minutes of the meeting of the city plan … · materials onto the site. (ifc2000:§1412.4; nfpa...

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE

CITY PLAN COMMISSION

TUESDAY, March 17, 2015

The City Plan Commission held its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 in the Council

Chambers on the 26th

Floor of City Hall. The following members were:

PRESENT

Ms. Babette Macy Chairwoman

Rev. Stan Archie Vice Chair

Ms. Margaret J. May Member

Ms. Bobbi Baker-Hughes Member

Ms. Trish Martin Member

Mr. Coby Crowl Member

ABSENT

Mr. Enrique Gutierrez Member

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Diane Binckley Assistant Secretary

Mr. John Eckardt Staff

Mr. Olofu Agbaji Staff

Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle Staff

Ms. Marty Campbell Recording Secretary

Ms. Maggie Moran Legal Counsel

Mr. Wei Sun Public Works

Mr. Brett Cox Land Development

Chairwoman Macy called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TUESDAY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION 2 March 17, 2015

RE: SD 1502 – Final Plat, Berkley Riverfront Park

APPLICANT/ OWNER: Port Authority of Kansas City

300 Wyandotte Street, Suite 100

Kansas City, MO 64105

AGENT: Rick Gard

Taliaferro & Browne

1020 E. 8th

Street


LOCATION: Generally located in an area bordered by E. Riverfront Drive on the

north, Front Street on the west, I-29/ I-35 to the east and railroad tracks

(KCS/ I&MRL/ UP & BNSF) to the south.

AREA: Approximately 20 acres

REQUESTS: SD 1502 – Final Plat, Berkley Riverfront Park - To consider

approval of a final plat in District MPD on about 20 acres, creating

one (1) lot and three (3) tracts.

Ms. Diane Binckley, Assistant Secretary entered the staff report into the record and stated that

Mr. Ryan Adams, 300 Wyandotte, Kansas City Missouri, had signed the consent agenda and

agreed to all the conditions in the staff report with the removal of Conditions #6, #10 and #13.

Chairwoman Macy opened discussion to the public.

No one appeared in opposition.

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to APPROVE SD 1502

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. That the plat be revised to show:

a. All corrections identified in the Land Development Division final plat checklist.

b. The ordinance or document recording number dedicating Grand Avenue to the west and Front

Street to the east connecting to Berkley Parkway on the face of the plat.

c. The City Plan Commission approved date once the plat has been recommended for approval

by the City Plan Commission.

d. Show lot line between the Tract for the Private Road and Right-of-Way for Berkley Parkway.

e. Provide centerline information for all public Right-of-Way.


f. Fill in all missing information on the parkland dedication language on face of plat reflecting

all the lands dedicated by this plat.

g. Use leader lines to distinguish where Berkley Parkway ends and where Lydia Avenue begins.

h. Label the private roads as tracts.

i. Label the use of Tract D within the tract on the plat drawing

Condition 2. Through 4. per City Planning & Development, Development Management Division (Olofu

Agbaji, [email protected])

2. That the developer provide evidence ensuring that the proposed east and west limits of the plat

connect to legally dedicated rights of way connecting Berkley Parkway to Front Street on the east

and to Grand Avenue on the west.

3. That the developer submit a street tree planting plan showing existing and trees to be replaced to

the Development Management Division. The developer shall also secure the approval of the City

Forester for street trees to be planted in the right of way prior to Mylar approval of this final plat.

4. The developer shall work with MoDOT and the City of Kansas City to convey a portion of Grand

Blvd. to the city of Kansas City so that the intersection of Grand Blvd and Lydia Ave. is

completely within city jurisdiction.

Conditions 5. through 10. per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division (Brett Cox,

[email protected])

5. Further revisions and/or corrections by Land Development Division.

6. The developer must subordinate to the City all private interest in the area of any right-of-way

dedication, in accordance with Chapter 88 and as required by the Land Development Division,

and that the owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with subordination

activities now and in the future.

7. After the City Plan Commission enters its disposition for the development plan, the developer

shall not enter into any agreement that would encumber or otherwise have any impact on the

proposed right-of-way dedications for the planned project without the prior written consent of the

Land Development Division.

8. The developer must design and construct all interior public streets to City Standards, as required

by the Land Development Division, including curb and gutter, storm sewers, street lights, and

sidewalks.

9. The developer shall submit an analysis to verify adequate capacity of the existing sewer system as

required by the Land Development Division prior to issuance of a building permit to connect

private system to the public sewer main and depending on adequacy of the receiving system,

make other improvements may be required.

