Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lenexa council restores office use for Renner 95, approves redevelopment plan amendment and DDA change

2519348 · March 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lenexa City Council voted to adopt a second amended and restated redevelopment project plan for Project Plan No. 2 in the Mining TIF and approved a third amendment to the development agreement with Renner Associates LLC, reinstating office use and providing an approximately $606,000 TIF reimbursement to the developer.

At a March meeting of the Lenexa City Council, members voted to adopt a second amended and restated redevelopment project plan (Project Plan No. 2) for the Mining tax increment financing (TIF) district and approved a third amendment to the development agreement with Renner Associates LLC that reinstates office use at the Renner 95 property and removes the previously approved multifamily component.

Staff told the council that the Renner 95 site — a five-story office building on the northeast corner of 90th Street and Renner — was built in 2008 and had previously received TIF reimbursement terms tied to office tenancy. According to the staff presentation, the 2025 amendment terminates a 2023 amendment that authorized conversion to multifamily, restores office use to the TIF project plan and development agreement, and makes the developer eligible for an approximately $606,000 reimbursable TIF payment that had been available under the original incentive term.

"Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the project plan, and to the DDA," said Sean (city staff, project presenter). A representative for the applicant was present to answer questions during the public hearing.

Curtis Holland, attorney for Block Real Estate, described the market context that led to the earlier multifamily plan and the reversal now. "The office market a couple years ago was nonexistent, and frankly, it's still struggling to get back to where it was pre‑COVID days. And it was, almost by sheer luck, if you will, that we had a tenant, a potential user buyer of the property who wanted to make use of it as a headquarter project show up," Holland said. He said the potential buyer expects to occupy the majority of the building, leaving some upper floors available for other tenants.

Councilmembers asked whether mixed‑use zoning remained on the property and whether any multifamily zoning would remain in effect. City staff clarified that the zoning stays as mixed use, so a future applicant could propose a different use through the normal site‑plan and review process, but the current amendment specifically reverts the approved plan to office use and removes the multifamily component that had been approved in 2023.

The council opened and closed a public hearing on the amendment; no members of the public spoke. A motion to adopt the ordinance amending the Project Plan No. 2 and to approve the third amendment to the DDA passed on a council vote. The council then separately moved and approved the amendment to the DDA.

No tenant identity was disclosed to the council during the hearing. City staff said the developer and a potential buyer had discussed tenant finishes and an intent to use the first floor for some retail or mixed uses, but details about the number of jobs or the tenant name were not provided.

What the council approved tonight restores office use within the Mining TIF project plan and authorizes the DDA amendment that will trigger the specified TIF reimbursement to the developer if the terms are met. Staff and the applicant did not provide a revised construction or occupancy schedule as part of the council action.

Votes at the meeting on this item were recorded by motion; the council voice‑voted "Aye" to approve. The meeting record does not specify individual roll‑call votes or tallies for this item.