City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon.

I will call the Neighborhood Planning Development Committee meeting to order. Chair, Mayor Pro Tem Raina Park-Shaw, if my colleagues will introduce themselves.

Eric Bunch, 4th District Vice Chair.

Melissa Patterson-Hassleith, our District-at-Large.

David Willett, 1st District.

And staff. Belle U.S. City Clerk's Office.

Diane Binkley, City Manager's Office. Fairbanks-Sterling, Law Department.

Travis Keefer, KC Water.

Nicholas Boston, Edo City Engineer. Kyle Lilley, KC Planning.

All right, so we have a couple of holds. 260-694 will be held until September the 22nd. 260-694 held until September 22nd. 260-498 will be held until October the 6th. Again, that's 260-498. It will be held until October the 6th. And then 260-655 will be held for one week, unless there's an objection.

Actually, not held, but reintroduced.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I forgot. Yeah, 260-655. We've had a request to call that one back up. And as you recall, I... make sure that we announce it in a meeting and then we'll hear it the next week. So nobody's surprised about it. So two six zero six five five matter clerk, if you will add that to our next week agenda. Thank you. All right.

Uh, with that, then let's, uh, yeah, um, I just want to make sure you're aware there's a script for continuing the public hearing on this.

Okay. Yes. On, um, this is the one two six oh six nine four. Okay. All right. So I'll, I'm going to go ahead with the script on that. Uh, the next item is the public hearing for proposed Tiffany Springs logistics community improvement district. Number one, the applicant has requested the hearing be continued. Staff is seeking to continue this hearing to September the 22nd, 2026. Is there a motion to that effect?

Mayor Pro Tem, I move that the hearing on the Tiffany Springs Logistics Community Improvement District number one be continued to the September 22nd, 2026 Neighborhood Planning and Development Committee at 1.30 p.m. on the 26th floor conference room of City Hall 414 East 12th Street in Kansas City, Missouri.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? If there's no further discussion, the clerk will call the roll.

Park Shaw.

Aye. Bunch.

Aye.

Willett.

Yeah.

Patterson-Hasley. Aye. Okay, that motion passes. The hearing will be continued to 1.30 on September 22, 2026 on the 26th floor conference room of City Hall, 414 East 12th Street in Kansas City, Missouri. Okay, thank you. All right, now we'll go ahead and start at the top, please.

Ordinance number 260744, directing the city auditor to conduct an audit of the city's former minority and women's business enterprise program certification and renewal processes for the purpose of identifying potential administrative procedural inefficiencies and barriers. Directing the city auditor prepare a report with the city auditor's findings and recommendations and present it to the city council and city manager and further directing the city manager to make reasonable efforts to include businesses that were eligible for certification but did not apply due to administrative barriers, as well as businesses that experienced certification or renewal delays or were otherwise negatively impacted by administrative or procedural barriers of the former program.

Thank you. So, colleagues, this is just a simple audit of the prior process with a goal of understanding barriers that potentially caused businesses either to not apply or if there were delays or challenges in their process. And the goal is to be able to understand, learn from those issues, learn from those barriers and try to implement lessons learned as we are rolling out the new program of which we, staff is working on. And so the purpose of this really is just to ensure that the program that we do implement at whatever time that is, is a more inclusive, program process and with less barriers. I know my office has received concern from some of our minority and women-owned businesses that they either started the process, our process takes six months, whereas the state process takes two months. There have been claims of just having so many documents that they have to submit that it's really not, they felt it wasn't worth their time. especially not knowing if they would be able to reap the benefits of that. And so my goal of this is really for us to better understand those detailed issues and inefficiencies so that we can come up with a better process and hopefully have a more successful program in the future. Do you all have any questions?

Okay.

All right. Is there any testimony on 260744?

There's no written testimony submitted to the City Clerk's Office for Ordinance Number 260744. No one appears by Zoom with the raised hand or in person to testify. Okay. Okay, with that, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Mayor, I pretend my move that Ordinance Number 260744 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance to be passed. Second.

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you.

