1078.

We have a motion and a second. Would the city clerk please call the roll?

Mr. Schoonover?

Yes.

Mr. Vakas?

Yes.

Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Creighton? Yes. Mr. Dinault?

Yes.

Mr. Bacon? Yes. Motion passes.

And item F is consideration of resolution number 26-1079, establishing a comprehensive list of fees and charges for 2027. Is there a need for a presentation or comments on this? I would just say the only one I was... the fee to dump at our transfer station more than doubled because we're trying to chase people off of that site. We don't really like the public interacting with the big machinery and the hole and everything. So I don't know. If there was a way that we could provide a space where people could dump things, I just don't want to have people dumping at the end of cul-de-sacs in the night. And we are more than doubling that fee. I think it was $25 or roughly, and it's going to $60-something. So that's the only comment that I would make. And if we could find a way to accommodate people that don't want to have a pile in front of their house and wait for the bolt pickup, if they could take something somewhere and not have to pay the $60.

Sure, absolutely.

I'll let Beth Wright answer this one. Beth Wright, Deputy Director. So the fee is going up to, it's for the minimum. So the price per ton is not changing. The minimum price is going up. And it is to encourage people to use the bulk pickup. So it's going up to $40. It's not doubling. So it's less than... I mean, it is more than the bulk pickup. So the bulk pickup is going to $30 for 15 minutes. So we really encourage people to use the bulk pickup. But the price per ton has not changed. The minimum has increased.

most people i would think would not even get close to the the tonnage it would factor in or you know especially i you know for most items it depends on if it's a small item or you know um what's i don't know the average um number uh that meet the minimums i'd have to look at that and get back with you in the past i've always just paid the minimum if yeah it's been a while since i've done it but uh yeah anyway It was close to double, not quite.

Okay.

Thank you. Motion be in order for Resolution 26-1079.

Thank you. I move to approve Resolution 26-1079. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Will the City Clerk please call the roll?

Mr. Denault?

Yes.

Mr. Creighton?

Yes.

Ms. Essex? Yes. Mr. Bakas.

Yes.

Mr. Schoonover.

Yes.

Mr. Bacon.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0.

We'll now move to general issues and concerns of citizens. We have five individuals that have signed up to speak tonight. So I would ask the city clerk to read the guidelines and then call up our first speaker.

The council has established a policy to provide time during its meetings for people who live and work in Olathe to address concerns to the city council. Speakers should only address the council. Council members are not required to respond. Please treat others with kindness and respect. The council has allocated no more than three minutes per speaker and up to 30 minutes total for this portion of the meeting. Tonight we have five speakers, so each speaker will be given three minutes. Our first speaker is Haley Hess. Please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record.

Welcome.

Hi, I'm Haley Hess. Address is 13844 South Darnell Street, Olathe, Kansas. Okay, I'm here tonight because I believe the decision regarding the Olathe Girls Softball Complex deserves more consideration than simply putting it out for an open bid because this is more than just a facility or a lease that we have with the city. This is 53 years of history, 53 years of girls growing up in the fields, generations of family creating memories, coaches volunteering their time, parents investing their time, money, and energy. More than five decades, OGSA has not only used the facility, but it's also invested in it through money, equipment, tournaments, programs, thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours. The greatest investment has been the girls. These fields have taught young women more than just softball. They have taught teamwork, discipline, perseverance, confidence, leadership, and what it means to be part of community. And I know that personally. I started with OGSA when I was around eight or nine years old. Softball has been my outlet when I lost my mom at a young age of 13. Today, I have the privilege of coaching my four beautiful daughters on those same fields. When I watch them play, I see the feeling I had as a little girl, courage, confidence, and leadership. These qualities don't just make better softball players, they help create strong women and future leaders in our community. As a member of the OJSA board, vice president, newly appointed, I'm also to tell you that we don't do this for a paycheck. We don't get paid for our evenings, our weekends, our countless hours, it's because of the girls. We get paid for the smiles when you get a championship, when you make that double play, when you hit that home run over the fence or in the field, when you make that diving catch, or you accomplish something that you didn't think you could. And this is why we show up. We understand that the city has responsibilities when it comes to the city property, but we respectively ask you to consider whether it's the traditional open bid process truly captures the 53 years that has been proven a commitment from the board. The question shouldn't be who should operate these fields. It should be disseminated between the 50 years that we have committed to these fields, to the girls, and to the families who depend on them. You can't put 53 years on a spreadsheet. You can't recreate the decades of knowledge for a new contract. And you certainly can't measure the impact of the girls that we have serviced. So tonight, I ask you to look beyond the bid. Look at the history, the investments, the volunteers and their families, and most importantly, look at the girls. 53 years of history and thousands of volunteer hours should mean something. The generation of girls who have been called to these homes, this field is their homes, should mean the most. I respectfully ask the city to reconsider the open bid process and consider renewing OGSA's lease or creating a process that gives meaningful weight to our 53-year history, investment, volunteer, and commitment. Please don't look at these.