10. The developer must show the limits of the 100-year floodplain on the final plat and show the

Minimum Low Opening Elevation (MLOE) of any structure on each lot that abuts a 100-year

flood prone area on any plat and plan, as required by the Land Development Division.

Condition 11. per Water Services Department (Heather Massey, [email protected])

mailto:[email protected]




11. That the developer extend water main and provide easement as required by the Water Services

Department.

Conditions 12. - 16. per Fire Marshal’s Office (John Hastings, [email protected])

12. The expectation is the project will meet the fire flow requirements as set forth in Appendix B of

the International Fire Code 2000. (IFC2000: § 508.1)

13. Fire hydrant(s) are required within 400 feet on a fire access road following an approved route

established by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) of any exterior portion of a building. The

use of existing fire hydrant(s) may be used to satisfy this requirement otherwise a private fire

hydrant(s) or hydrant system may be required. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for R-3

occupancy(s) or the building(s) is fully protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler

system(s). (IFC2000:§508.5.1)

14. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the arrival of any combustible building

materials onto the site. (IFC2000:§1412.4; NFPA 241§ 8.7.2)

15. Shall meet the minimum fire hydrant requirements of KCMO Water Services applicable to a

water main extension which is every 300 feet commercial or 600 feet residentially zoned area.

16. Recommendation only at this time: Buildings equipped with a fire standpipe system shall have

an operable fire hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC). (IFC2012: §

507.5.1.1)

Condition 17. per Parks and Recreation Department (Richard Allen, [email protected])

17. The developer shall either dedicate 4.07 acres of parkland or contribute $68,439.09 in lieu of

parkland dedication for the 410 multi-family units in satisfaction of Chapter 88-405-17 of the

Zoning and Development Code.

410 multi-family units x 2 x 0.006 = 4.92 acre – 0.85 acres POS

4.07 acre x $16,815.50 = $68,439.09

Motion carried 6-0

VOTING AYE: Archie, Baker-Hughes, Crowl, Martin, May, and Macy

VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: SD 0934V, Final Plat, Benson Place Fieldstone, Sixth Plat

APPLICANT: Brenner Holland

Hunt Midwest Real Estate Development, Inc.

8300 NE. Underground Drive


PROPERTY OWNER: Hunt Midwest Real Estate Development, Inc.

8300 NE. Underground Drive





AGENT: Shannon Buster, P.E.

Lutjen, Inc.

1301 Burlington Street, #100

N. Kansas City, MO 64116

LOCATION: Generally located on the north side of NE 98th

Terrace, between N.

Eastern Avenue and N. Smalley Avenue.


REQUESTS: To consider approval of a final plat in District R-7.5 on

approximately 29 acres, creating 61 single family lots and three (3)

tracts.


Ms. Shannon Buster, Lutjen, Inc., 1301 Burlington, #100, North Kansas City, Missouri, had

signed the consent agenda and agreed to all the conditions in the staff report.



Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner Baker-Hughes seconded the motion to APPROVE

SD 0934V SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:


a. Label the existing Right-of-Way for N. Eastern Ave.

b. Show how stormwater management will be provided for this phase of the

development.

c. Add the City Plan Commission approved date once the plat has been

recommended for approval by the City Plan Commission.

d. Label and identify the centerlines of all streets, including abutting streets.

e. Label all street names per the approved street naming plan.

Condition 2. Through 6. per City Planning & Development, Development Management

Division (Olofu Agbaji, [email protected])

2. That the developer submit an updated overall development plan that addresses the revised

lot configuration and lot numbering to Development Management Division prior to

ordinance request of this final plat.

3. That the developer provide a street connection from NE 101st Street or N. Oakland

Avenue for the parcel to the south.



4. That the developer submit Street Naming Plan to Development Management Division

prior to ordinance request of this final plat. Street naming plan shall be approved prior to

issuance of address for this plat.

5. That the developer submit a street tree planting plan to the Development Management

Division as required by the CUP prior to ordinance request. The developer shall also

secure the approval of the City Forester for street trees to be planted in the right of way in

front of residential lots prior to Mylar approval of this final plat.

6. That the developer submit a final plan to the City Plan Commission for approval,

including detailed information on landscaping, grading, screening, berming, fencing and

signage (including elevations) for Tracts A, B & C prior to Mylar approval.

Conditions 7. through 18. per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division

(Brett Cox, [email protected])

7. Further revisions and/or corrections of Development Services.

8. The developer shall submit a detailed Micro storm drainage analysis from a Missouri-

licensed civil engineer to the Land Development Division showing compliance with the

current, approved Macro study on file with the City and with current adopted standards in

effect at the time of submission, including Water Quality BMP's, prior to approval and

issuance of any building permits to construct improvements on the site or prior to

recording the plat, whichever occurs first. The developer shall verify and/or improve

downstream conveyance systems or address solutions for impacted properties due to flow

contributions from the site; and that the developer construct any other improvements as

required by Land Development Division as necessary to mitigate impacts from rate,

volume, and quality of runoff from each proposed phase.