ORDINANCE NUMBER, OR COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 260943, APPROVING AND DESIGNATING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1 OF THE OVERLOOKED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AS A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING THEREFORE AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the committee and staff. Thank you for having me here today. My name is David Leader. I work for the Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City. I'm also the secretary of the Tax Increment Financing Commission. Today I'm bringing forward for your consideration the redevelopment project area one activation for the Overlook TIF plan. A lot of information on this page, but I'll just say that the Overlook TIF plan was approved by city council on December 3rd, 2020. It's had three amendments since then. originally the plan was providing for a 60,000 square foot office building 185 surface parking spaces and interior driveways with the potential to help fitness trail public Plaza areas associated with the building another public amenities spaces as well as the infrastructure improvements as I mentioned the plane was amended 3 times the 3rd amendment was approved on 7 to 2026 to include a second redevelopment project area redevelopment project area 2. This comprised the remaining portions of an 11-acre redevelopment identified in the plan and has the potential for an 80,000-square-feet office space, two multifamily buildings totaling approximately 140 units, three commercial spaces totaling approximately 12,000 square feet, and 325 parking spaces, with, again, the addition of a health and fitness trail, public plaza areas, an outdoor park, and one or more future redevelopment plan amendments. Within the Third Amendment, we did carve out the second project area so 11 acres on the overlook tiff plan originally consisted of just one project area for the whole area this third amendment created two project areas so that the office building that' s currently on site can be on its own singular project area and parcel the purpose of that is for the development or community builders of Kansas City to sell that property to help forward. And this will be the last act that's necessary to make sure all of that goes through. Here you can see the map that was approved on the third amendment. Delineating project area one and project area two. Project area one is where that office space sits. Staff does recommend approval and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Questions? All right, I think it's pretty cut and dry. Any public testimony?

There's no written testimony submitted to the city clerk's office for a committee substitute for ordinance number 200943. No one appears by Zoom with the raised hand or in person to testify. Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Mayor, pro tem, I move that ordinance number 20... Committee's own. Okay. Yes, move the committee substitute for ordinance number two zero zero nine four three be report out of committee the recognition advance any pass It's been moved to probably second it all in favor.

Please say aye aye aye any opposed that motion carries.

Thank you Ordinance number two six zero six seven seven rezoning an area an area of about seven point six acres generally located at 120 220 Northwest Skyview Avenue from district a gr2 district before dash one and Improving a development plan to allow for a variety of uses and multiple buildings on one lot Ordinance number two six zero six eight two approving an amendment to the KCI area plan on about seven point six acres Generally located at one twenty two twenty northwest skyview avenue by changing the recommended land use from neighborhood one to business center for the hub Good afternoon afternoon

I did do the entire presentation at your last hearing. I can go over some or all of the slides, whatever you would like to refresh your memory.

I think what I would say is just refresh our memory as to we held this because I think Councilman Willett had some questions or concerns. I think that you were getting resolved. And so I think we can start there unless you all want to hear the full presentation.

Okay. So just to refresh then, um, this ordinance, um, there's a resolution and ordinance for area plan amendment and rezoning with a development plan. Um, this is for the hub project. This is the subject site. I think one of the changes that we talked about last time was the initial application that was submitted included a request to rezone and development plan an area plan amendment that covered both of these parcels. After the City Planning Commission hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that only the eastern parcel move forward with the area plan amendment rezoning and development plan. And that rezoning is from an AG-R district to a B4-1 district to allow commercial uses and primarily the more intense uses such as indoor storage and warehousing, vehicle repair, and all the uses that are listed on this development plan in front of you. There's also a companion variance case that is expected if this plan moves forward with a recommendation from you all today and moves on to the full council. We're expecting the variance for gravel to be heard at the next Board of Zoning adjustment hearing. So this rezoning and development plan is coming first. However, it's not in compliance with all city code, with gravel being not a permitted surface for a vehicular use area in the B4 district. So that's separate, but all these things were generally considered together when the development plan was reviewed. I went over the rezoning criteria. Again, there's the majority of zoning and uses in the area is very low density residential and agricultural. So not a lot of heavy commercial like the B4 allows. And then I shared some site photos with you. Some of the materials that were stored on the site without any prior zoning approval. Again, the main building that's viewable from Skyview is being used for a variety of things, including office, event gathering space, I think sports and recreation, although I can't confirm that all of these uses received a change of use and that the building is properly permitted for each of those uses. So again, why this all came to us, I believe that's one of the conditions is to obtain all the required permits within a certain timeframe should this development plan be approved. And then, again, just over the staff recommendation, after this plan was heard two times, the City Planning Commission was denial, and the City Planning Commission recommended approval, again, just of the one parcel rather than two. And I can take any questions or go back to any slides.