Thank you. Your time is up, ma'am. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Darren Elliott. Please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Darren Elliott and I'm at 15905 West 153rd Street in Olathe. First of all tonight I want to begin by thanking you for your service and tonight's celebrations hopefully provided a civics lesson for a lot of the young people here tonight and maybe they can go back and ask for extra credit from their teachers for staying here so late. I speak to you as someone who is a 25-year resident of Olathe. I grew up in Kansas and have been around softball my entire life. For the last 23 years, I've lived in Olathe, and in addition to being a college professor and a small business owner, I've spent thousands of hours at OGSA over the last 20-some years I've been here. Haley talked about the history of OGSA and its 53 years in the city of Olathe, which started 53 years ago just down the street of the Kansas School for the Deaf, before members of that original board found the land and built the property that's at the current 151st Street location. It came as quite a shock to us to learn that after this history, the city was going to open up the complex to a bid process. When asking the questions why, we've never gotten a clear answer, other than we're just doing something different. If it was a financial answer, I can tell you, having run the financial numbers, that can't be the case. Even if the city's numbers are correct in what it cost the city to run the complex last year, if the OGSA contributed $0, the cost per citizen of Olathe would have been $1 to run that complex per year. Based on the contribution OGSA made, it is about 17 cents per citizen to run the complex in its current form. My concerns are twofold. One is that if we were to change the nature of that complex and how it is ran, it would go from a non-profit organization to likely a for-profit organization. The costs that are associated with for-profit organizations and sports around the country make it unaffordable for many girls to play softball. We've been able to keep numbers low because none of our staff gets paid. In fact, we had a staff position that was a paid position for a number of years, and because we wanted to cut money, we took that position away, and the rest of us have filled those roles and those hours for no compensation. A for-profit model would change that, I think, to the detriment of the girls. I'm especially concerned because we've met with the Parks and Rec Department a number of times, and not only have we not received an answer as to why this change occurred, we haven't been able to get an answer as to why the timelines we've provided or options we've given have fallen on deaf ears. And in fact, last week during a meeting with representatives of USA Softball, is the day the bid was sent out, when we were told that meeting would allow us to reconsider going forward. We feel that was not only unprofessional, but really a slap in the face of the 53 years of this organization. We hope you will take into consideration the people that are here tonight, from players, coaches, umpires, family members or founding board members and take into account the letters you're receiving and reopen this process and enter into a dialogue with ogsa and into a dialogue that is both fair and is in good faith to reconsider how we move forward with the lay the girl softball association thank you for your time thank you our third speaker is john bott please come to the podium state your name and address for the record