9. The developer must dedicate additional right of way for N Eastern as required by the

adopted Major Street Plan and Chapter 88 so as to provide a minimum of 40 feet of right

of way as measured from the centerline, and ensure right of way dedication is adequate

for any proposed road improvements as required by Public Works Department adjacent to

this project.

10. The developer must subordinate to the City all private interest in the area of any right-of-

way dedication, in accordance with Chapter 88 and as required by the Land Development

Division, and that the owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with

subordination activities now and in the future.

11. After the City Plan Commission enters its disposition for the development plan, the

developer shall not enter into any agreement that would encumber or otherwise have any

impact on the proposed right-of-way dedications for the planned project without the prior

written consent of the Land Development Division.



12. The developer must design and construct all interior public streets to City Standards, as

required by the Land Development Division, including curb and gutter, storm sewers,

street lights, and sidewalks.

13. The developer must construct temporary off-site cul-de-sacs and grant a city approved

temporary cul-de-sac easement, for that portion outside of the dedicated street right-of-

way, to the City as required by the Land Development Division, prior to recording the

plat.

14. The developer must pay impact fees as required by Chapter 39 of the City's Code of

ordinances as required by the Land Development Division.

15. The developer must obtain the executed and recorded city approved grading, temporary

construction, drainage/sewer, or any other necessary easements from the abutting

property owner(s) that may be required prior to submitting any public improvements

crossing properties not controlled by the developer and include said document(s) within

the public improvement applications submitted for permitting.

16. The owner/developer must submit plans for grading, siltation, and erosion control to

Land Development Division for review and acceptance, and secure a Site Disturbance

permit for any proposed disturbance area equal to one acre or more prior to beginning

any construction activities.

17. The developer must secure permits to extend sanitary and storm water conveyance

systems to serve all proposed lots within the development and determine adequacy of

receiving systems as required by the Land Development Division, prior to recording the

plat or issuance of a building permit whichever occurs first.

18. The developer must submit covenants, conditions and restrictions to the Land

Development Division for review by the Law Department for approval for the

maintenance of private open space and enter into a covenant agreement for the

maintenance of any stormwater detention area tracts, prior to recording the plat.

Condition 19. per Water Services Department (Heather Massey, [email protected])

19. That the developer extend water main and provide easement as required by the Water

Services Department.

Conditions 20. per Fire Marshal’s Office (John Hastings, [email protected])

20. That the developer provide for fire protection as required by the Fire Department.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None




ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: SD 1501 – Final Plat, Menards

APPLICANT: Steve M. Warger

Warger Associates

1617 Swift Avenue

North Kansas City, MO 64116

OWNER: Menards, Inc.

5101 Menards Drive

Eau Claire, WI 54703

AGENT: Rob Young

R. L. Buford & Associate, LLC

P. O. Box 14069

Parkville, MO 64152

LOCATION: Generally located at northeast corner of MO. Route 152 and N.

Green Hills Road.

AREA: Approximately 52 acres.

REQUESTS: To consider approval of a final plat in District B3-3 (Community

Business – 3) on approximately 52 acres, creating two (2)

commercial lots and one (1) tract.


Mr. Steve Warger, had signed the consent agenda and agreed to all the conditions in the staff

report.




SD 1501 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:


a. All corrections identified in the Land Development Division final plat checklist.

b. The City Plan Commission approved date once the plat has been recommended

for approval by the City Plan Commission.

c. A statement on the final plat prohibiting vehicular access onto MO. Route 152

from Lots 1 and 2.

d. Show all proposed lots for the development.


e. Label all Tracts with specific designations for Stormwater Detention.

f. Use the city’s standard ‘Cross Access’ language for the ingress/egress easement.

2. Condition 2. Through 4. per City Planning & Development, Development Management


3. That the developer submit the revised Major Site Plan with the corrections outlined in the

April 17, 2012 City Plan Commission disposition letter prior to ordinance request.

4. That the developer submit a street tree planting plan as required by the Zoning and

Development code to the Development Management Division. The developer shall also

secure the approval of the City Forester for street trees to be planted in the right of way

prior to Mylar approval of this final plat.

5. The developer submit a Street Naming Plan to Development Management Division.

Street naming plan shall be approved prior to Mylar approval and issuance of address for

this development.

