City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning and Development Committee. My name is Eric Bunch. I am serving for now as your chair, typically vice chair, and represent the 4th District if my colleagues can introduce themselves.

Melissa Patterson has lead our district at large.

And online, we have mayor pro tem. Mayor Pro Tem? Okay. We will we will officially begin when alright. There we are.

Oh, okay. You're on mute, Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yeah. We can. Yes.

Okay. Yes. Good afternoon. I'm waiting on the elevator. I'll be up shortly, but you can go ahead and start the meeting, councilman. Thank you.

K. Now staff could introduce themselves.

Dahl US, city clerk's office. Diane Binkley, city manager's office. Sarah Baxter, law department.

Travis Keefer, Casey Water.

Nicholas Bostinetto, city engineer. Kyle O'Leagh, Casey Planting.

Great. Thank you. I believe we'll start with the start at the top of the agenda.

Ordinance number 260347, accepting and approving a one year $1,579,691 grant award with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to provide funding for HIV case management and other services for persons living with HIV within the 11 county Kansas City Missouri transitional grant area estimating and appropriating revenue in the amount of 1,579,691 and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Yeah. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Jen Sims. I'm with Kansas City Health Department and the HIV Services Program. We were here previously. You guys see our faces a lot. So this is in addition to the previous Ryan White presentation you guys got earlier this year. This specific grant is a sub award through the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services through their Part B program. And this is specifically to fund HIV medical case management services here in the Kansas City region.

In case you didn't remember, we do have a unique service area outside of the city limits. So we do cover a total of 11 counties with this grant, and that is seven counties in Missouri, an additional seven on the Kansas side of the metro area. All right. This specific grant falls under our Ryan White Medical Case Management Program. With the $1,500,000 it funds about half of our current program, which is about 27 staff throughout our four subrecipient agencies and at the health department.

Our medical case management program is really supporting clients living with HIV to access medical care, maintaining health coverage, and connecting support services to help them improve their health outcomes as it relates to their HIV. And these are all repeat slides from your last presentation, so I will not go through in-depth for you. Any questions?

Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? None. Is there any public testimony?

There's no public testimony.

K. Hearing no public testimony, you would entertain a motion.

I move that ordinance number which one is it?

Two six zero three four seven.

Oh, 260347 be recommended with out of committee with recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second. It's

been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye. All

opposed? And the motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ordinance number 260348, accepting and approving a one year April grant award with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for a comprehensive disease intervention specialist workforce program estimating and appropriating revenue to the sum of 419,678 and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Mertz. I'm here from the Kansas City Health Department. I'm the manager for the program over the investigation and prevention of sexually transmitted infections here today to accept the annual grant from Missouri DHSS for disease intervention specialist workforce program.

These funds pay for four disease intervention specialists, and they partially fund two supervisors. And the grant supports the efforts to prevent and control the spread of syphilis and HIV in the Kansas City, Missouri area. Our priority strategies include STI surveillance, including data analysis and dissemination syphilis and HIV investigation partner referral services for exposed persons focused outreach testing and education for sexually transmitted infections linkage to care for services and healthcare provider support.

Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any questions from members of the committee? Hearing none, is there any public testimony for Ordinance Number 260,359?

There's no public testimony.

Or sorry. Four eight. Four eight.

There's no public testimony for ordinance number two six zero three four eight.

Okay. Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion.

Thank you, vice, mister vice chair. I move that ordinance number two six zero three four eight be, moved out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second.

Thanks. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? And that motion passes. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, councilman Bunch, vice chair for, leading the committee. I I do want to say, 260359, there's been a request to hold this until May 12, I believe.

Let me double check.

Unless until May 12. Is there an objection to that? And that's at the the sponsor's request. I just wanna make sure if anyone is anyone here to testify on 03/1959? That's a resolution by councilman Rogers. Okay. Alright. He had requested to hold that for till May 12. Okay. Thank you. Alright. We can go ahead with the next item on the agenda, please.

Ordinance number 260,349, accepting and approving a grant award amendment from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide additional funding to assist in workforce development and meeting public health foundational capabilities in Kansas City, Missouri area, estimating appropriating the additional sum of $739,567 in the Health Grants Fund for a total amount of $9,306,095 and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone. So this is in relation to our public health infrastructure grant. It is a five year grant with three technically components. We're only eligible to receive two of those. You can see those listed out here.

So one of those is related to the public health workforce, the second is related to foundational capabilities, and the third is centered around data modernization. I will be here to speak about the foundational capabilities portion of that grant because it is eligible for annual appropriations from Congress. So just ever so briefly, our workforce component of this grant currently funds 25 total positions arranged throughout the components you can see on screen here. That is we received all that funding upfront in year one December of 'twenty two for the total of about $7,000,000 And then again, each year, we receive an additional appropriation based on congressional attitudes. And this year, we received about 7 and $40,000 Some of these strategies that we're funding with this are just continuances of previous strategies that we fund through this annual appropriation, but some of them are new.

So, we'll be continuing the community wellness ambassador program. This is the fourth year of that program. We are continuing to fund priority travel for conferences and professional development. And then the fourth year of platform for training and continuing education for our current workforce. Three new strategies are around our EHR system needs assessment and scoping, the one year funding for our community health improvement plan implementation, and then finally, for a bit of strategic marketing related to various things that the director is interested in. That's really all I have for this one. If you all have any questions, I'd happy to answer those.

Thank you for the presentation. Any questions? Is there any public testimony?

There's no written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office for ordinance number two six zero three four nine. No one appears by Zoom with a raised hand or in person to testify. I'll entertain a motion.

Yes. Madam mayor pro tem, I move that ordinance number two six zero three four nine be reported out of committee. The recommendation in advance that you pass.

Second. It's been moved improperly seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that motion carries.

Thank you.

Ordinance number 260,350, accepting and approving a $101,574 contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to conduct childcare sanitation inspections Kansas City, Missouri, estimating and appropriating 101,574 in the health grant fund in recognizing this ordinance to have an accelerated effective date.

Good afternoon. Hello.

Good afternoon, mayor pro tem, members of the committee. My name is Stacy Duetsman. I'm the division manager for environmental services. And with me today is Ashley Rosley. She's our training manager for our environmental public health program. We're here before you today to ask for your approval to enter into a renewed participation agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to conduct childcare inspections on their behalf. Just a little bit of history on this program. For over a decade, we've been doing childcare inspections for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. In the last several years, we realized that enforcement mechanisms for the state was falling short. So if you may remember in the spring of twenty three, we came before a committee and asked us to adopt our own childcare ordinance that would allow us to do permitting, inspections, and enforcement where needed.

That thankfully passed and went into effect in January '24. However, there's still a permit requirement through the Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services, and they've asked us to enter a participation agreement again to conduct those inspections on their behalf and get reimbursed for those inspections here in Kansas City, Missouri proper as well as Clay County. So this agreement would run through the fall of twenty eight, and we would conduct about three twenty inspections annually on their behalf under the agreement. These inspections would include routine inspections, complaints, any type of special circumstance and a reinspection, and they would occur inside licensed child care facilities as well as in home child care. This slide is just a quick overview of the reimbursement rates.

As you can see, the ones in Clay County are a little bit higher to cover the cost of our staff going outside of Kansas City to do these inspections. And we're estimating around a $101,000 for the course of this agreement to be going towards the health grant fund.

Any questions? Thank you for the presentation. I I did have a question. So, would this mean that the health department would be inspecting all child care facilities in Kansas City? So we currently do

that under our current ordinance, and they're basically taking our inspections and using it as their inspection to account for their permit, but they're reimbursing us to do that for them.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly. Okay. Thank you. Do you all have questions? Is there any public testimony?

There's no written testimony submitted to the clerk's office for ordinance number two six zero three five zero. No one appears by Zoom with a raised hand or in person to

testify. I'll entertain a motion.

It's been

moved Seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you so much. Appreciate your work.