I am thrilled to be here talking to you all. I am John Boddett. I live at 13652 South Edinburgh Street in the Briarwood development. I'm the treasurer of Olathe Girls Softball and have been involved since 1984. Some of you may not be aware of the genesis of the OJSA complex on 151st Street. It is a very positive story. In the late 70s, when OGSA began, we were playing softball at the deaf school and eventually at Two Trails Park. In 1979, OGSA purchased 16 acres at 151st Street from Cecil Van Tile on a $100,000 balloon note. Emphasis balloon. 1984 arrived, no $100,000. Thanks to the help of some very well-placed friends at OGSA, a joint venture agreement was created between Olathe and OGSA. The city of Olathe agreed to pay that note, and a park was created, sort of, for $100,000. An agreement, a joint venture agreement was talked about and created that we would build a softball complex. The city would pay for the lighting and the parking. We would do the rest. We did it. 1986, play ball. Eventually, a total of seven fields exist in that complex today. Two of my daughters played softball at OJSA, and both had the good fortune to win KC Metros and go to Nationals. How about it? During the years, those 40 years of joint mentor, many improvements have been made. and some very recently, and some further are in process right now. CIP has been accepted. I urge you all to continue this venture, which continues to provide a healthy, competitive, positive experience for young girls in our community. You can come out almost any night. and observe firsthand an atmosphere of family support and girls learning new skills please reconsider the rfp proposal that is now in the works and help ogsa to be the best girls softball league in the kc metro thank you thank you our fourth speaker is charlotte o'hare please come to the podium state your name and address for the record

Charlotte? I don't think she's here. What's the next one?

Our final speaker this evening is Cecil Luna. Please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record.

My name is Cecil Luna. I'm from Topeka, Kansas. 1103 Northeast Forest. I've been coming up here since 2001. So I've been up here for about 25 years right there. That's what should matter. Them girls. It was an open lease. Now you guys want to shut it down? You guys signed an open lease with OGSA. Now it's about the money. It's about the money. Who's getting paid up here? Somebody's getting paid. Because the bottom line is this. It's about the girls. You don't care about the girls. Bottom line is, you guys got school tomorrow? Yes. So that should have been the priority of the meeting tonight. The kids are our future. And you guys don't care. It's a perfect example of it's all about money. It should be about the girls. You take OGSA, what's next? Lone Elm? I think your mom and dad pay you. Parents, y'all pay your property tax. Right? Y'all pay your property tax. I think you've paid enough property tax to keep the place open. Have you not? It's about the girls. You're always taking stuff away from the girls. That's not right. I served three tours in Iraq, Iraqi Freedom. And then I served three tours in Afghanistan. And I wasn't a councilman. I was a 68 whiskey with 101st. I fought for these girls. And you guys do your job. Do your job and take care of these girls. It's about these girls. Without these girls, we have no community. The more they play, the better they get. They'll pay more taxes. It's simple. It's about the girls. And you want to take it away from the girls. I know you all have families. And you guys got families, right? How would you like that if they said, we're going to take that complex away from your kids? That's not right. It's not right. It should be about the girls. I appreciate you letting me come up and talk, but like I said, I've been up here since 2001. I started coming up here after I came back from Afghanistan. I got PTSD. I got liver cancer when I was in Iraq. But if it wasn't for these girls, I'd probably be dead. Thank you.

Thank you. That was all of our speakers tonight? Yes. We will now convene a planning session. We have two report items. The first report is a request to annex approximately 6.98 acres located southwest of West 167th and South Ridgeview Road. Is there a need for... Presentation or questions of staff on that item? Seeing none. And the next one is also a request to annex approximately 70 acres for Johnson County aggregates located southeast of West Old 56 Highway and West 151st Street. Is there any questions on that? I mean, I've got a few questions on this one. Staff, where are we at on this? And is there... expectations, I guess, if they annex into the city of Olathe, that we will move forward on a request to quarry this land.

So, Mayor, the... Annexation has to occur before you consider the special use permits. The special use permit applications are on the Planning Commission agenda last night, so they're going to get before you here, I believe, in October. So it's just a prerequisite for that. There's no annexation agreement. There's no conditions related to it. There's no de-annexation provision because there's no agreement. So you'll be considering those special use permit rezoning applications on their own.

