Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

check. Thank you. gave us in uh call to order this meeting of the North Kansas City Planning Commission. Uh first item of business is approval of the agenda. So moved. Any second? Second. All in favor? Yes. All right.

Uh, third item of business, approval of minutes from the February 5th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Any questions? Hear a motion to approve. Approve. Second. All in favor?

Yes. See, uh, number four, comments from public regular agenda items. Come on up. All righty. Item number five, PC 2026301 zoning ordinance text amendments regarding community and public service uses to the staff report.

Good evening, chair and planning commissioners. Right in front of you is a request from staff to amend the zoning code which is also known as chapter 17. The reason for amending the code is um through periodic review. Staff has funded some concerns and uh regarding some approval process for the community and public service uses. throughout the years, particularly in the past few years, we've seen a lot of projects um that is being handled by public works and the parks department and potentially they're talking um in other departments for their specific needs regarding to expanding their facilities or updating um certain components. Then we realized in the zoning code currently all public and survive uses are permitted uses in all zoning districts. So in other words, there is no zoning review requirement for any of these uses. They can go ahead apply for a permit. As far as they meet the building code, we are issuing the permit. We are doing that process. But moving forward, um there are a lot of regional discussions on different uses including public safety. So it has been brought to Steph's attention. maybe a particular use will um needs to be warranted more scrutiny than the others. So in order to accommodate a different uses and different needs, staff proposed to distinguish the uh uses by a scale and meaning if the lot is over certain sizes and they shall go through a particular zoning review process whereas if it's a much smaller and minor changes they can still go straight to the permitting system. So in this case um after talking to different uh department directors and they're the ones handling

most of the public and civic uses um staff has distinguished that the most of those uses that under two acres are um probably much smaller scales and it can go straight to permitting process. Whereas um when the community and public services like um you know regional detention centers and uh city hall these uses they're probably likely um are going to be over two acres. They shall cons consider to go through a zoning process as the conditional use permit process. And to refresh everyone's memory, the conditional use permit process actually goes to planning commission. Staff makes the recommendation and the planning commission review and make a recommendation to city council and city council makes the final decision on the particular proposal. So in this case we feel like there is enough public engagement and everybody gets a chance to voice their opinion particularly for public uses. So therefore moving forward Steph proposed to amend uh two sections in the zoning code. One section is se section 17.12.020 that is the so-called use table. We're adding a particular row to identify the community and the public services that are over two acres. Then for all zoning district they're going to go to the conditional use permit. whereas the current um community and the public services that is under two acres will still default to the um permitting process. So in order to accommodate this particular use table, we also propose to amend section 17.36.010 that is the description of the uses. So in this section we're adding um the community and public services that's small which is less than two acres and the large which is over two acres and

have a little bit of more extended language on what type of uses we're particularly talking about or we are expecting. So for the small ones for example there are uh such uses may include local council or uh work offices, small public libraries or learning rooms, youth clubs, food pantries, pocket parks, um community gardens, small playgrounds and so on and so forth. Whereas the large ones, we anticipate those to have a little bit of broader impact and more of u quasi public facilities. It could have um regional or even national authorities that running those such as um the large size city hall like the entire city hall and the um big public parks or civic plazas that's over two acres and regional emergency response facilities or detention centers um etc. So um staff has recommended approval. I am open for questions. That completed my staff report.

Yes. I'm not quite clear on what uh like an example of what problem this is solving. Can you help me understand like what what would be a what would be a a a real scenario in which somebody would get one of these conditional use permits for a large scale thing that they could also do now? And what's different?

Okay. I'll give you a few examples. So, for example, uh, River Forest Park. Right now, there is no way for planning commission to hear it and for public to comment on it. I'm not saying the city doesn't do that portion because we actually did a joint meeting between parks board and the city council, but planning commission were left out from this entire process, right? Um, because the zoning allows it. you can have a park anywhere and there's no particular input from a land use purposes so to so to speak um and also I will give you other examples for example regional detention center and right now they're permitted uses anywhere in anyone district there will not be any particular scrinity from a land use purposes whether they are suitable for the neighborhood in what type of dynamic what is the consideration for traffic um signage um all our infrastructures there's no such screen for it so because they're permitted by right so yes great questions

you uh made reference to the fact that uh our staff determined that two acres was the the right cut off here u do you First of all, can you talk about how that number was reached?

