City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Committee meetings to order. I'm chair, Mayor Pro Tem Raina Park Shaw. My colleagues will introduce themselves.

Eric Bunch, 4th District Vice Chair.

Andrea Booth, 6th District at Large. All right, staff.

It's been a long day already. West City Clerk's Office. Diane Binkley, City Manager's Office.

Sarah Baxter, Law Department.

Travis Kiefer, KC Water. LLA, Kansas City Planning.

All right, we will start from the top.

Ordinance number 260713, approving the Platte and Weatherby Meadows second platte in addition to Platte County, Missouri, and approximately 7.6 acres generally located southeast corner of Northwest Berry Road, North Childress, creating 30 lots and three tracks for the purpose of a residential development, accepting various easements, establishing grades on public ways, authorizing the director of city planning and development, and the Director of Water Services to execute and or accept certain agreements, and directing the City Clerk to facilitate the recordation of this ordinance and attached documents.

Item is in accordance with state statutes and codes. We recommend approval.

Thank you. Is there any public testimony? There's no written testimony for Ordinance No. 260713. No one appears by Zoom with a raised hand or in person to testify. Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Mayor, pro tem, I move that Ordinance No. 260713 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of an advance to be passed and be placed on the consent agenda.

Second. It's been moved and probably seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Ordinance No. 260712, rezoning an area of about .5 acres from District B4-2 to District DX-5, generally located at the northeast corner of Washington Avenue and Avenida Cesar Chavez. Hello.

Okay, good afternoon. Matthew Barnes, City Planning and Development. Here with ordinance 260712 is the rezoning for 2131 Washington. The site is located at 2131 Washington. That's within the 4th Council District in the greater downtown area plan. Here's a closer view yet. You can see Union Station to the bottom right side of the screen, Southwest Boulevard to the north side, and then I-35 on the west. Here's an existing view of the site. It's currently zoned B4-2. The applicant is requesting to rezone to DX5. It's a downtown mixed-use zoning district. It's currently three separate parcels, two of which are the parking lot you see there, and the third is that existing building on the north side of the site. This will facilitate future development on the site in accordance with the downtown development standards. They are not proposing any development on this site currently. It is in conformance with the Greater Downtown Area Plan, which recommends downtown mixed use for the subject site, and the 4th District Planner, Luke Rinker, did review this and gave it a high alignment to that adopted area plan. The applicant did hold a public engagement meeting on July 29th. They had two attendees at that meeting. Staff did not receive any public testimony, but at the City Plan Commission, five members of the general public did testify in opposition to the rezoning. Main concerns were no plans associated with it, and then existing parking on that street. With that, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinance 260712, and I can take any questions.

Just to clarify, so you said that the opposition was based upon there being no plan, no formal plan.

Yeah, a lot of their... Oh, yeah, a lot of focused on lack of like a development plan associated with it and then also parking concerns in the area and any development on site increasing those parking concerns.

And no plan is required in that in this no development plan is required here at this time I have any questions. Is there any public testimony.

There's no written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office for December 260712. No one appears by Zoom. Oh, okay.

You can go ahead and come forward and state your name and you have two minutes.

Wonderful. Travis Wilson, Veritas Architecture and Design. I am the architect that is working with a client for this project. So I was just here in case any other questions came up. And I spoke to Commissioner Bunch and talked about the project. Appreciate Mr. Barnes' help on there. If there's any other questions that come up, I'm here to answer those questions. If you have no questions, I'll sit back down.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you being here today. I don't think anybody has any questions at this time. So thank you. Was there any one online at all? There's no one online. Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Mayor, for a time I move that order number 260712 be reported out of committee at the recommendation of Vansity Pass. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. We'll be heard Thursday. Thank you.

Ordinance number 260717, resolution directing the city manager to review the 21st Century Road to Housing Act and existing city housing and development policies to identify and implement appropriate policy and administrative changes and recommend additional legislative changes to the city council within 120 days.