But they will only happen after we agree to the annexation.

Is that correct? I believe they're going to happen on the same night. This annexation would be approved by you before those cases occur.

And they're talking about coming before us in two weeks then with an annexation agreement and a special use permit on the same night?

I don't know. I'll simply say that the annexation, the special use permit application cannot be considered until the annexation is considered.

But it's likely going to come on the same night? Could be the same night.

Okay. I can't, I'm hesitating because I cannot recall exactly where we've been down the dates with staff.

Okay. Well, I guess we'll see more information from staff on recommendations, whether or not they think this is a good use of this property. I know there's a lot of residents to the north that are concerned and also to the northwest. So about expanding the... And I guess we've kind of asked the applicant for an example of how they can mitigate better the dust that's produced from these operations. And where are we at on that?

Yes, I'm Susan Sherman, city manager. So the annexation discussion is first, as Mr. Shaver said, that's because you have to decide if you want to control this land. It is not within the city of Olathe. So if you annex it in, it becomes part of what the city of Olathe wants to put as stipulations in place. It will be within our control at that point because they will have to rezone with the special use permit. So as you remember, there are two special use permits that will be opening up if we annex this in because you have the original quarry from 1988 with the stipulations there. We have opened that up and are adding additional stipulations to that 1988 stipulation. That was heard at the Planning Commission last night as well.

Are we considering a limit on the time on that? Because I remember it's open-ended.

Yes, it is indefinite. There is some discussion in there about undermining and not doing the top mining. They will need to undermine that quarry. It goes into a little bit more depth on exactly what the mitigation for dust and monitoring and things like that. And then you will have that same kind of special use discussion and stipulations for the newly, if you decide to annex that in the newly annexed area. So we will get you all of the information that was at the planning commission last night. They went several hours on the public hearings that they had and probably 20 to 30 people spoke. at that, so you will get all of that transcript. You may get additional items just as you usually would with rezonings and special use permits. But yes, we'll get you that information. I believe right now it is set for October 6th, but as is necessary, we'll make those adjustments.

What was the result of the planning commission last night?

I believe it was 6-2.

Chip Elcher, Chief Community Development Officer. So the expansion of the quarry was a vote of 6-2. I didn't catch that. 6-2 for the expansion and 7-1 for the opening up to existing special use permit in the existing quarry. To approve it, to annex the land. Just for information, we do have quite a few stipulations to go above and beyond federal requirements. One A couple things of note is we're enclosing the transfer station at the crusher, so where the rock leaves the crusher belt into the stockpile is where it creates the most amount of dust. We're going to enclose that. We're making a requirement to enclose that. The applicants agreed to that.

Is that something they'll do and demonstrate before we get a chance to review it two weeks or whenever they're ready to come before us? The plant, no, it won't be. To enclose this? Because I thought we were asking for a demonstration of dust abatement.

Yeah, that's not what's been proposed. The second largest dust producer out there would be the Hall Roads, and they're going to pave those. Right now, they're watering about 80,000 gallons a day, and what that really does is just track the dust out to 159th Street. So they've purchased a vacuum truck and committed to running the vacuum truck once a day on 159th Street, and we're eliminating access directly to Old 56 Highway.

But this will only be for the quarry to the north. This doesn't affect the quarries on the south. They'll still be unpaved roads and tracking on to 159. Correct. Yeah. It's a little bit of a tricky situation. All right. Good information. Council Member Schoonover.

Thank you, Mayor. And I echo your, I think, comments and concerns about I would really like to see a commitment, demonstrated commitment, I think, from the quarries before – really talk about approving a special use permit. I understand that the process may not work out that way, but certainly if the property owner is listening to this meeting, I would think that there's several of us up here that share some concerns about whether those things are actually going to happen given some of the condition that that the neighbors are already experiencing. So I echo the mayor's line of questioning there about let's kind of, let's see you prove it, really. Corey, not you, Chet.