Ordinance number 260,351 approving a major amendment to a previously approved urban redevelopment plan on about nine acres generally located in Northeast Corner Of E 63rd Street and Bushman Drive in District Ur to allow for an entertainment venue.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

Alright. Good afternoon. Justin Smith, city planning and development. In front of you is ordinance number two six zero three five one. Subject site is located within the 5th District, just West of 71 within the Swope Area Plan boundaries. Closer look at the site, you can see it's on the north Northeast Corner Of Paseo and East 63rd Street. The whole property highlighted in yellow is the urban redevelopment plan. Today, we will just be looking at the one of the tenants in that building here. So it'll be this is the proposed location. Just a history of the site.

The urban redevelopment plan was originally improved in 2010 and later amended in 2023 by the same applicant, mister Peterson, to allow for an entertainment venue in the bank, which is the stand alone building on the southeast corner of the site. Today's request is another major amendment to allow for an additional entertainment venue in this previously the Liberty Tax space. All the conditions from the controlling ordinance will remain. No facade changes are requested with this major amendment other than signage, which was not reviewed with this request. Here's a couple looks at the site.

And then there is one request after confirmation from the city engineer, which is removal of the following conditions, which is number four, five, and six. And with that, the city plan commission recommend approval subject to conditions, and I can answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation. You all have any questions?

Removal of the condition. Go ahead. Public testimony.

Yeah. Is there any public testimony on this ordinance?

There's no written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office for ordinance number two six zero three five one. No one appears by Zoom with a raised hand or in person to testify. Thank you. Were you

you have something, miss Chancellor. Oh,

I was just wondering if you had some commentary about the, conditions they wanted

waived. Yes.

Give me one second. I'm sorry. So the three conditions from public works are more they mainly apply to the whole site if you were proposing physical changes. So one is for the developer to submit a letter to the land development division for any out of repair sidewalks, driveway, or curbs. Number five is submit verification of vertical and horizontal site distance for drive connections.

No new drive connections are proposed. And then the last one is asking the developer to submit a streetscape plan for approval by land development division.

I'm assuming this is your did you introduce yourself?

No. I didn't. Okay. Claude Peterson.

From who and where? I mean.

From the Onyx Event Venue. I'm here from Kansas City, Missouri. And the Onyx Event Venue on 601670 East 63rd Street.

It's your business? Yes. What entertainment business are you, proposing?

If

you just tell us a little bit about it briefly.

Okay. Briefly. What is expecting at? So we plan on offering a facility for people in the community. We've been working with the Blue Hills Association for the past three or four years developing this, allowing them to be able to do weddings, any type of community activities, also rented out to people for anniversaries, retirement parties, baby showers, whatever that's available for the community and for anyone around that area. So we've been trying to get it going for quite a few years now.

And this is next door to your existing business?

Correct.

Right. Yes.

Yes. Had this the seniors Valentine's Day party in in February. So okay. I'm familiar. I just wanted, them to know

Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions? Thank you. I will entertain a motion.

Yes, madam mayor. Protender Member's Edwards, number 2603.

Pardon me. I'm sorry to interrupt. Did you wanna adopt the changes that Justin mentioned that public works recommends, which would be committee set to remove conditions four, five, and

catch that. Okay.

Thank you for that. Yeah. So the recommendation from public works is to remove conditions.

Four, five, and six.

Four, five, and six. I'm not opposed to that. No. Neither. So we would have a committee sub to actually, let's hear from public works and and why that recommendation is coming forward

from us. Yes, ma'am. Mayor pro temps, so these conditions are standard conditions that we put on development. The reviewer didn't quite realize this is just an internal sort of rehab of an existing space. So these kind of just kind of made it in there. And then I just caught it under review, and that's why I'm asking to have those strokes it's strike out since, you know, there's there's no reason for him to have to

do this.

Right. Because it's just a renovation of those existing okay. Alright. Thank you for catching that. Thank you also for catching us before we move without it. So then unless there's an objection, then we will do a committee sub to remove the sections four, five, and six. Okay. Conditions. Okay. And I'll entertain a motion.

Yes. Madam mayor pro tem, I move the committee's substitute ordinance number two six zero three five one be reported out of committee's recommendation to advance the pass. Second.

It's been moved improperly seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Committee substitute for ordinance number two six zero three five two vacating approximately 35,000 square feet of right of way in District M 1 Dash 5 generally located North Olive Street between Rochester Avenue and Nicholson Avenue and directing the city clerk to record certain documents.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon again. I'm Justin Smith, city planning and development. For the record, in front of you is ordinance number two six zero three five two. This is a vacation of right away. The subject site is located within the 1st District just south of the river within the boundaries of the Riverfront industrial area plan.

A closer look at the site, the highlighted portion in yellow is the proposal for to be vacated. It's a portion of North Olive Street in between Rochester Avenue and Nicholson Avenue. This vacation of right of way is roughly 35,000 square feet. The public facilities within this right of way is a public water and sewer main, and then there are private facilities within this right of way as well, including AT and T, Evergy, Inspire. Just a brief history on the site.

A pre application meeting occurred in September 2023. The applicant's intent was to resurface North Olive Street. As you can see in the picture here, it has fallen in quite disrepair. The city planning and development staff recommended the possibility of a maintenance agreement with public works rather than the vacation. The second option would be to vacate the right of way, and that is the path the applicant chose.

So while staff was reviewing this vacation to meet the criteria, you cannot create a dead end. So the applicant did work with staff to ensure that the highlighted in red was to create a hammerhead turnaround, and that was approved by the fire department. So once again, the goal of this vacation is just to resort resurface North Olive Street and keep it open to the public. City Plan Commission did add a condition at the hearing that the applicant provides a public access easement, the full length of the vacated portion of the right of way, and that the city approval is required to revoke this easement. The committee sub today states that the applicant shall provide an a private access easement to the properties identified as laws 36 through 47 on the vacation exhibit, which is attached and incorporated.

And so I did just wanna highlight the two highlighted properties are under the same ownership, and then just a couple pictures of the street here. And with that, the city plan commission did recommend approval subject to conditions, and I can answer any questions.

Thank you for that. Actually, I just wanna clarify. Madam Clerk, did you read, I know it reads the same, but did you read the committee itself? Yes. When you read it? Okay. I couldn't remember. Okay. Thank you for that. I don't have any questions. Do you have questions?

Yeah. It sounds like this started with the the need to resurface the street, with with the government. Government. And

And And mean, that street needs more than just resurfacing. It's completely deteriorated. As as you can see, it's basically a gravel road at this point. Cargill is processes soybeans from all over the Midwest, and it is amazing the number of truck trailers that are out there any given day. You go out there, and there's I mean, it is amazing, and and they just tear the place apart. So we Cargo wanted to take it over, and, you know, that's great for us. It's one less come

to

to come to to us. Come things like that. And So we we discussed this at length, and we thought this is the best, solution for everybody involved.

Okay. The the one thing I'd add to, Chris Klein with, law firm at Hush Blackwell. Office is at 4801 Main Street, Kinsey, Missouri 64112. So the only thing I'd add there as well is, you know, besides the the trucks for Cargill and the, their customers that utilize the site, there's very little public traffic that utilize it at all, and that'd just be the one property owner to the south of this, vacated area, which we'd have won't be providing that easement to. But then also, Cargill plans go in and repave the entire surface. So it'll be asphalt instead of gravel road, as well. So I think that was one of the things that played into this decision as well.

And and so it will remain open as as if it's a public street due due to the public access easement. Is this correct?

Yeah. So Cargill intends to keep the road open to the public. They're not going to construct any sort of barricades or improvements or anything that restrict access. And, you know, to further that, they're even going to provide that, private access easement to the property owner of the South who's concerned. They still have access to their property from, Rochester. They indicated desirous leaves that roadway as well.