Sure. It sounds like a very arbitrary number. I get it. Um, this is why we actually went through the different talks with different department heads to understand what type of scope of work they have in their mind for the future and what we have already done in the past. And also the two acre is not a random number. It's already embedded in our use table. As you can see, there was uh school uses. It's it's extinguished by small or um neighborhood size or large sizes. The cutoff is two acres or five acres or 5 to 10 acres basically. So when we were looking at a certain number over there, we went through some potentiality analysis over the parcels and then we averaged it out. We were looking at um potential parcels that the city owned or privately owned that could be used for public services and what the sizes we currently have or for redevelopment. What is the region's um general standard for this particular review process and we believe two acres is suitable for the city of North Kansas City. And again, if we run into issue because of the size of the lot in the future, we can always come back and do our reviews and make an adjustment to it.

Do you know how many parcels in the city right now are above or below two acres? It is even even like ballpark ratio. Yeah, it is really hard to say on behalf of parcels because generally what we typically review is um based on the lots. So parcels and lots are not necessarily the same thing. Sure.

So when we were looking at building over things, all the zoning regulations are based on lot lines. So part of it is um a lot of people have this experience is you're actually building over lot lines. So Before you can do that, there is a process that's called replplatting. For part of it, it could be consolidating the lots or dividing the lots or adjustifying the lot lines to make sure you establish new lot lines that meet the zoning code. So in that case a lot of time what we can picture is those two acres they will assemble different lots together to make that they make sure they have the capacity to accommodate that scope of project there isn't a whole lot I would say it's definitely under 10 it's under a handful of them

yeah so um just one kind of follow-up question on the one I asked earlier you mentioned um detention centers and if somebody uh proposed a 1.9 acre detention center they would not have to get this correct gone through. So um is there any process or or mechanism that we can use to target specific types of projects

to a and this is another thing and I don't want to dive particularly into a specific customer or need and I will say this on the record as well we have not been approached by anybody for any particular uses for detention centers. Well, I mean, I even think like parks, just anything that is something that could be in a neighborhood or in a in an area that could potentially impact the people who live or work around it. And I mean, a a park can impact it just as much as a detention center could or a city hall or a a food pantry. I mean, any of those things could impact things, but there are some that probably have a little more impact than other, positive or negative. And uh it would I I just want to make sure that that try to figure out if there's some way that if something if if somebody did want to come and build a detention center in North Kansas City, we have the ability to run that through as many checks and as many opportunities for public comment and clarity as possible.

And if they say, well, if I do this 1.9 acre thing, then I can avoid that path. Um I I'd like to try to see if there's something we can do at least uh outside of this process to close those loopholes.

We still have a zoning review components no matter what the proposed plan is. It's just administrative. So they still have to meet the administrative requirement. Um even though for you build a basketball court when we review it. That's why you actually heard um where some of the commission members here heard the exception case for defense because we still do the zoning review um for all the other projects and for downtown area particularly zone C2 um for any new uh uses over there there is a requirement for uh site plan review process. So it is not a conditional use permit process but it's a site plan review process. It's a different process. So I would say two acres um is generally a pretty safe cut off over there for that particular scale of project. Um it is hard to build a regional impact um detention center two acres or to say this way. Yeah, if that helps. I mean, I was just going to bring up a previous thing for your understanding with the school wanting to build a parking lot and it was zoned for residential and so that's what we discussed and were able to come to the conclusion that a parking lot doesn't belong in a residential area. So um it would still go through the process which Z was saying

did uh the major change here is adding a new row and making the spatial distinction in terms of lot sizes. And in the new row for uses larger than two acres. Uh we're we're setting for each zoning district the use category to use allowed through conditional review rather than limited based on building type or use standards. Did we consider both of those for different zoning codes or different application depending on where you are? So part of that is um thinking about the jurisdiction the city has.

These community and public services are not always owned by the city. There are there could be post office, there could be railroad, there could have be federal owned facilities sometime we do not have a jurisdiction over them. So after evaluating instead of prohibited right of way and getting legal challenge, what is the best way to have the community to have input into the process? We believe the conditional use permit is the right path. Okay. Versus versus prohibited.

Well, not prohibited uh but limited. The uh use code L which we're using for large R4 and R5. I'm just trying to distinguish. Yeah. Why we would use each of those C those I can explain the L. What does that necessarily mean? Yeah. So the L over here particularly is um extinguish the building types of for residential uses, right? For residential uses only. Got it.