6. Conditions 5. through 17. per City Planning & Development, Land Development

Division (Brett Cox, [email protected])

7. Further revisions and/or corrections by Land Development Division.

8. The developer shall submit a Macro "Overall" storm drainage analysis from a Missouri-

licensed civil engineer for the entire development in accordance with adopted standards

to the Land Development Division for review and acceptance at the time the first plat is

submitted, with a Micro "detailed" storm drainage study, including a BMP level of

service analysis, in accordance with current adopted standards to be submitted for each

phase at the time of final platting, and the developer secure permits to construct any

improvements required by the Land Development Division prior to recording the plat.

9. The developer must subordinate to the City all private interest in the area of any right-of-

way dedication, in accordance with Chapter 88 and as required by the Land Development

Division, and that the owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with

subordination activities now and in the future.

10. After the City Plan Commission enters its disposition for the development plan, the

developer shall not enter into any agreement that would encumber or otherwise have any

impact on the proposed right-of-way dedications for the planned project without the prior

written consent of the Land Development Division.

11. The developer must design and construct all interior public streets to City Standards, as

required by the Land Development Division, including curb and gutter, storm sewers,

street lights, and sidewalks.

12. The developer must construct temporary off-site cul-de-sacs and grant a city approved




temporary cul-de-sac easement, for that portion outside of the dedicated street right-of-

way, to the City as required by the Land Development Division, prior to recording the

plat.

13. The developer shall verify vertical and horizontal sight distance for the drive connection

to N Green Hills Road and NE 90th Street and make improvements to ensure local

jurisdiction and/or minimum AASHTO adequate sight distance standards are met.

14. The developer must pay impact fees as required by Chapter 39 of the City's Code of

ordinances as required by the Land Development Division.

15. The developer must obtain the executed and recorded city approved grading, temporary

construction, drainage/sewer, or any other necessary easements from the abutting

property owner(s) that may be required prior to submitting any public improvements

crossing properties not controlled by the developer and include said document(s) within

the public improvement applications submitted for permitting.

16. The owner/developer must submit plans for grading, siltation, and erosion control to

Land Development Division for review and acceptance, and secure a Site Disturbance

permit for any proposed disturbance area equal to one acre or more prior to beginning

any construction activities.

17. The developer must secure permits to extend sanitary and storm water conveyance

systems to serve all proposed lots within the development and determine adequacy of

receiving systems as required by the Land Development Division, prior to recording the

plat or issuance of a building permit whichever occurs first.

18. The developer must enter into a covenant agreement for the maintenance of any

stormwater detention area tracts as required by the Land Development Division, prior to

recording the plat.

19. The developer grant a Noise and Aviation Easement to the City as required by the Land

Development Division, prior to recording the plat.

20. Condition 18. per Water Services Department (Heather Massey,

[email protected])

21. That the developer extend water main and provide easement as required by the Water

Services Department.

22. Conditions 19. - 23. per Fire Marshal’s Office (John Hastings,

[email protected])

23. The expectation is the project will meet the fire flow requirements as set forth in

Appendix B of the International Fire Code 2000. (IFC2000: § 508.1)




24. Fire hydrant(s) are required within 400 feet on a fire access road following an approved

route established by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) of any exterior portion of a

building. The use of existing fire hydrant(s) may be used to satisfy this requirement

otherwise a private fire hydrant(s) or hydrant system may be required. This distance may

be increased to 600 feet for R-3 occupancy(s) or the building(s) is fully protected by an

approved automatic fire sprinkler system(s). (IFC2000:§508.5.1)

25. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the arrival of any combustible

building materials onto the site. (IFC2000:§1412.4; NFPA 241§ 8.7.2)

26. Shall meet the minimum fire hydrant requirements of KCMO Water Services applicable

to a water main extension which is every 300 feet commercial or 600 feet residentially

zoned area.

27. Recommendation only at this time: Buildings equipped with a fire standpipe system shall

have an operable fire hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC).

(IFC2012: § 507.5.1.1)

28. Conditions 24. - 26. per Public Works Department, Transportation Planning Section,

(Gnani Mahalingam, [email protected])

29. That the developer add a note to the development plan indicating that the traffic

movements at the south driveway on N. Green Hills Road and the west driveway on the

proposed NW 90th are to be restricted to right-in and right-out maneuvers only by a

raised median or a channelizing traffic island, as required by Public Works Department

and MODOT.

30. That the developer construct the intersection of proposed NW 90th Street and N. Green

Hills Road with one northbound through-lane, one 50 feet long northbound right-turn

lane plus appropriate taper, one southbound through-lane, one 50 feet long southbound

left-turn lane plus appropriate taper, 250 feet long westbound dual-left-turn lanes plus

appropriate taper, and one 250 feet long westbound right-turn lane. One westbound left-

turn lane shall be striped out until such time as the Public Works Department determines

that it is needed to service traffic demand.