Questions? Comments? Okay. All right. Did you all have any comments to make?

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is John Rowe, attorney with the Rowe Law Firm here on behalf of the applicant. It's Longview Ventures. Its owner is Lamar Eby, who's with me here today. Mr. Eby purchased this property, which was about 23 acres in size. The easterly parcel is about 7.6 acres. The westerly parcel is about 15, so 23 altogether. And this used to be the... site of what was the east platte elementary school that had closed some years back and so this 23 acres was the subject of three applications by the applicant one was for this amendment to the kci area plan a rezoning to district b4-1 and a development plan for the 23 acres On July 15, the Planning Commission, as staff noted, recommended approval of the Area Plan Amendment, also recommended approval of the Rezoning and Development Plan, and attached a condition there that their recommendation for Rezoning and Development Plan approval was for the easterly 7.6 acres. They did not make a recommendation on the westerly piece. So that kind of brought up a couple of things that we wanted to bring to the committee's attention today by way of clarification. When we look at the Planning Commission disposition letter on the area plan amendment, it very clearly says, refers to the 23 acres and then says approval. And I went back and I checked the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting that day. And it says very clearly, Sarah Copeland introduced the case. Genevieve Kahn-Smith presented the case and stated that the staff is recommending denial. The applicants, Sam Malinowski and Lamar Eby, appeared and spoke about their requests. No one appeared in public testimony. Commissioners discussed the merits of the case. And that was the one where it continued, but then they approved it. And the approval was for the whole 23 acres. So the question or the clarification we wanted to bring to this committee is, when you're considering, and this would be 260682, it currently says, refers to the 7.6 acres. And we would respectfully request that 260682 be amended to include the whole 23 acres because that's what the Planning Commission recommended approval on. With regard to 260677, that's the rezoning request and the development plan ordinance. There are a couple of conditions and that one also refers to 7.6 acres. We wanted to raise the question and get a clarification from the committee or staff. If there was no recommendation on the 15-acre piece, parcel B, shouldn't that 15-acre piece also be coming forward with no recommendation to this committee? So it wasn't like that. Just go back and make sure I'm being clear. 23 acres was the subject of the application. Planning Commission recommended approval of the easterly 7.6 acres for rezoning and development plan, but there was... nothing said about the westerly 15 acres. So I think there's some provisions in the city's ordinance that if there's no action taken for 60 days that that should come forward. There's no recommendation so we were hoping that you would consider amending to 6 0, 6, 7, 7, to include all 23 acres understanding that 15 of it was had no recommendation. And then there were 2 conditions to the development plan. One was condition number 10 that referred to all vehicle storage areas on the property must be located at least 500 feet from any R and Ag-R district. When we look at the ordinance, The ordinance specifically refers to 500 feet from any R district. And then when you look in the ordinance under what are the R districts, AG-R is not listed as one of the R districts. So we were hoping that condition 10 could be amended to delete the reference to and AG-R. The other one had to do with what shows up as condition 29. And maybe this has already been corrected. But condition 29 refers to a dedication of additional right-of-way for Northwest Skyview Avenue. And we have an email from Mr. Bozzinetto in the Public Works Department that said he's going to be following up on this to see that there's a committee sub because they don't need that right-of-way. says, in fact, I can read the email for the record here, spoke to Lamar Eby regarding development at 12220 Northwest Skyview Avenue regarding condition 28, it's now 29 in the ordinance, for right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from center line and removal of improvements within the right-of-way, specifically the septic system. The applicant requested the removal of a condition regarding right-of-way. One, I don't think parcel viewer has been updated to reflect the new MSP and street design guide. Two, I believe this section of roadway is classified as a connector in the new MSP. three the street design guide page 44 has a rural context for a collector which has a right-of-way at two times 11 feet 11 foot lanes with paved shoulders or it is my opinion that the existing 70 foot right-of-way at this location is satisfactory to meet the msp we will have to do a committee sub at npd to take out or modify condition 28 which as i mentioned is 29. So if that hasn't been changed, Madam Chair, we're respectfully requesting that condition 29 be removed based on Mr. Bozaneta's email.