So Yeah. And and the reason I ask is that the the grid is already pretty disrupted over here, and I, you know, have since this is in the 4th District, I'm somewhat familiar with the with the area. It's pretty difficult to get through here, and so I just wanna make sure that we are not losing access. One of the handful of streets that actually goes through just wanna but it sounds like this and the public access easement will is would be the city council approval would be required to terminate that.

No. I wanted to I should clarify that. The community sub changes that condition to an access easement just for those property owners that are referenced in the sub because of well, if you have legal if you would like to make a motion to go into closed session to receive legal advice, that would be inappropriate motion to make at this time.

I support that.

Yeah. I feel like I need some more background on the it may be fine, but I'm struggling to understand how these types of vacations can work and still provide access because this is I know it sounds like there's not a lot of public use, but I know this area somewhat well and know how difficult it is to get through. So I would be curious. I I think I would like that. So I I don't have the the statutes.

Or maybe he can answer it.

I I think that we need our legal counsel to provide this.

And I I I actually support that as I'm reading something in the staff report that I

that Okay. I

think we probably need to take into consideration. So is is there a motion to go into closed session? And it's six ten dot o two one subsection

Subsection one. One? Okay.

Go ahead. Subsection one? Mhmm. Yeah. Madam Ann Percham presents the section six ten dot zero two one subsection one of the revised statutes of Missouri. I move that we go into closed session to discuss legal matters, litigation, or privileged communications with attorneys regarding real estate transactions under subsection two.

Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Can we get a roll call, please?

Aye. Bunch?

Aye.

Willett?

Aye.

Patterson Hasley? Aye. We'll go in a closed session.

Yes.

Well, it's usually ours.

We usually Yeah. We care a lot about

Alright. We are back in in session. Alright. So based upon so there's a recommendation for a whole of one week on this and yeah. I think I'll stay tuned. Yeah. Which was because council is off next week, then it will be held Two weeks. It'll be two weeks. Okay. And a recommendation to have the staff work with Cargill to see about having a what what do you call it?

A maintenance agreement Mhmm. Other options. So and just for the spirit of transparency, we we wanna articulate what that means, what what we are directing the staff to do.

You're asking me?

Yeah. Or somebody

You got

it. Just to make sure we're clear. Yes. I would prefer if we come back with just at least an analysis of the the the two options here, one being a maintenance agreement with the private property owner versus a vacation. And I'll express my concern about the vacation being that once it's gone, it's gone.

I'm not sure that a private property access easement for the nearby property owners solves some of the challenges that I'm concerned with. So, if the maintenance agreement is the preferred option, just give us an opportunity to evaluate that. And so, that's what I would request our public works staff to come back with. I've long been challenged by the necessity of of right of way vacations and and primarily because we've seen in so many cases where the street grid is chopped up and and so much of that is lost. And down businesses that are nearby.

We have Knuckleheads and Reagor just down the street and a few other smaller businesses in that district that this would cut off one it's not probably the primary access to get to that area. I just wanted to express the concern of continuing to lose some of those rights of way. Even though the intent is to keep this open, my preference is always to keep it open in the public right of way. But I look forward to to follow-up from staff on on those matters. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. No further discussion.

Did we hear did we

hear testimony on this one?

No. There's a person

on Zoom.

There okay. Alright. Let's go ahead and hear public testimony. And I understand there's somebody on

Zoom. Hillary Myers.

Good afternoon, mayor pro tem and city council. This is Hillary Myers confirming you can all hear me in the room. Yes. I lead Cargill's US soybean meal business. So this is a my plant manager is also on this afternoon. So we're here to answer any questions that you have. So just a public testimony. Understand you want to get up to speed on the options and the rationale for the hold. I would urge you to also recognize that we've been working through these challenges with public works for several years. This is not a new problem.

There have been times that we've invited public works to our facility to show them the severity of the issues at Olive Street. We have had semi trailers stuck in potholes that have had to be pulled out, really significant disruptions that impact our plant. Each day on that road, we have between one hundred and one hundred and twenty semitrailers on average that are coming to pick up product from our plant, and that goes to feed animals in the surrounding states. So if you eat chicken or pork, we help feed those animals in the local area. So I just wanna give some context that we have in order to get maintenance on this road.

We've have had to call out public works. We've had to to basically beg for maintenance and work very closely with Nicholas and his staff to ensure that the road is actually operable, and there have been times that that it's not. And we've really evaluated that option thoroughly and went down this path because it seems the most reasonable. And, also, given where this road is located, it's crossed by the CPKC rail line, where the CPKC's largest customer in Kansas City, and at the bottom of the road is UP Railline. So, this road, basically, like, goes into our plant, and I know it connects to Rochester Avenue, but it but as mentioned, that'll stay open.

So we're available if there are questions as city staff goes through this process. Appreciate the time this afternoon, council, and, we'll be sure to be part of this process as you consider the options and move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead, councilman.

Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate you, Hillary, being on here and, your plant manager as well. This is the first time as a council member, and I'm gonna speak for my colleague who's district. This is first time we heard about this being an issue. What you guys do is important to our economy, not only here just here locally, but around the region. And so it's important to support you. I understand the difficulties you guys are having with road maintenance and the type of road request. It sounds like you're gonna need concrete rather than the traditional road, restructuring for that area. And I think you have a council member who's willing to sit down and chat.

This is the first time that he's heard about it, but I'll be someone to help come up with a common sense solution. I wanna support you and get there. I know that you're probably frustrated spending over a year in the process. We're

asking just

he's I believe he's just asking for a couple weeks Uh-huh. To find a solution, and I wanna be supportive in that as well.

Two more weeks after two years is okay.

And Thank you. Go ahead, counsel.

And and clarify, I've, you know, I'm aware I've been made aware, over the time on my on my time on the council of the challenges of the street and others down there, but this is the first to be clear, this is the first I've heard of the vacation proposal. So, I just want to make sure this is the right tool and that we're using the appropriate tool for the challenges that we're seeing. So, thanks for your patience, and we will see this back in a couple of weeks.

All right. Thank you so much. All right. We'll see this in a couple of weeks. Go ahead with the next board the resolution two six zero three six two.

Resolution number two six zero three six two, directing the city manager to implement a pilot program for the purpose of securing financing through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Section 108 loan guarantee program for eligible economic development community development projects for the express purpose of removing chronic and long term slum and blight and that complement adopted policies such as vacant land activation initiative authorizing the pledge of some future community development block grant funds as security and recommending requirements and a process to the city council.

Looking for the presentation.

Good afternoon. Right in the center.

Apologies for the uploading issue here. Okay. No problem.

Okay.

And this goes to

here. Okay. Okay. You want us to come back to it?

Yeah. If you have I don't think we have another one, do you?

Yeah. We have 260056. You got it now? Do you have it?

I mean, you can do the next one while she does her thing.

Okay. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and take the next one while they get this presentation uploaded? So, madam clerk, if you'll read go ahead and

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Ordinance number 260056, rezoning area of about point two acres generally located in Southeast Corner Of Fruits Avenue and East 5th Street from District U R to District B 2 Dash 2 to allow for an entertainment venue.

Right. Good afternoon. Oh, this So I'm gonna just refresh our memories. So we heard the presentation. We asked a lot of questions. We took public testimony, and then we lost our form. Everybody agree with that? Okay. So today, let's start with let's start with the fact that we received information about the protest petition, and and I'll just ask our attorney to update us on that. Let's start there.

K. I mean, I guess I recommended that that we discuss any legal issues in closed session.

Okay. Okay. Alright. So we won't start there.

Are there any you would like. That it's always your call, but that's my recommendation.

Brief brief call session. Ten minutes would be enough.

We need a call session.

No. I don't know

if we need to.

We wouldn't we don't need it.

The national people

Are you you ready for

a motion? Well, I think the closed session is in real would be in relation to the protest petition. Is that what I'm understanding?

It's up to whoever makes a motion for legal advice on whatever issue they would like, but you were you were asking for a legal opinion, it sounded like.

I wasn't asking. Actually, I wasn't asking for a legal opinion. I was really asking whether or not the protest petition is valid or not.