31. That the developer enter into a cooperative agreement to contribute the full cost of

signalizing the intersection of N Green Hills Road with the north development driveway

and coordinating said signals with the traffic signals at the MO-152 ramp intersections on

N Green Hills Road, as required by the Public Works Department and MODOT. The

signalization and coordination shall be installed at such time that the Public Works

Department determines that traffic signals are warranted and needed at the intersection of

N Green Hills Road with the north development driveway. The traffic signals shall meet

the City’s design standards and policies that are current at the time of installation.

Motion carried 6-0




VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: Case No. 3154-P-5

APPLICANT: Matthew L. Murphy, Treanor Architects, P.A.

1040 Vermont Street

Lawrence, KS 66044

OWNER/S: AutoZone Development Corporation

123 South Front Street, 3rd

Floor

Memphis, TN 38103

L B Holdings LLC

14125 Broadmoor Street, Apt 203

Overland Park, KS 66223

AGENT: Same as Applicant

AREA: About 0.65 acres

Overall development, 3.3 acres

LOCATION: Generally located at the northeast corner of E. Truman

Road and Hardesty Avenue

REQUEST: About 0.65 acres generally located at the northeast corner

of E. Truman Road and Hardesty Avenue, to consider the

approval of a final CP District Plan in District CP-1

(Planned Business Center -1) (also, currently zoned B 1-1)

(Neighborhood Business 1, (dash 1)), to allow for a new

AutoZone retail store containing 6,500 sf.

b) Case No. SD 1497: To approve a final plat creating two

(2) lots in District CP-1 (Planned Business Center -1) but

currently zoned B 1-1 (Neighborhood Business 1, (dash 1))

and R 2.5 (Residential 2.5).


Mr. Matthew L. Murphy, Treanor Architects, had signed the consent agenda and agreed to all the

conditions in the staff report.





Case No. 3154-P-5 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. That three copies, collated, stapled and folded and an acetate of the revised plans be

submitted to the City Development Department prior to the ordinance request showing:

a. Add a copy or photo of the pylon sign providing location, height, and size of sign

dimensioning.

b. Show a detail of the short term bicycle parking rack.

c. Show the right of way to be dedicated with the companion final plat and how this

new right of way affects proposed dimensioning.

d. Enclose the west downspouts, if they are still proposed for the side.

e. Sheet 3 of 3, show all building lighting with shade covers and lighting in a

downward pattern. No night watchmen. Add a detail of the site’s proposed

lighting.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez


APPLICANT: Tom Nolte

Nolte and Associates

9400 Reeds Road, Suite 200


OWNER: ELKO Real Estate Development

1873 S. Bellaire Street, Suite 1105

Denver, CO 80222

AGENT: Roger Cassity

Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting

11490 Strang Line Road


LOCATION: Generally located at the southeast corner of Mo. Hwy. 152 and

North Oak Trafficway.



REQUESTS: To consider approval of an amendment to a previously approved

Community Unit Project (CUP) plan in District R-1a (one family

dwellings), to allow for 70 additional multi-family units within 8

buildings for a total of 358 units.

Quorum: Archie, Baker-Hughes, May, Martin and Macy

Commissioner Crowl recused.

Mr. Olofu Agbaji, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for

reasons presented in the staff report.

Chairwoman Macy asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Thomas Nolte, Nolte Associates and Mr. Roger Cassidy were in agreement with the staff

report and all conditions; there had been a lot of issues and got it down to two final issues in that

they needed to get some off-site improvements and they required a release from HUD so they

could build the additional roadway that was requested for safety reasons.



Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to CASE NO. 5631-

P-4 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. That three (3) collated, stapled, and folded (to 8.5 by 11 in. size) hardcopies and one (1)

digital copy (CD containing a pdf file, a georeferenced monochromatic TIF file, and

CAD/GIS compatible layer of the site plan boundary referenced to the Missouri state

plane coordinate system) of the plans, revised as noted below, be submitted to

Development Management staff (15th

Floor, City Hall), prior to ordinance request

showing:

a. Developer address, email and fax number.

b. Provide and show a 60’ wide trail easement for the 152 trail from N. Oak

Trafficway to the easterly property boundary per approval of Public Works

Department.

c. Complete the checklist on sheet C-2 and provide pertinent information required

for #25.

d. Removal of the billboard on the north side of the drive along Hwy 152 prior to

issuance of building permit.

e. Noise contours on the face of the preliminary plat.

f. All trees to be removed for utilities, grading and/or street improvements denoted

as an area labeled "trees to be removed". Tree removal may be shown as

individual trees for linear construction or by the acres for large areas of site

disturbance.

g. All individual trees or areas of trees to be preserved within the limits of the plan


labeled "trees to remain".

h. A signage plan that meets the requirement of Chapter 88-445.

i. A lighting plan that meets the requirement of 88-430.

j. A revised landscaping plan that meets the requirements of Chapter 88-425 per

staff approval.