Corey. Understood. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions on report two? Okay, let's move to discussion item one is a discussion regarding artwork on the new city county parking garage, PN6-C-003-24. Events and rentals manager Renee Rush joins us for a presentation. Welcome, Renee.

Good evening, council. Renee Rush, events and rentals manager, and I'm also the staff liaison to the public art committee. Tonight I'm here to present the public art component of the city county parking garage project and the recommended artwork for the site. This project's been a collaborative effort between the infrastructure project team and the public art committee. So I'll just do a brief overview of the selection process for the project, and then I will show you the recommended artwork for the site. So the city county parking garage is a really great opportunity for us to incorporate public art into high visibility city project, which is outlined as a priority in the public art master plan. The garage is in the heart of downtown Olathe. It's right here next to city hall and the county courthouse. So we really saw this as an opportunity for the artwork to contribute to the activation of downtown and the revitalization in the area. This project also ties back to the public art ordinance, which provides up to an investment of 1% of eligible capital improvement project costs to public art. So for this project, that results in a total public art budget of $200,000. That's all-inclusive, so includes the artist fees, materials, fabrication, installation. And then our goal is to have the artwork installed by August of 2027. That aligns with the opening of the parking garage planned for early September tentatively, so we'd like to have the art on site when that opens to the public. So with that opportunity in mind, we issued a national request for qualifications in May of 2026. The RFQ detailed the vision for the project, the vision, key goals, timeline, budget, and then artists were asked to submit portfolios of their past work, a statement, of their interest in describing how they would approach the project. We received 198 submissions in that process. So it's a big task going through all of those applications. The project team and the public art committee reviewed all of the submissions, ultimately selected three finalists that we paid a design stipend to propose site-specific art for the parking garage. So each finalist presented their proposal to the committee. They provided 3D renderings, information on maintenance and durability. And then after careful review, the committee selected Ad Astra by Jay Yan to move forward as the recommendation before you tonight. This next slide is not the actual rendering. This is a different project by the artist. So before I show you our proposal, I just wanted to talk a little bit more about Jay Yan. He has more than 20 years of experience as an artist, many large-scale projects such as the one you're seeing here. The work most relevant to the project is Talaquipaque. It's a 27,000-piece ceramic tile installation on a hospital in Los Angeles. It's partially made with water jet cut tile. You can see highlighted in the circular portion to the right there. It's a similar technique to what he's proposing for the piece for the parking garage. One of the things particularly important for this project is his experience with these tile installations. In this project, the expansion joints required for an outdoor installation are actually incorporated into the design, so that's kind of the black lines you see there. So he's proposing a similar approach for this project, which will allow the artwork to accommodate the expansion and contraction from the freeze-thaw cycles we see in Kansas. So that kind of just touches on the durability. This project should last way more than 30 years with the materials that are being used. So before we look at the artwork itself, I just wanted to give you context of where the proposed artwork would be. This is rendering of the parking garage without the artwork shown. Southwest elevator tower is the portion of the building with the dotted line around it. It's a highly visible exterior wall located between the main entrance to the county courthouse and also the main entrance to city hall. It'll also be visible from Santa Fe and the Johnson County Square across the street. This is just another view, a different angle. I'm looking from the main circular plaza in front of City Hall of that Southwest Tower. And this is the proposed artwork. What you're looking at, it's a large scale, 48 foot high mosaic. It's made from high gloss ceramic tile and it incorporates a really vibrant color palette. It's designed to move from a sunflower at the bottom into a geometric star as you move up the tower. So this concept's connected to Kansas with the sunflower being our state flower. Add Astra as part of the state motto, meaning to the stars. So Jay took the sunflower and star and approached them in an interesting way. He was using the forms to gradually transform from one into the other. His inspiration for this was... M.C. Escher's metamorphosis. So he said he was interested in the Fibonacci sequence found in the pattern of the sunflower seeds in the geometric form of a star. So he saw the opportunity to bring these two forms together through transformation, like you see here. M.C. Escher used tessellation, or repeating interlocking shapes, and gradually changed those shapes so they evolved into recognizable forms. So if you look at the work, you can actually watch one form or shape transform into something completely different. So that's kind of the same concept here. Starting at the bottom, you can clearly see the sunflower, and as the pattern moves upward, the sunflower transforms and breaks apart and becomes more abstract, eventually resolving into the star at the top of the tower. And so that transformation kind of creates that movement up the tower, but also connects back to Kansas with the symbols. The mosaic will be made from ceramic tile. The colors are custom developed specifically for the artwork. The artist works with Ceramica Suro and Guadalajara. They actually still mix colors by hand. And so they are a very unique and custom color palette made for the piece. Once the colors are selected, the tiles are glazed, they're kiln fired, and then water jet cut into the individual shapes for the mosaic. And then a local installation team will take the tiles and they'll follow a precise map, begin from the base, assemble to the top. They'll be applied directly to the wall using an underlayment to help accommodate for those freeze thaw cycles. This is just a nighttime view. During the day, the ceramic tile and color are the primary visual impact, but at night, there'll be LED light strips on either side of the tower illuminating the artwork. and just a final night view. So in summary, the committee, they really felt like this artwork has potential to become iconic piece for downtown Olathe. We envision it becoming kind of a recognizable landmark and wayfinding for downtown, a place where people naturally want to stop and take pictures. I can see all sorts of people taking their senior pictures and using it as a photo backdrop. We believe it'll add a lot of vibrancy and color to downtown and just create a sense of place. So the next step is contract approval, and this item will appear on the October 6th council agenda for consent. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Renee.