Yeah. After further review, it's not valid at the moment, but we are willing to work with, the neighbors to, ensure that it's valid.

Go ahead. So,

mayor pro tem, what the protest petition does, it's make it so that you need nine votes in order for us to do the rezoning. Right. That's all it means. Okay. Right. I'm ready to make a decision if others are. I don't need a closed session for

Yeah. I don't need a closed session either. I just what I wanted to do is to establish that be transparent about the fact that the protest petition is not valid as it stands today so that everybody knows that even though it doesn't necessarily matter today, it what what matters is if and when the council votes on this on Thursday, the full council votes on this, then that requires, as councilwoman Patterson has, he said, an a vote of nine for it to to pass. And so That's right.

I mean, my but I do re I do recall that it was continued because the applicant was presenting, and then that was sort of paused so that public the public could testify. And I believe the applicant was told they could finish their testimony.

Yeah. Yes.

Did we take public I'm not sure we took

public testimony.

We paused the applicant's presentation because persons were here to testify from the public, so the state

testified. That is correct. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So were are there any questions that the committee members had before we okay. Alright. So let's go ahead and allow you all to sorry. You you were actually Yes.

We we were here.

Think you

were on point five.

I I actually think we had finished six of those rezoning criteria, so we did that's when we got paused, so we're a little farther than that. But Great.

Thank you.

For the record, again, John Roe, attorney with the Roe Law Firm on behalf of the applicant, Mac Nichols, whose Harmony properties is the owner of property. Last week, the staff had given you their recommendation based on the objective criteria, rezoning criteria in the ordinance of approval, and we had made it through the first six to show you that we also believe that those objective criteria support the rezoning. And so what I'd like to pick up with today is seven, which says the extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties. And, the rezoning of the subject property from UR to district b two dash two will not detrimentally affect nearby properties. And I'd like to note the city's professional staff said in their staff report that the rezoning is not expected to detrimentally affect nearby properties.

The property to the West and the south is zoned to a more intense zoning district, b three. So a b two zone would not be expected to detrimentally affect more intensely zoned property. In fact, there's a vacant lot directly across the street west of the subject property. Not trying to be funny. It won't detrimentally affect the vacant lot.

There's a vacant building to the Northwest. It won't hurt that. To the North is Garrison Community Center in the park. And I think the important point I'd like to make there, and I touched on this last week, but to just go into a little more detail about that, that's the Garrison Community Center, and that area is already being used as an event venue that's operating in Columbus Park, and the neighborhood apparently is not trying to oppose that or shut that down. This community center that's directly across north from the subject property is used for community events outside like soccer games, Easter egg hunts, Halloween parties.

But more importantly, inside the building are various event spaces that members of the public can rent, and you can rent those spaces from anywhere from $25 an hour to $100 an hour. And they have various sized rooms, as we touched on last week, including a gymnasium that you can rent for nonathletic purposes that could accommodate an event up to 200 people. So this land use that mister Nichols would like to continue operating at his property via the rezoning is a land use that's already in the neighborhood and has been going on right across the street, operated by the city, I guess, more particularly the the parks and recreation property to the east would not be detrimentally affected. It already adjoins property that's zoned B3. That property is east of our rear yard, which is a large green area that's surrounded by a six foot high wooden privacy fence.

And then their properties are on the other side of the public alley. That separates our property from the property to the east. So at this point, what I'd like to do is kind of zero in on some of the issues that the neighbors have expressed. Those comments can be put in a couple of different categories, including parking concerns, crime and noise concerns, and noise kinda can be broken down into fireworks or gunshots or loud noises is what I understood that they were saying. So what I'd like to do at this point is ask mister Nichols to address the the parking issue.

He has a an interesting exhibit, and then I'll come back behind that and talk about some of the crime and noise. And this is still under the topic of detrimental effect to nearby properties, which is a criteria in the city zoning ordinance.

Hello. My name is Matt Nichols. I want to thank each of you, Justin and his team, the council members, for being here today and taking the time again to listen to my story and consider supporting my B2 zoning request. I've heard concerns about trash. I take that seriously.

But I want to be clear, my staff and I clean thoroughly after every event, both inside and outside the building. Many times the trash I do find on my property isn't from events at all. It's windblown debris from surrounding lots or items left behind by passerbys. I routinely clean it up because I care about maintaining my property and the neighborhood. I also understand that some neighbors have expressed concerns, particularly around parking and neighborhood disruption.

Regarding parking, I was granted a variance by the city, meaning I'm not required to provide off street parking even so I actively communicate with my guests about being respectful. Do not block driveways. Do not park irresponsible. In all my years operating, I've not had a neighbor come to my door to request a car be moved due to one of my events. I also took the time to assess the available street parking around my studio, 53 spaces to be exact.

There is significant legal unmetered parking available all without encroaching on my neighbors' immediate homes. This kind of shared public parking is part of what makes urban neighborhoods more walkable and connected, something the city has clearly supported. In fact, the recent decision by the city council to eliminate certain off street parking requirements in the urban core reflects a broader vision, prioritizing people over cars and making it easier for small businesses like mine to exist and grow. My property is exactly the type of space that policy was intended to support, and it is within the urban core. It's also important to note that many surrounding properties are zoned for more intensive use than what I'm requesting but are not actively contributing to the neighborhood in the way my business has for the past decade.

My studio has been a consistent, positive presence. If this rezoning is denied, it doesn't just limit my business. It risks shutting it down over time. And the impact goes way beyond me. It affects the photographers, the creatives, small business owners who rely on my space. It affects the families across the entire city who come to celebrate important moments in a place that is safe, clean, and affordable.

Is that all the presentation?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. And I would just note that on the exhibit that you see there, the calculation of those 53 on street parking spaces was done by mister Nichols using a an an average sized car. So these aren't compact cars. And again, just one more point about community center there. You can see their parking.

I think they've got about 35 parking spaces, but they've got spaces that I mentioned last week that if they were all used at the same time would accommodate 360 people. The next point that I'd like to address is the gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to denial of the application as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of the denial of the application. Able And

to

And as so the staff has noted in its staff report, if the rezoning is denied, the landowner is left with zoning that restricts the property to only one use, and therein lies the hardship. And I'd like to explain that a little bit more. Based on how Mr. Nichols charges for these small events, for a three hour event, he makes about $200 And so if he has about 30 events a year, that's about $6,000 future. For future.

And And have have the $6,000 or $7,000 range. And so this rezoning to him is very important to have another the ability to have another use other than the one that to which the property has been restricted to keep things viable there at the property. So that's that's the hardship to the landowner. And weigh that against what's the gain to the public health. If public health is to prevent disease or prolong life, there's there's no negative to those topics by denying this to the public health.

There's no benefit to public safety or the general welfare, general welfare being the entire area, not just a specific individual or groups. There's no real gain to the public general welfare if the rezoning is denied. A couple other things that I think I'd like to have mister Nichols touch on, and but before I do that, I'd like to talk about this crime issue that came up. I asked mister Nichols to go to the police department and they used to call them police blotters, but I asked him to get, a list of the last five years of any calls that had to do with his address or that were associated with his address. He was given a list, by the police department.

In fact, you can see on the screen there the affidavit of the records custodian. There were 15 line items on that blotter report that had the 1101 East 5th Street address. And kind of raised an eyebrow, fifteen fifteen line items on the police blotter over the last five years for this address until you start looking at what they were. Two of them were over the last five years where mister Nichols had set off the alarm at his own place accidentally. Three of the calls are all on one day that had to do with a homeless person who was having a, I guess, could be called a mental health crisis out in the middle of the intersection where his property is located, and two of those calls were by mister Nichols himself.