Condition 2. Through 5. per City Planning & Development, Development Management


2. That the developer submit final community unit project plans to the City Plan

Commission for approval including building elevations showing material for

construction, plans for landscaping, grading, screening, berming, fencing; including plans

for private open space tracts containing detention areas, pedestrian pathways,

pool/clubhouse, fencing, playground equipment, etc, prior to issuance of building permit.

3. That the developer provide a 60’ wide trail easement for the 152 trail from N. Oak

Trafficway to the easterly property boundary per approval of Public Works Department.

4. That the developer submit an application to the Street Naming Committee (Development

Management Division) and receive approval prior to issuance of Building Permit.

5. That developer remove the existing billboard on the north side of the NE Windrose Drive

along Hwy 152 prior to issuance of building permit.

Conditions 6. through 10. per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division

(Brett Cox, [email protected])

6. That the owner/developer submit plans for grading, siltation, and erosion control to Land

Development Division for review, acceptance, and permitting for any proposed

disturbance area equal to one acre or more, prior to beginning any construction activities.

7. That the owner/developer secure a site disturbance permit from the Land Development

Division prior to beginning any construction, grading, clearing, or grubbing activities, if

the disturbed area equals one acre or more during the life of the construction activity.

8. That the developer grant, on City approved forms, BMP Easements to the City, as

required by Chapter 88 and Land Development Division, prior to issuance of any

building permits or bmp permits, whichever occurs first.

9. That the developer secure a land disturbance permit from the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources if the disturbed area of the entire development exceeds one acre.

10. That the developer obtain a floodplain certificate from the Plans Review Division prior to

beginning any construction activities in the floodplain.




Condition 11. & 12. per Water Services Department (Heather Massey,

[email protected])

11. That the developer revise drawings to show proposed water mains as required by Water

Services Department. And that the developer extend private water mains as required by

Water Services Department.

12. That the developer contact Water Services Department to verify any need to relocate,

upgrade or provide additional easements for the existing sanitary sewer mains.

Condition 13. per Fire Marshal’s Office (John Hastings, [email protected])

13. That the developer install hard surface roads and provide for fire protection as required

by the Fire Department prior to construction beyond foundations. Kansas City Fire

Department has the following requirements:

1) The expectation is the project will meet the fire flow requirements as set forth in

Appendix B of the International Fire Code 2000. (IFC2000: § 508.1)

2) Fire hydrant(s) are required within 400 feet on a fire access road following an

approved route established by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) of any

exterior portion of a building. The use of existing fire hydrant(s) may be used to

satisfy this requirement otherwise a private fire hydrant(s) or hydrant system may

be required. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for R-3 occupancy(s) or

the building(s) is fully protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler

system(s). (IFC2000:§508.5.1)

3) Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the arrival of any

combustible building materials onto the site. (IFC2000:§1412.4; NFPA 241§

8.7.2)

Condition 14. per Parks and Recreation Department ( Richard Allen,

[email protected])

14. That the developer contribute $14,202.66 in lieu of parkland dedication in satisfaction of

Section 88-405-17 of the Zoning and Development Code. Calculation is based on:

70 multi-family units x 2.0 x 0.006 = 0.84 acres

0.84 acres x $16,907.93 = $14,202.66

Motion carried 5-0

VOTING AYE: Archie, Baker-Hughes, Martin, May, and Macy

VOTING NAY: None

RECUSED: Crowl

ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: Case No. 717-S





APPLICANT: Robert D. Long

Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority

1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1700


OWNER: Switzer Apartments LLC

8201 NW 97th

Terrace


LOCATION: Generally located south of W 18th

Street, west of Summit Street, north of

W 20th

Street and east of Belleview Avenue.

REQUESTS: Declaring an area generally bounded by West 18th

on the north, Summit

Street on the east, W 20th

Street on the south and West Pennway on the

west to be a blighted and insanitary area in need of redevelopment and

rehabilitation pursuant to the Land Clearance for Redevelopment

Authority law and approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the same, said

plan to be known as the Switzer and West Schools Urban Renewal Plan.

(717-S)

Mr. John Eckardt, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff recommended

approval for reasons presented in the staff report.