Councilmember Creighton. Thank you, Mayor. Two questions, please, for us. Sure. Number one, please remind me, as well as others here, how we fund the ARP program for large CIP projects, especially we just talked about making cuts when we did our budget. That's number one. And I'm going to make an assumption. Would you confirm that if this project, being a ceramic, that it will not fade and it would be easy to clean? Maintenance on it?

Yeah. Okay. So for your first question, we have a couple different funding sources, but for this project specifically, it would be the project fund. So the public art ordinance for Olathe designates that up to 1% of the construction cost of the capital improvement projects that are eligible for art on their property designate that funding for public art so that's how this is funded we do also have the public art fund which is made up primarily of developer contributions so any developer that receives incentives from the city they have to commit up to 10 cents per square foot and 15 dollars per parking space for public art in conjunction with their project If they don't put public art on their property, they can donate 75% of what that fee would have been to the public art fund. So that's how we get the public art fund. But the 1% is kind of the city holding themselves to that same standard that we asked for developers to contribute to put art on the property. Did that answer that question?

that did and i appreciate you uh first of all i didn't contact you so thank you for having that information and letting me put you on the spot and i appreciate that you were able to differentiate how that there are two different types of funds on this so thank you on that then go ahead on the end for the maintenance yes so the ceramic tile um

this was something we kind of talked to extensively with the artist about the durability and maintenance it's really water and cloth that you can clean it with we have a similar piece not similar but using the same material ceramic tiles reflective spaces it used to be here next to city hall but it's now kind of right in front of the cemetery but that piece has been in place for I think, well over 20, 30 years, and we have had to do very minimal maintenance. And it should, with the sealant that they put on the tile as well, it's fade-resistant, crack-resistant. The expansion joints that they build in, it should protect it from the cracking you could get from freeze-thaw cycles.

Thank you. That was where I was going, too, was with our extreme temperatures. Thank you. Council Member Bacchus.

Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Laura. I appreciate this presentation. And I appreciate the artist using Escher as an example. I love that work. Generally, Escher's work has a muted color palette. This does not. Certainly, the choice of materials, the tiles, wonderful choice of materials. It could look great. I don't find this attractive. Okay. To me, it looks like a kaleidoscope, you know. And so, it'll be iconic. but maybe for the wrong reasons. I mean, it's just my opinion. But to me, I could see this at a carnival. I don't know that it conveys the right sophisticated sense for our municipal buildings. I think the material's great. I think the artist is great. I'd love to see a revision in the color palette, just to tone it down a little bit, if it's possible. You know, we have a commitment to environmentalism, the green idea. So if we had more of a nature color palette, understanding there would be some variation, maybe that would be truer to Escher's work. Maybe. I just offer that as a comment.

Okay.

Fair. Council Member Schoonover.

Thank you, Mayor. To follow up on the funding source, I think this looks great. I mean, it's not lost on me that at the end of the day, this is a parking garage with a very lovely piece of artwork attached to it. And so I appreciate the effort to... beautify government buildings as much as we can. I know certainly when we're using taxpayer dollars to create these buildings or to create these structures, certainly there is an inclination to say, let's spend as few dollars as possible. But I do think in the grand scheme of things, if we spend a little more and beautify things, it's better in the long run. You mentioned that the city's 1% project fund is paying for this. I know the county is paying for half of the parking garage itself, too. Does that mean that the county is also paying for half of this artwork?

Not really broken down that way. I mean, the total project budget is like $22.5 million. And so we're just below 1% of that total cost. The breakdown itself, I guess, essentially, yes.

Yeah, I'm going to take your answer as yes, the county is paying for half of this. So thank you.

Yeah.

I get Councilmember Bacchus' sentiment because I was thinking the same thing because I thought it looked a little cheap. But it's not cheap. It's over $200,000. Okay. What are the other considerations for a nice quality whatever treatment you might do on this tower and then have an art piece be separate where you might spend $100,000 to $150,000 on something standalone. And there's a little area that's kind of a little plaza that's going to be between here and the parking garage. that might be more visible. I mean, this will definitely be visible from Santa Fe, but not necessarily from Cherry. So I don't know, I just like to, or is it Cherry? It's not Cherry, it's Chestnut, I'm sorry, Chestnut. So I would just like to maybe have another option. I don't know, is there a warranty from this artist as far as tiles that might come loose?

There is a warranty. We haven't got dive into the details of what, how long the warranty will be for. We have kind of priced what it would cost to replace a tile. It would be very unusual to have to replace a tile, but you can replace an individual tile in this design. So that does help. You know, some of the projects, it's like one massive piece. And so you'd have to replace the whole thing. But that is the good thing about this design. You'd be able to replace a single tile if needed.

Well, I like the idea of some kind of a classy treatment on the front of that. It could be, but I don't know that I wanted to spend $200,000 for artwork on there. I think I would be happy with another option. It's just something to look at. I may turn around and say, hey, I like the mosaic stuff.

We can share. So we had three concept proposals for the parking garage. We can share those and kind of give you some of the context of what led the committee away from those choices as well, just so you can kind of get a better idea if that would help. We can put that together and send it out to the council.

Okay, great. Any other comments? Is that the direction you need? When will we see those other conceptual ideas?

I can probably get that to you tomorrow.

Cool. All right. Thanks, Renee. All right. We will now move to additional items. I'll start on my left, Council Member Creighton.

Thank you, Mayor. And, you know, we have an opportunity as members of this body to work with an awesome staff. But what I really like is today I opened up my e-mails, my city e-mails, and there was a – very complimentary email from a local business person, specifically about a member of our planning department, Emily Carrillo. And so, Chad, please let Emily know that we think the world of her. We appreciate that... the business person took the time to acknowledge that. So it's great when people besides us get the chance to see everything you all do. So thank you, Emily. Council Member Schoonover.