There are other calls on here that are listed as advised calls, which as I understand it means a an officer responded, but nobody was arrested. The officer, whoever dealt with whatever the situation was, and the and the person left. So I had mister Nichols crosscheck dates of his events

that's next important And

calls that were at that intersection, and so they put down the closest address. There are two other items on here that have to do with credit cardautomatic teller. Neither Mr. Nichols or I know what those refer to. All I can tell you is we don't have an automated teller machine or ATM machine at our property, and those were back in 2022.

The other thing I would mention to you is you can look online, and the police department maintains kind of this little map. And we have on this map a star where our studio is, and then you can see the areas where there are incidents reported. So this is a crime map for the first part of this year. Reason I'm bringing this up is none of those incidences that are reported in that Columbus Park area are at our subject property.

So

I think the crime issue is something that maybe gets said, but the facts support that. We we don't have a problem at our property. This issue about fireworks and gunshots that came up last week, let me just start by saying that mister Nichols' rules state that fireworks are not allowed. Firearms are not allowed at his events. Mister Nichols was a member for ten years on the Columbus Park Facebook page.

Apparently, he was banned after the Planning Commission hearing, but prior to that, he was able to look at posts and comments under posts on the Columbus Park Facebook page, and he counted 150 posts and comments under posts that mentioned either fireworks, gunshots, or car backfiring or loud noises. Here's the interesting thing. None of those posts or comments referred to his property. So that's just not something that is allowed at his property, and it doesn't happen at his property. With regard to any allegation that somebody might raise about music, loud music, This is not a concert venue.

No bands with big speakers or concerts are lots are allowed outside in the backyard with respect to the neighborhood. On occasion, there is a musician inside the building, which is typically a solo singer or somebody with a guitar or a keyboard to play some background music during a dinner party. So those are the things that I wanted to touch on with regard to detriment to the neighborhood, the balancing test. There is a hardship to the landowner to a denial and no real benefit to the public health, safety, or welfare through a denial. And I think Mr.

Nichols would like to add some additional comment and context for your consideration on this rezoning request.

Thank you. What matters to me most and what I hope resonates with all of you is who this space serves. This building is more than just a structure to me. It's my pride and joy. It represents years of sacrifice, risk and relentless effort.

I've poured my life into creating it, into shaping something from the ground up that I truly believe adds value to the city. I love Columbus Park. I chose to invest there, and I chose to stay there. I'm proud to welcome people into that neighborhood through my doors every single day. When customers and guests walk into my space, they're not just entering a building, they're stepping into a place where life happens, where people come together, where they connect, where they create, where they celebrate.

It's a place for fellowship, for families, for friends, and for partners. And I know that because they tell me, I'm proud to share that I've earned over 185 star reviews, and that's over 20 pages worth. I heard allegations by one of my opponents that say one thing and do another. That's just not true, as shown by the reviews I have received. You don't receive that kind of customer feedback unless you're doing something right. Those reviews aren't just ratings. They are real stories from real people. They reflect lived experiences. They reflect gratitude. They reflect the impact this space has had on their lives.

They tell the story engagements, of parents welcoming new babies and celebrating first birthdays, of families gathering from milestone moments and of graduates marking accomplishments, of friends sharing intimate dinners, of reunions filled with laughter memories and new moments being created. I'd like to share just a few real inquiries I received from my customers so you can know these aren't loud, out of control house parties that's been alleged by some people. Linda, graduation party. Hi, Matt. My son will be graduating from high school in a couple of weeks.

My husband and I want to celebrate. Most of the guests are family and old friends of all ages. Your event space is the perfect place for our small group, love the fenced outdoor space for the younger kids to run and play. Ganja. Hi, Matt. I'm expecting my first child this September, and we would love to host a baby shower at your space. We actually used to live in Columbus Park and love that neighborhood. Kayla, a women's empowerment event. The goal of this event is to connect women through conversations about mental health, healthy relationships, and positive self talk. I'm looking for a space where about 40 women can gather.

The last one, Sarah R, a woman focused podcast recording. Hi, Matt. I'm a neighbor in Columbus Park. We are having a live podcast that will be recorded and filmed called adoption, the me, the making of me. We are hoping to have a taco bar and some drinks.

We'll have a professional photographer with us, Jeff Fortney of the Innocent People Project, who will be taking headshots and photos of guests. This place looks perfect for this event. I would love to come over and see it, and if it's available, secure it, which she did. I'd like to reserve some time for a closing statement after anybody from the public speaking or you might have questions. There's also been numerous e mails sent in from the public to the committee to comment on my rezoning and in support of my application to the city.

I like those to be added to the public record. Lastly, I also have a packet that has some information about what we'll be discussing today, and I was told Justin was able to hand that out to you, including 180 reviews, which is 20 pages.

Thank you. Thank you. So any questions from the committee? Go ahead, counsel.

Yeah. So when this was initial, I'm going to ask staff to confirm. When this was initially zoned, you are, what were the allowed uses under that development plan?

Yeah. So it was it's pretty typical to see these in earlier on, it's what we would just call a single use urban redevelopment plan. So if you just put a grocery store in, the plan would just say grocery store or entertainment venue or photography studio in this case. Sorry. So it's really a single use, and that's what staff has to go off of when determining the use is allowed on the property. So it was only allowed for a photography studio at that time.

Okay. But then, at some point, it evolved into more of an event space.

That's correct.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And so, obviously, that's what's gotten us here is that we have a use that is conflicting with the single use that was approved under the UR. And as a result, the disruption, no matter we got one side saying it's not disruptive at all.

Got one side saying it's very disruptive, and truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But that's the challenge when you launch a change the the model of the business to be something that is incompatible or or not allowed under the UR. The risk is that if it's disruptive, then the then the neighbors have have leverage. Whether or not I care about whether I agree with the neighbors or not, I'm not saying one way or the other here, but I have some real concern about this is sort of big forgiveness after the fact kind of situation is what it feels like because we've been operating for quite a few years in a business that was not originally approved, and that's kind of how we got here. So I just wanna express that.

And under a UR, typically, we would ask for a major this would be a major amendment to the UR, or would this be a minor amendment?

That's correct. Since it was only one use, we would call it a major amendment. So just for example, like today, if there was a new urban redevelopment plan, we would say any use allowed in a B2, and then a couple uses would be prohibited there. But we'd ask for a larger range of uses.

And then in this case when we're typically using we talked about this last week. Typically, the UR is used when we are doing when it's an incentivized so, in this case, it was an abated property. At some point, does the UR expire and then we have and it reverts back to B3 or B2 or whatever it was before it states UR forever Yes. Until or until we change it. Okay? Alright. I don't have any further questions at the moment.

Mayor Procter? Thank you. You know, I my my concern with this is is rewarding, you know, kind of unlawful behavior as as this was zoned for the single use, but the applicant has moved far beyond the use that was understood at this particular location. And so while the business has been successful, it it it's sort of a ask for forgiveness type of situation. And I have voted in the past not to agree with those types of rezonings, where you're operating outside of the zone that you're in and then coming back later, once once people are complaining.

So and from that aspect, I I will not be supporting the rezoning.

Alright. So let's go ahead to the public testimony. We have three cards. We'll start with Margaret Margaret Valenti, followed

by Kate Barsotti, and then Jean Fiorello. We're gonna testify as a group as the in the interest of time since we've testified before. I wanna respect your time. Nice. We agree with the assessment you've made. We we do support perhaps a special use permit so he can continue as a photography studio with a single use. And that's what we had agreed to originally and think that's supported. If he wants to expand to an event venue, this property could also always be sold and he could relocate to a different venue. But we've got significant investment in the neighborhood. There are other businesses that invest tons of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, to conform to your laws and ordinances.

And so we don't want to reward this behavior. We like to try to keep people within that zoning and the compatible use. So we would ask you to deny this zoning request. Thank you

all for combining your testimony together. Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone online? Any other testimony? Oh, okay. Go ahead.