Mr. Robert Long, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority; the proponent was Switzer

Apartments LLC; the Switzer and West Schools were located in Kansas City’s west side

neighborhood and the west side neighborhood had served as an entry point for many of the

waves of ethnic groups arriving in the Kansas City area during the past 70-years or more and had

most commonly been known as a Hispanic neighborhood.

The developers were planning a 15.6 million dollar restoration of the 5 buildings into

approximately 95 market rate apartments and some community spaces and approximately 204

parking spaces. EDC staff prepared the blight analysis for the planning area; there were 5

existing buildings within the plan; the parking areas did not comply with any City department

code; playground areas had cracks and settling and deteriorating pavement and would not meet

any standard for play grounds; each of the school buildings had damaged or leaking roofs,

gutters and downspouts; damage or deteriorating masonry, extensive deterioration of windows,

doors, fascia and soffits; each of the buildings had repeatedly been vandalized and had served as

impromptu shelters for homeless people and there recently was a fire in the library of the West

High building. The LCRA had determined that blighting conditions existed.

Vice Chair Archie asked about the relationship of the length of time and the degree of blight for

the taxes.


Mr. Long answered there really wasn’t a direct relationship between the length of time of the

proposed tax abatement and the level of blight it had to be established that blighting and

insanitary conditions existed and that the proposed activities would remediate the blight.

Vice Chair Archie stated that considering the degree of blight if they could fix the blight for

200,000 dollars they could still ask for 10-years tax abatement.

Mr. Long stated then it became a function of the financial analysis then; it looked at all the

financial costs and revenues and expenses and determined that up to 10-years tax abatement or

longer was appropriate it usually was used to help guide the decision on which tool was most

appropriate.

Vice Chair Archie asked if that consideration gave some value to the cost to the consumer at the

end or was it just considered based on the calculations.

Mr. Long answered there was some consideration given to how much of the expense on the

project was directed to blight but it was very often difficult to specifically identify what was

blight and what was part of the historic rehab. The historic rehab was the blight remediation in

the case. If the developer couldn’t achieve ta reasonable rate of return without the public

assistance then that developer wouldn’t be likely making that investment.




Case No. 717-S WITH ONE CONDITION and MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF A

FINDING OF BLIGHT.

1. That three (3) revised copies of the plan be resubmitted showing the following

changes:

a. State the size/area of the plan.

b. After consultation with either federal or city staff, state information in the plan as to

the how the site is historic and when the site became historic.

c. After researching the status and confirming their current existence, state that there are

two existing alleyways in the plan. State that these are contributing to the sites

blighting aspect if this is the case and further state that the applicant will apply for the

vacation of the alleyways, if this is needed for the development of the site and if the

city agrees.

d. Include under Section IV Land Use Plan that all site improvements will be completed

according to Section 52 and 88 standards through the site plan review process.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None


ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: a) 14538-P

b) 14538-P-1

APPLICANT: James Peterson

J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc.

1000 W 75th

Street, Suite 100

Shawnee Mission, KS 66204

AGENT: Brian P. Forquer

Lutjen, Inc.

1301 Burlington, #100

North Kansas City, MO 64116

LOCATION: Generally located east of N Flintlock Road and south of NE 89th

Street

AREA: About 80.31 acres

REQUEST: a) Case No. 14538-P: To consider rezoning from District R-

80 (residential dash 80) to District R-7.5 (residential dash 7.5); and

b) Case No. 14538-P-1: Approval of a preliminary

development plan that also serves as a preliminary plat for 82

single family residential lots and 8 private open space tracts.

Vice Chair Archie recused.

Ms. Diane Binckley stated the applicant had requested a continuance on this matter to the April

7, 2015 meeting date with one $130.00 continuance fee.

Chairwoman Macy opened up the discussion to the audience.


Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Crowl seconded the motion to continue these

matters to the April 7, 2015 meeting date with one $130.00 fee (No Testimony – No Set

Quorum).

Motion carried 5-0

VOTING AYE: Baker-Hughes, Crowl, Martin, May, and Macy

VOTING NAY: None

RECUSED: Archie

ABSENT: Gutierrez



APPLICANT: Sheila Jones

Jones Iron and Metal

114 W Harlem Road

Kansas City, Mo 64116

AGENT: Dudley Koch

Dudley Koch Steel Buildings

10822 Cody

Overland Park, Ks 66210

LOCATION: generally located at the northwest corner of NW Harlem Road and

N Main Street

AREA: approximately 3.36 acres

REQUESTS: To consider approval to amend a previously approved preliminary

development plan in District M1-5, to allow for the construction of

a single story warehouse.

Ms. Ashley Winchell, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff recommended

approval for reasons presented in the staff report.