All right, so we actually heard about this in our last business session, and I I'm not sure Councilwoman Patterson-Hasley is planning to attend, but this is her resolution directing the city manager to identify policy opportunities and changes. She's coming. Is she coming? Okay.

All in favor say no.

We are actually on your ordinance or your resolution, excuse me. So I was just giving some summary comments on your behalf. I know we discussed this in our business session last week. I don't know if you have any specific thing you'd like to say.

No, I think it was covered in the business session. So it's just a companion to that presentation. Okay.

Yep. All right. You don't have any questions, comments? Is there any public testimony?

Okay. No written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office for ordinance 260717. No one appears by Zoom with the raised hand or in person to testify. May I entertain a motion?

Yes, madam. May I pretend I move that resolution number 260717 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance to be passed?

Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. And if you'll read the last two together, please.

Ordinance number 260677, rezoning an area of about 7.6 acres generally located at 12220 Northwest Skyview Avenue from District AGR to District B4-1 and approving a development plan to allow for a variety of uses and multiple buildings on one lot. Ordinance number 260682, approving an amendment to the KCI area plan on about 7.6 acres generally located at 12220 Northwest Skyview Avenue by changing the recommended land use from Neighborhood 1 to Business Center for the Hub.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tem. Committee members, Genevieve Kahn-Smith with City Planning and Development. And we have an Area Plan Amendment Resolution and Companion Rezoning and Development Plan Ordinance for the Hub at 12220 Northwest Skyview Road. Site is located in the northern portion of the city, north of I-435. And here is the subject site in yellow. Since it went through the City Planning Commission, a few things have changed. So initially, the applicant requested that the two properties that they own, highlighted in yellow here, be rezoned from the current AG-R agricultural residential zoning district to a B4-1 district to accommodate uses on the site, which I'll get a little bit more into with the development plan. So keeping in mind that the ordinance in front of you, based on the recommendation of the City Planning Commission, is only to rezone a the eastern parcel that abuts Northwest Skyview, not the entire site. So first looking at that resolution for area plan amendment, the KCIA area plan, which has been recently updated so this actually outdated future land use but generally a low density residential was the recommendation and so to accommodate the rezoning request the applicant is asking to amend to a commercial designation or i believe it's called neighborhood one now it's in your resolution with the corrected language And then also that companion rezoning, again, only for this eastern parcel from AG-R to B4-1. This site came to us from some zoning violations. There's a handful of things going on on this property. There is an existing building that was previously a school. It's changed over time and the property owner purchased the property and renovated that school building into a sort of mixed-use community space building. There's some office. I believe the gym is still there for some recreational uses, religious assembly groups, they utilize it. So it's a mixed use space. So that's one portion of the site. Then the rest of the site is, largely graveled with a second principal building, this 9,000 square foot building, which is used for indoor storage, which is not a permitted use in the AG-R district as it gets into that heavy commercial. So we have multiple principal uses and multiple principal buildings on this lot that were established without proper zoning approvals or permitting. So that's why we're all before you to abate some of these violations. So we have the total building square footage. There's also a proposed building on this property that the CBC recommended not be included in the rezoning anymore. So really we're just looking at the two existing buildings on the site coming into conformance. The applicant provided a list of permitted uses, many of them based on the existing uses that were not properly established. So this ranges, like I mentioned, religious assembly, office, indoor event venue for small gatherings, which are mostly in this eastern building. And then you have some more of these heavy commercial uses. motor vehicle repair, vehicle parking, and that storage that I mentioned inside of the building. There was also an issue of outdoor storage, which is not permitted at all in the B4 district, so the applicant has taken the steps to remove many of the RVs, trailers, and boats that have been stored on this site, and their plans identify areas of the site to be paved that can serve as accessory outdoor storage to the principal indoor storage use, which it would be a permitted use if rezoned to be formal. So there's a lot of different zoning and use factors here. There is also a pending variance case for the amount of gravel on site. In the current AG-R district, gravel is a permitted vehicular surface. When the property is rezoned to B4, it will not be permitted, and the Board of Zoning Adjustment is being asked to grant Variance in the case that this rezoning is approved first So just going over a couple of items that are in the staff report conformance with adopted plans and policies The use and proposed future land use for the area plan amendment are not generally consistent with the zoning and the uses for the area and The majority of the area around is on that AG-R and is largely agricultural and residential. And criteria E, suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under. There are a handful of uses that are permitted in the AG-R district with approval of a development plan. So there is a possibility that many of the uses in that school building would be allowed with the approval of a development plan and not need to be rezoned. And then I have some images of this site. So this is where you enter off of Skyview. So this is that previous school building which now has been converted into office and some of those other uses I mentioned. You can see the mailboxes for the businesses who are tenants there. This is the northern side of the site. There is an existing septic facility that I believe there's a condition to be relocated, and that is shown on the development plan. This is the north side of the buildings. You can see where the pavement ends and the gravel begins, and this was prior to the removal of many of those vehicles. You can see the types of vehicles that were stored there. Another use that was on site I believe was for landscaping company and so there were large piles of organic debris and matter that were also stored on the site without proper approvals. This is the southern side of the site. So again, pavement turns into gravel as you enter. You can see signs for deliveries and Storage and yard space, which is not permitted. Storage containers, which are not a permitted structure. And large equipment, earth-moving equipment. Other various equipment being stored outside. So this plan, these companion cases went to the City Plan Commission two times. The first time staff recommended denial and the City Plan Commission voted to continue the case to allow the applicant more time to work with staff to bring the plans more into compliance. Like I mentioned, things like paving those areas for accessory outdoor storage, Overall, just improving the plans that were provided. That took multiple weeks. We took the plans back to the City Planning Commission, still with a staff recommendation of denial. The City Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval only of the rezoning and development plan and area plan amendment for that single parcel that I mentioned. So that is the outcome of... all of the review and CPC hearings, which hopefully I've listed clearly in front of you, and I can take any questions.

Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I've spoken with the applicant. They would like it to be held. They had some communications, and I don't think they knew that was actually going to be heard today during committee.

Okay. Oh, hey, Councilman Bunch.

Yeah, that's fine with me if we want to hold it. I wanted to maybe just better understand what's actually happened here. It sounds like there are some things on here that would be in compliance under the current zoning, but there are things that are not. And if they change the zoning, then it's going to flip, and there are some things that will be allowed, and then new things that would be... This is a bit complex, I guess. And I was going to say something about I have some sympathy when you have a non-conforming or legally operating business in a zone that they're not allowed to... I have some sympathy there, but I would like for them to be here to at least provide their mea culpa in public, but I understand that they... miscommunication, misfire or something here may have led to them not being here. But it seems like there's some complicating factors here that need to be further considered. And at this point, I would be on the side of staff in the denial, but maybe there's more to the story.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Councilman.

Yeah, thank you, Councilmember. I thought it was appropriate for staff to do the report before the applicant reaches out so you can have some context there. But I just want you to notice with my council district in the area that they took an old building, an old school, and repurposed it, and it's actually really helped out the area quite a bit. It's actually where we've used some of our community meetings we've used in this space to talk about other issues. you know rezoning or other development up in the area they're very good people there's a lot of people who actually use this facility and i'd like to see that be done as much as possible i think there's a couple questions i have about moving to the septic You know, I don't, there's a couple other requirements that I might not necessarily fully agree on or maybe we can work out a deal with, but I know the applicant was thinking this was going to be coming on in September, but they've been very on top of it and communicating with staff and District 1 offices as much as possible.

Any other comments? Okay, so the request is to hold one week?

I will which would technically be... September 1st?

Yeah, until September 1st. Okay. All right, unless there's an objection, then we'll hold this until September 1st. Thank you for the presentation. Is there any additional business to come before the committee?