Members of the committee, Andrew Bracker, Department of City Planning and Development. I'm not testifying in favor or in opposition to the matter before you, but wanted to put on the record for your information that this was a brownfield site. It underwent underground storage tank remediation in 2002. This office worked with the owner at that time to negotiate with the state an environmental covenant. That covenant is recorded on the deed. It restricts uses to other than residential in future, and it also restricts installing or using any groundwater wells on the site. So, just for this committee's information, I wanted that to be put on record.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Any other testimony? Is there anyone online? There's no one else online. Okay. Alright. So we'll bring it back, to committee. You asked for a final comment.

I'm willing to give you that.

You asked for a final comment? You wanna comment

on that?

You go ahead.

You all didn't. Did you have anything else?

Okay. Thank you. Before I read these, I wanna take a moment because these aren't just reviews. These are real people sharing the most meaningful moments of their time at my studio, their experiences, their memories, their families, and what this space meant to them. Lisa A, who hosted her son's college graduation wrote, I recently booked this venue for my son's college graduation celebration, and the entire experience was smooth from start to finish.

The space itself was beautiful, clean, vibrant, and welcoming, which made it the perfect setting for our event. The staff were exceptionally pleasant, professional, and generally kind and helpful throughout the process. Their attention to detail made everything feel effortless for our family. I would gladly book here again. Christy A, who held a memorial for her brother wrote, I held a memorial here for my brother.

The space was a perfect size, cozy and well put together. The accommodations were great, and Matt and his team were gracious and helped ease my anxiety during a very difficult time. I would definitely recommend this place to friends and family. Sarah Dee, who hosted a graduation party, wrote, this space was amazing. The host for our party was so helpful with team. Excited about

to said, the space was perfect, and

Matt we're and his team were extremely excited supportive, making the night a success. We will be back. Seisha, who had a family gathering while visiting from out of town shared, Matt went above and beyond to make everything perfect for us. The space was even nicer than the photos. Everything felt seamless, and so many people who attended say they would be booking this space themselves.

Sometimes I get to host a very special kind of event, one that stays with me long after it's over. I had a daughter reach out to me after finding my studio, telling me it felt like the perfect place to bring her family together for a celebration of life for her mother who had passed away from cancer the year before. Her family gathered here not for a party, but to remember her life, to share stories, to grieve together, to honor someone they loved deeply. I'm truly honored and humbled when I'm trusted with moments like that. There's a level of care and respect that comes with it that I never take lightly.

And it reminds me that this space is not just about a studio or events, it's about people and the meaning they bring with them when they walk through the door. What does all this really represent? This is not just about a building, and it's not just about zoning. It's about a space where people come to mark the most meaningful moments of their lives, where families gather, where milestones are celebrated, where memories are made, and even where people come together during some of their hardest days. I invested in this corner of Columbus Park because I believe in it when it was overlooked.

And for nearly a decade, I've worked every day to make it cleaner, more welcoming and more useful to the community around it. What I've built is not yet complete, but it is cared for. It is used responsibly, and it is valued by the people who come through its doors. All I'm asking for is the opportunity to continue that work, to keep serving the people who depend on this space and to keep contributing something positive to this neighborhood and to Kansas City. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and for listening. Please vote to approve my b two rezoning request. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. So we'll bring this back to committee. Go ahead, councilman.

Yeah. I'm just gonna I'm of two minds here. One is that, you know, I'm I'm sympathetic to this challenge that you're facing here, but would be a heck of a lot more sympathetic if it had been operating for ten years in violation of its current zoning. Two, I wanna express the concern to the neighborhood is that if if if this building if if this business no longer operates out of here, and I get that there are some, you know, there are some frustrations with it, we're running the risk of of another of a building that may not be active anymore. It could be could be sold.

It could be the business could go out of business, and the building sits empty for a while, which we know we already have some empty buildings that are a frustrating part of of the experience in the city and some in Columbus Park in particular that so I just that is a risk here, and I and I want you all to think about that, that what happens if it was expressed that this can't be anything other than commercial. It can't be residential because of the Brownfield agreement with the state of Missouri. So, we are fairly limited in what this building can house. So there are some considerations here, and there is a risk that this building becomes empty and remains empty for some time. And that's something that we definitely don't we have a we have a vacant properties conversation coming up here.

Yeah. And that's something that that we have to be mindful of. But, you know, I I would if this was a situation where it was had been operating as a photo studio for for all this time and came and like, hey. We wanna expand our business opportunities by adding event space. And especially if the neighborhood came along and said, yeah. No. We would love to see some more activity. I would be a lot more I I would I would be on board probably, almost definitely. So but under the current situation and, also, I'm generally, I rarely go against the CPC recommendation. In this case, it was a it was a recommendation of denial, I believe, and I don't know what the vote count was on that.

But so for those reasons, I I I have to I have to, you know, vote to support this neighborhood. I have to vote to support the the existing the the what is agreed upon under the UR is what's an allowable use and not reward a, you know, an illegally operating business. So I'm gonna have to, I'm gonna have to recommend a denial for this.

Thank thank you, counsel.

Madam Chair, could I No.

No. Okay.

Thank you. My my thoughts so I I wanna just thank you all and commend you for the detailed information that you provided, all of the testimony. We do have there's, like, 45 documents already online as well in public testimony here as well. The one thing though that I noticed that I can't overlook is the fact that many much of your testimony that's provided in this packet are people that don't live in the neighborhood. Whereas a lot of the, neighborhood we we received a a letter from, Columbus Park neighborhood as well.

And so out of, support and respect for the neighborhood who has to live by this establishment, our two will be supporting, the the neighborhood. And so what I would like to say, it looks like we're all in this on the same page. So I want to just confirm, that so a denial what tell me can, miss attorney, can you tell us what a denial would mean for this particular business? Because I'm sympathetic also as a business owner myself. So what would that mean for this business?

You're saying if you pass it out with a recommendation of do not pass? Yes. And it the ordinance ultimately fails, then it would be, it would be constrained to the the use that's allowed, which is that single use for the photography studio.

So they would still be

able to function as a photography studio, but just not as a event space. Correct. Okay. Yep. Alright. I just wanna make sure that everybody understood that. Okay. Alright. So with that, I will entertain a motion.

Yes. Madam mayor pro tem. Move that this isn't a committee substitute, is it? Move that order number 260056 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of do not pass advance and do not pass.

Second. K. It's been moved improperly. Seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So so the motion carries to deny, this application. And so the full council will vote on this on Thursday.

I have one more. Is three three six being held? Oh, no. It's not.

Yeah. Well,

let's let's do mine so they

can go.

I'll do Sure.

Okay. So let's we'll go back to 260362, which had already been read by the clerk. Thank you.

My chair

up. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, mayor pro tem. I am going to talk about the rationale for resolution two six six zero three six two, which is directing the city manager to create a pilot program to address vacant and blighted land. Okay.

So first of all uh-oh. Okay. What is section one zero eight? So head such HUD section one zero eight is a loan guarantee program that allows cities to borrow up to five times their annual community development block grant. I first learned about section one zero eight, our first year of being elected, we when we went to the National League of Cities.

So I attended a HUD workshop, and this is one of these strategies that other cities were using to address difficult to develop projects. And so that's where the idea originates from. So eligible activities much must meet one of these three criteria. So principally benefit low to moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, meet an urgent need by addressing conditions that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and safety of residents. And then I'm sure that you have read through this, but in alignment with CDG CDBG program funds, they must the projects must fall into four broad categories.

So economic development, public facilities and infrastructure, housing rehabilitation, debt servicing, and related fees. So this initiative is primarily to address long term urban decay and improve living conditions in affected areas. You know, the 3rd District is the older part of the urban core, so a lot of our vacancy is ten plus years old. When you reach 50 years old, then you get into lead contamination because that is the type of product that was used. I was recently talking to mister Bracker about this, and you can really describe lead bank lead based paint as lead with paint in it.