Okay, anything else?

No, ma'am, that would conclude our question.

Okay, thank you. So let's start there. So City Engineer, can you just speak to that, please?

Yes, Mayor Pro Temp, Chair. The EMO is correct. I do believe we have sufficient right of way for future needs and the septic system I don't believe needs to be removed.

That's my question about the septic, because that would affect the septic system.

Yeah, so yeah, previously it was said that we needed extra right-of-way, and that extra right-of-way would have necessitated the removal of the septic, but I don't think that's correct, so I think we're okay. So yeah, if you could remove that condition.

All right, so remove condition 29. I'm looking at our attorney just to make sure there's...

If the committee, I don't, I was not aware of this, but yes, certainly we could take out.

I'm just trying to make sure there's nothing else we need to consider from a legal perspective. But if the committee is amenable to that, then that's legally, you're okay to remove condition 29. Is there any objection to that? Okay, so we'll make that change. The other condition was condition 10.

Yes, Madam Chair.

So deleting the reference to AG-R?

Actually, the words and AG-R, so that it would read that we have to be 500 feet from our districts, the letter R. Okay.

Any, for staff, any issue with that that we need to consider? Go ahead, Councilman.

I have a question. Yeah, can I see that?

Who wants to take this? Is...

Is the, what is AG-R? Is that rural agricultural or is R rural? Or I mean, excuse me, residential?

It's an agricultural residential zoning district and it's a special purpose zoning district. So it's not within, it's in a different section of the code from like our just typical RBM districts, but it's agricultural residential.

And that's separate from... AG?

It's AG-R. And it lives in the 200 series of the code, which is special purpose zoning districts.

And is this 500 feet in there? Is it enumerated in that section of the series 200? I guess I'm just trying the rationale for 10. if we should delete that reference, but I just want to understand where that comes from.

The purpose of the code, so I think what's being referenced here, that condition for 500 feet of separation comes from a standard in the code for vehicle storage and towing, which is listed as a permitted use. So just applying very explicitly this condition about being located 500 feet and the intent of that is that we don't want vehicle storage and towing close to where people are living. And so the code says any R district, and so an agricultural residential district has a few more letters than just R. And I could add something to Councilman Bunch if it helps what ordinance numbers I was looking at to make that request.

88-375-02, as Ms. Conn-Smith said is standards, says all vehicle storage areas on the property must be located at least 500 feet from any R district. And then when you look at 88-110-01-A, It says when this zoning and development code refers to residential zoning districts or R districts, it is referring to these districts and then it lists them. And AG-R is not on that list. So all our request is trying to do is bring that condition number 10 into compliance with what's written in the ordinance.

if I may add. So I get what Mr. Rowe is saying if we're trying to abide by and reiterate what the code says, but it's under a development plan or rezoning, you all have the right to add additional provisions or the staff has the right to make recommendations through the development plan. So I believe that the staff, although they've stated, you know, that this is a standard that they're basing it on, that they're saying there's residential all the way around this, or at least on the North and on the South. And so they're, they're attempting to protect the residential that's nearby, right? So you have the authority to approve a condition beyond what the code specifically says. So that's, That's kind of, that's how this is. That's why they've added that in, because Mr. Rowe's point, and I don't disagree, that does specifically relate to residential, and AGR, though, is a residential, but it's kind of offset a little bit, if you will. So it's your decision on how you, you know, if you believe that this condition accepts or helps bring properties.

And I think along that lines, what might help is Mr. Eby, has been in contact with his neighbors, he brought, I think, five or six different letters in support from these adjoining owners out there that he can present to you. We have multiple copies. I do that, Mr. Eby, and they're notarized, too, so they're signed and notarized letters.

I think, to me, what's relevant about that is, you know, I mean, once we do this, this is not just about for today, it's for the future, so it could be future residents that live in the, you know, those individuals who wrote these letters possibly move. It could be someone else who isn't able to speak to us today. Go ahead, Councilman, you were going to say something.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I can see both perspectives on it, but I want to be practical to this area, and I think the... keeping R on there but removing AG-R. As the district council member, I believe that that, I'm fine with that.