It's hard to extinguish other commercial building types because they're not industrial standard. It is very industrial standard to say single family versus duplex versus triplex or you know qulex or anything over six units versus we're saying okay the building type for a commercial it's hard to define that there is no industrial definition on that particularly um that's why the limited base um on the you on the building type is only used for residential over there. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you.

No problem. One one small thing uh in section 1736 010 description of uses on the first line at the end I'm not I didn't get an opportunity to actually check the code. Uh but is that a typo when it says community at large by through? Should it just be through? That might just be a copy paste error. I don't know.

Um say it again. Where is it? I'm trying to find it. Um, on page three under the section heading 1736010, uh, first sentence towards the end of the line, uh, civic use that supports the community at large by through public safety. Should it just be through public safety? Um, this was in the original code. Okay.

And I'm sure it was there for its reason over there. I my guess. This sounds like a gram grammar issue over here. My guess is it's probably made by um this means a civic use that supports the community at large by public safety or through public safety. It kind of it could have both ways. Sure. Okay. That's my guess. Very small. Yeah. I didn't propose to change that. I'll just I'll recommend to leave it that way. If it's there, it's there.

Yep. Any other questions, comments from commission? Okay. Um, thank you staff. Uh at this point, uh I now open the public hearing for zoning ordinance text amendment amending section 17120 and 173610 of the North Kansas City zoning code. If you wish to speak regarding this amendment, you may approach the microphone now. hearing none. I now close public hearing to amend section 171220 and 173610. Is there a motion from commissioners regarding this zoning text amendment?

I have a motion to uh recommend approval of the proposed amendments as presented by staff. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. I'm going to call the role. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Thornberg. Council member Mcgrron. Yes. Commissioner Steel. Yes. Commissioner Spencer. Yes. Thank you. The motion carries.

Okie dokie. Moving on uh to agenda item number six, comments from staff. Well, thank you all for your time this evening and welcome back Council Member Mcroom. Um, I hope you enjoy planning commission as you did before. Um, moving forward, I'd like to highlight a couple things that we have done. Um, mostly just to kind of paint down your dates for the future activities. We will have our um, Northtown 2040 kickoff here pretty soon in a couple weeks. will have a website fully functioning and for everybody to review and sign up to be part of the steering committee. Um, and as part of a steering committee member, what they're going to do is they're going to participate in a two-day sharet. It is a lot to ask. I would say you're not required to be there the whole time. It's probably come and go for most of it, but we have already scheduled the sharet. The sharet will be at the parks and reccks building on September the 2nd and September the 3. I got very lucky with those days and I really wish to see everybody over there. um they generally run from nine o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. And on the second day, which is uh September the 3 after the sharet is closed, there will be a public open house to present the findings uh from the sharet. So please stick around. I would say if you can't make it um on the September 2nd, still come to the September 3 evening time. Uh we're coordinating with some sweet treats over there. Um if you have any question, any community members have um any interest, please let me know. We will get the website um ready here in a couple weeks and we'll do a big email

blast and some news press as well. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you, Shu. Agenda item number seven, comments from commissioners. I'll throw one out just because I'm curious and it's a hot topic and it might come up in the near future anyway if it I haven't been listening to all the planning commission so maybe it's or I haven't listened to all the the uh city council so maybe it's already come up. Um what in our current zoning use would permit or prevent like data centers? That's a topic that's been hot. A lot of things are happening late in the game and there are a lot of people that are upset and wondering why we didn't we think about this ahead of time. So could you bring me at least up to speed on anything we've talked about as a city or what the zoning ordinance currently could or could not permit?

So currently the data center are generally I would say allowed in the M district which is the industrial area. So we could potentially have a lot of zoning district or area. Um because if you picture our zoning map, we have a lot um M district over there. They could allow data center. However, data center require quite a few um items before they can even consider it. Part of it includes the power and part of it is fiber and also um the community supporting general. I have to say I know there is news out there from a different community with both opposition and a support. it was really confusing people and from my past experience from Kansas City, Missouri, um this was also something that has been kind of discussed for a long time. I would say at this point Arizona code does not specifically address a particular preference of a data center one way or the other. We're treating it pretty much equivalent to a warehouse type. you think when you picture it um in the future this will definitely currently is under our um particular review with our consulting team that we will looking into these particular type of uses

does it answer your question short answer yeah that's fine I don't I don't need any more information and I will also say on the record I have not been approached by any big companies about data centers at this point I'm not saying it's not going to But um right now I'm not aware of any. Good question. Okie dokie. Wrapping up uh to adjournment. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? So move. Second. All righty. Thank you, Plan Commission.