So the majority of it was lead itself. And so these types of contaminants also create barriers to redevelopment, and a lot of these properties do reside in our land bank and our homestead authority for those reasons. Due to the long term vacancy, there's oftentimes significant infrastructure problems such as the sewer system. So this can be a strategic tool for Kansas City to use our CDBG grants to back revolving loans at a interest rate that it's less expensive than traditional banks as long as payment re repayment flexibility. Here's the intent of the pilot, again, with a little more details designed to support difficult long term vacant site, create clear parameters for which properties and projects qualify, align with the citywide business plan, equitable growth and sustainable development, and also layer with other goals such as the KCML first time homebuyer program that, mayor Pokhtem, I think you were the champion of that.

And so as we are able to rehab homes in the land bank or even on the dangerous buildings list or build new construction on vacant parcels, we already have an avenue to help city workers get into those homes using this program. So we have the opportunity to label many things on top of each other, such as the vacant land activation initiative as well as the housing accelerator. Those things can be put together with the dangerous buildings pilot program that I recently championed, and we can do a rapid redevelopment in actual neighborhoods. A lot of the projects that we've been doing have been in our commercial districts, and they've been largely entertainment focused as of late with the lid and now the stadium. And so I really wanted to find a way to focus on actual neighborhoods so that they can experience the transformation that's happening in other parts of the city, and this is a fantastic way to do it.

I don't envision that we're going to leverage out $35,000,000 of CDBG. So let's just dispel that myth. But what is another reasonable number to kick off a pilot program for rapid redevelopment in neighborhoods is what I want the pilot to focus on. Happy to entertain any questions.

Thank you. First, I wanna just commend you for, just your diligence in trying to find solutions, and thinking outside the box. So my my question is around what the impact would be or what's the potential risk to the city, in this program. And first of all, what is the risk, and

then what steps can we take to ensure that we mitigate those risks? Yeah. So the risk the primary risk is that a borrower wouldn't be able to pay back the loan. And so then CDBG would then have to be used to pay it back. And so CDBG is the security behind the loan, and so that would be the risk.

If we were to leverage, you know, some obscene amount of money, it could make its way to the general fund. But the way it's the way that section one zero eight is set up is is leveraging specifically what you've been granted in CDBG by the city. So the biggest risk is that a is that a borrower wouldn't be able to pay it back. And so that's why the ordinance or the resolution specifically asked the manager to come up with ways to mitigate the risk. So how can you vet a developer or a builder such that it's greater chance that they will be able to pay it back?

So for example, if we work with a builder that's gonna do new builds, one of the things we can do is require them to have a pool of buyers already rather than finding the buyer once the house is built. They already know that they have a prequalified buyer. And then if those pre prequalified buyers are city employees, we can layer it with the down payment assistance. And so there are some strategies that a potential builder can bake into their own process. And then we vet that to say, okay, this particular builder has a better chance of being able to pay it back.

And so that's why I was trying to put some parameters on it to where if you're gonna use the loan, for example, for for acquisition. So the acquisition stage of a project where you're just doing the site development is the most riskiest part of the whole project because you don't even have site control. And so if you need investment for site control, to me, that seems like a red flag. I would wanna be invested in a project much much further down the road, like when you're going to construction or something. And maybe a construction loan is less risky than acquisition because you have so far to go.

When you're in acquisition and site development, you know, now you have to hire all your professional services, which can be very expensive. So we could be paying for something that's much more theoretical rather than getting into the hard cost of construction. So that's just me in a little bit I know about development, but I hope that, you know, when the manager puts it together, the criteria will mitigate the risk.

Okay. Thank you for that. And then, I see in the in the title, it, says recommend, that the city manager will recommend the program and or in process requirements and process to the city council. But it doesn't necessarily say that in the section. And so In the resolution itself? Yeah. In the yeah. In the resolution itself. It

does. Okay.

I don't see it. In

the in the first paragraph, it should say recommend a pilot program including the last sentence.

So in the yes. In this the title of the resolution, resolution, it it says says recommending recommending requirements requirements and in a a process process to to the the city council, but it doesn't say that in the sections? Oh, it doesn't and so I would like to add, if you're me able to, that just adding it into the section that it would be a report back to the city council because I I would and, I mean, it's a resolution, not necessarily an ordinance, but I know the way we have been handling resolutions is with the staff just continue they really ultimately just, you know, move forward with it. So, just because there, it could potentially be a risk to the the the city in terms of, you know, potentially somebody not having the the funds to repay it back, and we potentially could be on on the hook. The general fund could be on the hook.

I wanna make sure that those recommendations for how we can mitigate those risks come back to the council for review.

So Yeah. Okay. Aminable to that. So that will be a friendly amendment, and it probably just is a an error that that last sentence in the title be moved, to the sections in the resolution. Cop it can be copied there too. Yeah. You following, miss Baxter?

I believe so. So you're saying, I think, the last phrase, you wanna move down to the sections and recommending requirements and a process to the city council put that. Yeah.

It reporting back to the council in sixty days or something just to make sure it comes back Okay. So that we can review whatever, is is developed. It's sixty days. It's sixty days good?

I don't don't whatever you want. You know more than I do in terms

of Yeah.

They can do it

in sixty days because they're they're very, well versed on what section one zero eight says. So yes. So I'm sure they can they can work together and get that done maybe before sixty days.

Okay. I'll I'll add that. I'll just add it in section four. Yeah.

There we go.

Okay. Thank you. Yep. Do you have anything? Alright. Is there any public testimony? I think we have, or no. That's not this. Any testimony?

There's no written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office. No one appears in person to testify. That one disconnected.

Do I entertain a motion?

That's madam mayor think we're still calling this committee substitute. Right? Yeah. That's right. Committee substitute for ordinance number two six zero three six. Reported out of committee with recommendation of advance that you pass.

Second. It's been moved improperly. Seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion carries. Thank you. Alright. I think we have a two six zero three zero I'm sorry. 260336.

Ordinance number 260336, rezoning an area of about point one five acres generally located at 31 12th Floor Avenue from District R Dash 1.5, District R Dash 1 0.5 to allow the property to be used as an accessory parking area for the property to the west.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, mayor pro tem and council members. Matthew Barnes, city planning and development. Here with ordinance number two six zero three three six, which is the rezoning of 3112 Flora Avenue. Site is located at 3112 Flora Avenue within the 3rd Council District within the heart of the city area plan. Here's a closer view of that site.

You can see Lemon Boulevard on the bottom of the screen, Paseo running north, south, as well as, Flora Avenue there, adjacent to the site to the right. Here's a view of the site looking west from Flora Avenue. You can see it's currently a driveway access to the property to the east or west. Excuse me. You can see this driveway going through there to that parking lot.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning from District R 1.5 to District R 0.5, both residential. This is to make sure that their properties are all under the same zoning. They currently own all the properties highlighted in green as well as the yellow shown there. This will allow for them to do future development on that site, on the green parcel, and be in higher compliance with the boulevard and parkway standards. They plan on utilizing that access point for any future development, which will allow for less curb cuts and access points, conflict points on Paseo.

The heart of the city area plan recommends residential medium density. The proposed rezoning is consistent with that future land use, and no area plan amendment is required. The review criteria within section eighty eight five fifteen o eight, zoning of the and use of the nearby property, it's zoned r 1.5 to the north, east, and south, but I did mention those properties to the west are zoned r 0.5. This consists of church associated properties as well as residential to the south. Physical character of the area is mostly the short term properties as well as accessory parking in the R 1.5, and then suitability for the property, which has been restricted.

The current zoning designation is R 1.5. This will change it to R 0.5. It'll serve as vehicular access and allow for development of those other properties as well as limit access points onto the sale. There was a letter of opposition from the adjacent property that was included with the staff report. The Society of St.

Pius X imposes the rezoning. They are supportive of the broader goals of it and expanded housing but are not in support of the rezoning. They are concerned of inconsistency with adjacent residential properties, increase in parking traffic noise, congestion, and safety concerns. With that, the city plan commission recommended approval of ordinance number two six zero three three six, and I can take any questions.