Okay, thank you. You all have anything else? All right, so colleagues, how do you feel about that one? Is there any objection to? Um, why did, why was a, why was AG-R added? I still didn't get a clear.

I can speak to that. Um, so like was stated in that section of code, it's, uh, with the 500 foot separation, it specifically says our districts. And so staff's attempt, um, like assistant city manager Binkley was saying, uh, there are no, uh, plain are districts abutting this property. It's all AG-R. And so the attempt was to have the same impact, but make it very explicitly clear for this specific property. Can you show us the map again?

Can you just maybe make one comment on that? Okay.

Hold on a second. Okay. So, okay. So I see this AG-R. And so ultimately, then... I mean, I get it. I think, I understand what I think staff was trying to do. So my question is, did the CPC make their approval based upon this as well? Was that added after CPC? It was included in the What City Planning Commission Review. Okay, so that is... a part of their approval. Okay, were you gonna say something else, Councilwoman? Okay, go ahead, sir, you wanna say something.

Thank you, I would just maybe make one mention that there's nowhere on the whole 23 acres that's 500 feet from an AGR. So basically what it does is eliminates that on the entire 23 acres, if that is included, just for reference.

Okay, okay, thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, I'm thinking practical here, and that's what would happen.

Alright, so I think another issue we need to resolve is this whole 23 acres and because what I understood in the pre-meeting that I had with staff was something different. So what I thought I understood, maybe I misunderstood. So I'm just going to ask for clarity from staff to provide us information about and address the statement that he made regarding this 23 acres and that portion of it.

Related to the City Planning Commission recommendation? Yes.

And because what he said was that the CPC made a prior denial on all of that, but then when they came back and approved, they only approved the one portion. And so if I understood you correct. And so you're saying that you want In your view, the recommendation from CPC didn't include the other portion, and you want the council then to weigh in on the rest of the 23?

Correct. Yeah, and that kind of falls under both of the ordinances that are in front of you. On the area plan amendment, it looks pretty clear to us from the disposition letter and minutes that the recommendation of planning commission for approval of the area plan amendment was as to the twenty three acres and not limited to just the easterly parcel on the rezoning ordinance there is a condition our recommendation of approval the rezoning and development plan only applies to the easterly parcel the only issue i'm raising there is the recommendation of approval there was no corresponding recommendation of denial on the other 15 acres. And so the clarification I was hoping to get or have the council weigh in on is I believe if there's no recommendation after 60 days, the ordinance says it shall be forwarded with no recommendations. So the end result is I think Mr. Eby would like to have the whole 23 acres be the subject of these ordinances that are in front of you.

And so my understanding is that they did actually deny all of that. Go ahead.

Yes, if I can clarify. So, and I guess let me start from the beginning of the recommendations. Staff's recommendation was denial. That was presented to CBC. CBC did not want to make a decision on that day, so they instructed the applicant to work with staff, and they continued the case. They did not. make a recommendation at that time so the case was continued there were a few minor changes the applicant made before the case was presented again to cpc which again staff recommended denial and it was at that time that the City Planning Commission weighed very heavily the uses proposed in the development plan and the rezoning and the necessity for having this entire 23 acres become a B4 district. And that's when they made the decision to, I guess, modify the development plan area to recommend approval of so I can defer to our law department but what happened is CPC voted on the case and they voted to recommend approval subject to the condition that only the seven acre portion be rezoned I do agree maybe there is some confusion and gray area about the area plan amendment because I don't remember every single minute of that discussion. But it was made very clear that the City Planning Commission only recommended approval of this rezoning and development plan subject to it being applied to the seven acres. So their lack of action on the other site, there was no other case to consider. So I'm not sure what the lack of recommendation being referenced is.

And I don't dispute that, Madam Chair. All I can do is look at the official disposition letter on the City Planning Commission letterhead disposition letter on the area plan amendment is one page long and refers to 23 acres as approved. The disposition letter on the rezoning is two pages long, the second page being that condition that staff just referred to. So that's where I think at least the confusion on our part of the question we wanted to raise here. It does not appear to us, the applicant, the planning commission limited its recommendation of approval on the area plan amendment to just the 7.6 acres it looks like their recommendation of approval was as to the 23 acres now their recommendation of approval of rezoning and development plan is as to what they call the easterly parcel the 7.6 acres okay thank you so my question for you all is

Do we need to have the CPC in on this?