Thank you, Mayor. And you stole my thunder. I was going to mention that exact same thing and sing Emily's praises. You know, it is great to hear folks reach out and share those positive feedback. We know all of our staff works very hard and certainly the planning staff included, Emily included on those. So we appreciate everybody's hard work. I will say thank you to the softball families coming out tonight. It's always great when folks are at these meetings and being engaged in the process. We appreciate hearing your concerns. We appreciate the thoughts that you share. And so certainly to the kids that were here, I understand they have school tomorrow, but it's great to see them here. And along those lines, I will say today is National Voter Registration Day. So if you are not registered to vote, today's a good day to fix it. So that's all I have. Council Member Varkas.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to mention first Beth Wright in the back of the room, Deputy Director of Public Works. This is her last city council meeting. She's retiring at the end of the month. She's been a stalwart here for years and certainly has a public service career spanning in excess of 30 years. I want to acknowledge her publicly as having done a fantastic job for the city of Olathe truly a person that we could always rely upon. No doubt she will be sorely missed. She is highly acknowledged in her community of practice. I think this past year was chosen as the person of the year in your community, woman of the year. Yeah, it's just all good. I'm sure we will acknowledge you in some appropriate fashion, but I didn't want to miss the chance to tell the public that Beth Wright has done a great job for the city of Olathe. Thank you, Beth. Well, so yes, so September 15th is National Voter Day. I'd mention also that September is Environmental Awareness Month. And I want to take a moment to thank our entire stormwater staff, and in particular the Street Sweeper crew. Their prompt and continuous cleaning of the contaminants from our streets helps to ensure that our stormwater runoff remains as clean as possible. It's a great environmental commitment. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Essex.

Well, that's the problem with going last is everything's already taken. I wanted to also acknowledge Beth, our award-winning Beth. Thank you for everything you've done, the years you put into the city, your responsiveness, your cheerfulness, your taking your job seriously, and always just getting back with us with exactly what we needed. So you will be missed, and thank you for your career here.

Council Member Denault.

Everything is not always taken by the end. For example, it is the national IT professional awareness level.

Well, that's a stretch.

I'm an IT professional. No, but I wanted to say thank you to staff on everything, all the help getting through the first of my budgets, many budgets. A lot of hard work has gone into it. I appreciate kind of the new direction I see us taking. I think that's going to show that we're responsible and setting up Olathe to be resilient. And in little known fact, I don't know if anybody else has been to the 119th Street Bridge, but Beth drove my kiddo to that bridge. And I don't know, but my kiddo's gotten to be on that bridge, and none of us have, I don't think. So I just had to say that. Thank you, Beth.

City Manager Susan Sherman.

Thank you. I'll just simply say we will miss Beth, and I'm sure that she will still be around to celebrate Olathe and the community that we have. Also, I would say thank you for your support of the budget and asking great questions and being engaged in the process. Can't thank the team in our budget staff team as well as the team of professionals that work throughout the department. So thank you again.

Great. I would also like to chime in on the Beth Wright fan comments here. Beth has been with the city for 11 years, had an outstanding career. I know that she's been instrumental in bringing millions and millions and millions of dollars to our community for projects, which it helps stretch our local dollars when we get partners to help us with these big projects. So your leadership has shaped countless projects, strengthened our organization, and made a lasting impact on our community. So thank you for your service to Olathe. Enjoy your retirement. It's well-deserved. And thank you for spending part of your career here in Olathe. And I also wanted to say that registration is open for the third annual pickleball tournament supporting the Olathe Mayor's Children's Fund. The tournament this year will not be at Twin Trails. or Two Trails Park. It will be at Ace Pickleball, and I believe that's over by Garmin. Is that right? Does anybody know where Ace Pickleball is? Okay. If you would like to participate, you can sign up today at Olathecares.org. So it'll be a great fundraising opportunity for the Olathe Mayor's Children's Fund. That's it for tonight, folks. Thanks for being here, and we are adjourned.