So was that the only, testimony that you received was the Yes. That was correct. Okay. Thank you. Do y'all have any questions? Did you have have a comment?

No. I I have a quick presentation as well.

Oh, okay. You're not necessary. Thank

you all. It is not necessary

to go through this presentation.

My name is James Baker. I'm representing the owner of Mid City Towers two Incorporated. I'm with Folsom Housing Group. We have partnered with them on this future development for Mid City Towers too. Go to next slide. So Mid Folsom Housing Group is a nonprofit or affordable housing developer. We develop all over Missouri and Kansas. You can see right there is the new Greenwood Senior Apartments off 27 in Cleveland. And then we have partnered with Mid City Towers two, which is a HUD two zero two nonprofit board that has owned Mid City Towers since its creation in 1979. A quick history of Mid City Towers two.

In the early seventies, the HUD and Mid City Congress, I believe, was a nonprofit organization. Renovated Saint Regis into housing and was aiming to do Mid City Towers two right after that. The second tower, we're here to talk about today, was laid until 1980, completed in 1981. It served Kansas City seniors for forty five years and has operated under the nonprofit board since opening. The current project, we're gonna be talking about a small portion of the rezoning, but the current project is a low income housing tax credit project that we received funds in December to renovate and add eight more units to the property.

We were the highest awarded highest pointing project in Kansas City, the Kansas City region, and one of the highest in the state. We also received a commitment for 1,200,000 from the Kansas City Housing Trust Fund prior to that, and so this is part of that larger project. The one one note, when we did do the project application, we were very cognizant of the zoning that existed for the new building. So the new building and all the improvements is approved by Wright currently. We are only dealing with one vacant or one kind of driveway parcel that's existed for close to fifty years.

It will remain the same with the access drive, but we're proposing to match it to the majority of the rest of the property. This will help us combine parcels, which will be required by our investors in the city as well. As you can see, another shot of the the drive. It's required as part of the part permitting process. We're going through this on another parcel where they want us to combine all the different parcels into one for the primary structure, those will be combined via deed through the county.

And this will create a more cohesive zoning for the project, and we won't have to cut on to Paseo, which would have required a variance to the Boulevard and Parkway standards and not have been in not have done well with the the not have been in compliance with plans. I just wanted to highlight here just to show how long this parcel has been like it has. So this was the earliest zoning earliest aerial maps with the parking lot in the back and the driveway and mid city towers too to the southeast on the corner. So this has existed for since its inception. So we're just trying to get that zoning to match the rest of the property with there'll be slight improvements, but no no building or residential structure on that parcel.

This is just illustration of what the existing is and what we are proposing with the change to r 0.5. The benefits, the change will have minimal effect on the neighborhood and surrounding land use. The existing proposed land use has existed for forty five years without issue. It supports a larger preservation project. I know councilman councilwoman Patterson Hazy was talking about rehabs and vacant land, and this is gonna help create new housing opportunities for people and rehabilitate properties before they get to a point, a breaking point, in terms of quality.

We are gonna have over about 9,500,000 in construction costs due to the housing trust fund. We are working with minority and women owned businesses. We're already underway with the professional services. It'll be thirty years plus of affordability requirements. This has a project based voucher contract on the existing building.

So the the which basically means even though that the affordability requirements are for thirty years, it's indefinitely gonna be affordable for at least 72 units of those. And then we are planning on the rent, the the eight additional ones kinda well within the affordability rent. It's infilled during in the 3rd District, Higher quality of living with renovated new spaces. We as noted in this in the presentation by staff, the church did have opposition. We held a community meeting.

No one showed up. We had met with the church individually. They have some concerns about wanting different pieces of land and trading to kind of get different parcels closer to their property. Proposals that they had sent us just did not work and made circulation on the site very challenging and would have required more variances on the boulevard and parkway standards for different parcels. And so we're working with them on various issues, but I think this is a great project. This small little piece of just this parcel will help us move efficiently so that we don't get caught up in construction cost increases overall. So thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. Do you all have any questions? Alright. Let's go to public testimony. I have a card for, pastor Daniel Musca? Musca. Musca. Musca. Musca. Musca. Thank you. So you have two minutes.

Thank you very much. So, obviously, my name is father Diony Moucher. I represent Saint Vincent Paul Church, 3110 Flora Avenue. We also own that property, 3114, the house just south of the property they are trying to rezone. And we also, of course, own the property across Flora Avenue to the east.

We would like today to reiterate our opposition to the present plan that they are offering. We support the new housing on the block, but we think that the develops developers plan at this point is a mistake. We think there's a better plan forward with that, and we have tried to work with them to develop that plan, but then negotiations ceased. So the developers' plan first will bury that single family home at 3114 in High Desert density residential parking. It's also going to bring more noise closer to the church.

Of course, we use the church to school every single day, So there's constant traffic there and such. It's also, of course, is going to increase the traffic on Flora Avenue. It's not going to decrease that. But, also, I'd like to point out that currently, that drive is being used as the access point to the high density residential parking lot for which it is not zoned and has been being used to that, I think, illegally for many years. And so rezoning of that in in that, as we said, would be rewarding that.

Also, they are adding parking on that piece, so it is not going to just be the same as it's used. They want to add parking, which would further increase that. We wish to try to find a solution that will be workable for for both of us, but that we do believe that there's a way forward, but that can address all the issues.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Alright. Is there any other testimony? Anyone online? I'm currently disconnected from Zoom. I don't have Wi Fi yet.

Marilyn or Monica, can you see if there's anyone online for public testimony? No one is online for public testimony.

You. Thank you.

Okay. We'll bring it

back to the committee.

I hadn't heard from the church, so that was a bit of a curveball. Can you address, the concerns there?

Yeah. I think the there's a little bit of the affordable housing project currently is only 72 units, and we only have about 20 cars total. 20 to 25 cars. Some people park on the street. The parking lot is not used currently very much.

Thanks to your ordinance, we're able to not add additional parking. We'll add it, we'll reconfigure the parking, but it's not, it's it sounds scary when it's high density, but we really only have twenty twenty to 30 cars at depending on residents, and we're only adding eight new units far away from the church, as far away as we can on the site. And so there'll be, but that's all zoned appropriately. But so we we've had conversations with them about potentially a land swap. The proposals that they had sent would have kind of the site access to that additional building and the existing parking lot would have been challenging, to say the least, for both city planning to approve and permitting.

And so and then the land that they were proposing to swap for additional parking would have triggered variances on Linwood Boulevard for the Boulburn Parkway standards. So we're at the end of the day, the we're open to not adding parking on that parcel because we don't need to. And we don't need to from an investor standpoint and from an operations standpoint. So I I don't think that there's a ton of traffic based off of our property because there's only 72 units and only about 30 people 20 to 30 people have cars. And it's a senior property, so these people are not coming and going all day, all hours.

So that would be my response to that. I know that we've talked with them about looking at maybe limiting, parking on one side of the street, so there there's more access if there's an emergency vehicle. But currently, the parking lot is not used very frequently, and so we don't have a ton of cars on the property.

Thank you. Councilman Bunch.

Yeah. And I just wanted to also clarify that a driveway is not is not illegally operating under the r 1.5. It's it is it is substantially different than what we had in that last that previous ordinance where we had illegally up the it's a driveway to access a legally conforming parking lot. So anyway, I just wanted to just clarify that. I I'm sympathetic to the to the concerns, but I for me, this this this makes a lot of sense. We're just a matter of consolidated almost ministerial function of of this of this whole process. So I I'm supportive of the rezoning.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm supportive too. Okay.

Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

Yes. Madam mayor pro tem, I move that this is not a committee sub. Right?

It's not.

You're right.

Can't keep up some of these days. Ordinance number move the order number 260336 be reported out of committee with recommendation of advance to be passed.

Second. It's been moved improperly. Seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that motion carries. Thank you. Alright. Is there any additional business to

come before the committee?

Yep. Thank you. Yes.

Love

you. Alright. We'll see you all in two weeks.