Well, okay. I'm happy to go back and review the video, if you'd like. I don't remember everything either, right? But my recollection is consistent with what Genevieve has said, and I do think it was very clear, to me anyway, that the CPC didn't want to deny the case outright, you know, so they They wanted to approve it for the portion that is stated in the ordinance. I don't believe that that was confusing at all, but again, I'm happy to go back and review the video. I don't recall what the recommendation was on the area plan. It's possible that because they were so focused on the rezoning, perhaps that was unclear. I don't know. I would have to go back and review that. So you could either hold it or, you know, so that I had time to do that if you'd like. It's up to you.

What's the pledge of the committee? I would like to hold, I personally would like to hold it because I don't know why the CPC didn't make it.

Well, I will say this. There's just no, there'll be no reason to recommend approval of the full site for an area plan amendment if you're only recommending a partial approval on the rezoning. So if the record's unclear, I'd have to look at it.

But on that, they didn't say that it would be a recommendation of approval. They would just be here without recommendation?

It's not on the area plan. No, not on the area plan. The section of the code that he's referring to that says that something has to be sent to you within 60 days if there's no recommendation only applies to the rezoning. That doesn't apply to the area plan.

Yeah, okay, well, I agree with Councilwoman in terms of just, if you go back and re-review that, and then if it's determined that the CPC needs to weigh in on this additional part, then you let us know that, or we can go ahead and...

Honestly, as I sit here and think about it some more, I would... I think it's highly unlikely that there would ever be a reason to send the area plan back to the city plan commission because it's a recommendation. And so if you're looking at an ordinance recommending approval of a rezoning on only part of the site, And perhaps you're looking at a recommendation if you believe, or if, pardon me, if you are persuaded by what Mr. Rowe is saying, there's no reason why you have to follow that recommendation when it doesn't make any logical sense to amend the area plan to include the full site when you're not going to approve a rezoning that would include the full site.

It would make sense if you look at it a whole parcel you can't get to the back piece except through the front piece and that's why the applicant came forward with the whole package if you will so I I was not at the Planning Commission all I can do is look at their determinate disposition letter read their minutes but I do think there's an argument that it would make sense to have the area plan apply to all 23 acres as a

Sure, and I would add, okay, perhaps there is, but it's ultimately still up to the committee to decide if they agree with those recommendations. That's ultimately the decision for you and me.

I'm looking at the disposition letter, too. I hear what you're saying, but I see it, too. I see, because in the subject line, it lists the whole 23 acres, and then it says approval. It didn't specify, so You know, I would feel comfortable also if you would go back and look at the video and then let the community know and let's hold this a week. Go ahead, Councilman.

I just want to go back to something Ms. Baxter said, and that these, we do as a committee and as a body, as a council, has the discretion to make, this is a policy decision, not necessarily one that's a development plan. I don't know that we need to, there's no legally binding decision from CPC, so I think that we could be, but if the committee would be more comfortable with understanding what CPC is, but we go against CPC recommendations fairly often, or even staff's recommendations, so I just want to point that out that we are under no obligation to strictly abide by their recommendations. We need more clarity than that, and we should just hold it and go back and watch the video. We don't have to.

On this, I understand staff perspective, but as a practical sense, that's what I want to bring us back to. Do we want to allow them to continue to park vehicles and Without that rezoning, you wouldn't be able to. And I understand you guys are trying to come through here and get this all done for this area. You don't have to come back again in the future. And that's kind of what we're trying to... So I think we need to... My belief is to figure it out. I think we need more time. And that's honestly why I wanted to hold it from that last time around, because I knew there were things not resolved. But we have some really good actors in my council district that... A lot of the neighbors support and like what they're doing. And I have my more practical hat on on this. And I'm glad that we figured out the right-of-way because that septic, I didn't really understand that. And then I'm glad to see a couple things get resolved. But obviously, we'll need a little bit more time and resources. But this is an area where we do a lot of our community meetings for engagement. And there's not real, you know, the types of things to get stored here. You don't get stored anywhere else in this city. And they do it responsibly.

So I'll be transparent. I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation of denial. But I also want to be open-minded and you know, listen to your concern and do my due diligence just to make sure that I understand what the CPC recommended, which is why I'm saying let's hold it a week to give you the benefit of the doubt and for me to get more information. I think had I known before I came in that these were issues, I would have done research before ahead of schedule, ahead of the meeting, but I didn't realize that these were issues. And so I want more time just so I can you know, do my true due diligence and make sure I make a decision I can be comfortable with.

Yeah, and maybe if we could go, can we go back just a second and what, I think I recall what the purpose of the rezoning request was, and that's because Ms. Collins-Smith, could you elaborate, just remind us what the reason for the rezoning is?

Sure, so the main purpose of the rezoning is to allow some of these more heavier commercial uses like the vehicle repair, the storage and towing, the self-storage and indoor storage and warehousing that's more taking place in this 9,000 square foot building that's already on site. And like I mentioned in my last presentation to the committee, It sounds like many of the uses within the school building that's been repurposed are allowed in the AG-R district subject to approval of a development plan without a rezoning. So really the rezoning came because the applicant wants to keep doing some of these more intense uses that they established without proper zoning approval or occupancy of the school building.

And, you know, this, like my colleague was just suggesting that, you know, we have a property owner who clearly some of the neighbors are happy with, that they've reinvested in this parcel, but also we have zoning laws for a reason. But it seems like we're here because there was already something was already operating that wasn't conforming to the AGR, AG-R zoning. And so that's the, so I just wanna, we've seen sort of retroactive resultings through this committee a few times when we've been favorable to some and unfavorable to others. This is, you know, this one's always, these are always tricky because you have a situation where people seem to be happy with what's happening, but then it's not in compliance. And so how do you bridge that divide and find some reasonable compromise? But is there a plan to expand the operations that are currently happening there? Is there... And what's the purpose of rezoning for the rest of the property if most of that is happening on the one piece? And remind me, the recommendation from CPC was for which parcel?

The eastern parcel, which is basically where everything's operating.

Okay. And so what was the purpose of rezoning the entire... however many acres, that was 21 acres.

That's a great question. Thank you. And good points. And thank you, Genevieve, for clearing some of those things up. And I really appreciate working with her. It's been, we've tried to get to a common ground. And so I think, I live on the street. I moved here in 2007. And so I drove by this building. Two of my kids went to school there in 09. And then it was closed for 10 years and boarded up and police activity, et cetera. So, you know, Part of it is it's my community, right? So I'm not a developer. I'm a small business person. And so when I bought a business and this property that I drove by for 13 years was boarded up and grown up and the city was having complaints on the paint, et cetera, I decided this would be something that would be interesting. And fortunately I had a wife that went along with that, right? And so we started investing in this and moving our business in. cleaning it clean it up and so we have two businesses over there and so with that people would ask if they could store something there's a huge need if we look at the KCI area plan there's very few areas that are designed and Zoned to have small businesses there, companies, companies have mowing businesses, et cetera, just lots of small businesses. And so all of a sudden they were asking me to to to utilize space. So it grew organically, I think. and I just looked back before I came in today in December of 2024 when the KCI area plan was going to be revised I went and I looked back it was Alexis that I that I sent an email to and had a conversation with and I think maybe Genevieve and Alexis at the Hilton about this area plan I said listen I have this school over here that is non-conforming I knew it was AGR and said hey What can we do? Let's get this in line. So I think I was, I think at every meeting or almost every meeting and asked for it to be considered and said, I'm willing to come forward and try to fix that. The original violation was a sign violation with, I think, our sign, which is the same size as the school, which we didn't have a permit for, but was six inches larger. So that was the initial one. Then it came about the warehousing. And then I didn't know the RVs and campers weren't allowed. So I, you know, again, no excuse, right? No excuse, but that's the reality of where we're at today. And that's, that's what started it was a sign violation. So that had been there for five years. So again, I want to come to a resolution that's workable for everyone. We want to continue to invest in the area. It's, it's on our street. I think you can see the support of the neighbors. So again, they're very happy to not have it be an old public school that was going to be torn down or that the police are being called regularly. So we're here to try to resolve this in a way that's good for everyone, hopefully good for the community. Thank you.

Hold it a week. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. If there's no other comment, then we'll hold it a week. We'll hear this again next week. Any further discussions? any additional business to come before the committee.