Mr. Dudley Koch, Gardner City, Missouri; no objections to the staff report in full agreement.




Case No. 7300-P-6 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

That two (2) collated, stapled and folded copies (and a CD containing a pdf file, a georeferenced

monochromatic TIF file, and CAD/GIS compatible layer of the site plan boundary referenced to

the Missouri state plane coordinate system) of the full plan set, revised as noted below, be

approved by the Development Management staff (15th

Floor, City Hall) prior to City Council

consideration:


Plan corrections a-i per City Planning & Development, Development Management Division

(Ashley Winchell, [email protected])

a. Correct address to 114 NW Harlem Road.

b. Label plan as Preliminary Plan Amendment at either the top of the page or above the title

on the sidebar.

c. Show existing conditions on lots to the west that are currently used by Jones Iron and

Metal.

d. Buildings labeled as Johns Iron and Metal. Correct to Jones Iron and Metal.

e. Correct “Man Entrance” to “Main Entrance.”

f. Remove buildings to be demolished from plan.

g. Update the legal description to include entire property.

h. Property line and row of existing trees at northeast corner does not match up with City’s

aerial images. Verify location of existing trees.

i. Provide vacation ordinance number for north/south alley east of Vacated N Baltimore

Avenue.

j. Correct N Main Street (south of NW Harlem Road) to N Baltimore Avenue on the

vicinity map.

Plan corrections k-m per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division (Brett

Cox, [email protected])

k. Show the existing fence along N Harlem crossing the alley west of Lots 1 through 8.

Show removal of fence from alley Right-of-Way.

l. Revise Existing Gravel Entrance to meet current City Standards for paved entrance.

m. Revise the drive entrance on N Main St to meet current City Standards for paved

entrance.

Plan correction n per Water Services Department (Heather Massey,

[email protected])

n. Show location of existing sanitary sewer and water transmission main and easements.

Conditions 1-4 per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division (Ashley

Winchell, [email protected])

1. Provide landscaping in compliance with Section 88-425 “Landscaping and Screening.”

2. Parking and drive aisles must meet the requirements of Chapter 52.

3. Remove fencing from north/south alley next west of vacated N Baltimore Avenue or

vacate alley and provide easement to landlocked property owner.

4. Submit a Chapter 80 Final Plan for approval.






Conditions 5-8 per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division (Brett Cox,

[email protected])

5. The developer shall submit a storm drainage analysis from a Missouri-licensed civil engineer to

the Land Development Division, in accordance with adopted standards, including a BMP level of

service analysis prior to approval and issuance of any building permits, and that the developer

secure permits to construct any improvements as required by the Land Development Division

prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.

6. The owner/developer must submit plans for grading, siltation, and erosion control to Land

Development Division for review and acceptance, and secure a Site Disturbance permit for any

proposed disturbance area equal to one acre or more prior to beginning any construction

activities.

7. The developer shall submit an analysis to verify adequate capacity of the existing sewer system

as required by the Land Development Division prior to issuance of a building permit to connect

private system to the public sewer main and depending on adequacy of the receiving system,

make other improvements may be required.

8. The developer must grant a BMP Easement to the City as required by the Land Development

Division, prior to recording the plat or issuance of any building permits.

Conditions 9-11 per City Planning & Development, Land Development Division (Jade Liska,

[email protected])

9. The proposed development is located in an area where the Charles B. Wheeler

Downtown Airport height zoning restrictions apply. No structure in this area should be

constructed which exceeds these restrictions.

10. The proposed project location is in proximity to the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown

Airport Part 77 Horizontal Surface with an approximate elevation of 908 feet.

11. This proposed development needs to review the City’s Airport height Zoning Ordinance

No. 040342 and associated maps.

Motion carried 7-0

VOTING AYE: Archie, Baker-Hughes, Crowl, Gutierrez, Martin, May, and Macy

VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: None

RE: Case No. 12202-SU-2

APPLICANT: Dan Braik

Braik Brothers Tree Care

8378 Interstate 70 Drive, SE

Columbia, MO 65201



AGENT: Matthew Hunt



Columbia, MO 65201

OWNER: Kevin J. Slyester

1609 Crystal Ave


LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 40 and

Manchester Trfy.

REQUESTS: To consider approval of a special use permit in District M1-5

(Manufacturing 1 (dash 5)) to allow for a general recycling service

use and any necessary variances.

Applicant wasn’t present; Chairwoman Macy put it on hold until they could be contacted.

RE: a. Case No. 132-S-41

b.

c.

Case No. 14008-P-3

Case No. 14008-P-4

APPLICANT/OWNER: Gary L. Marvine

RJM Property, LLC

3939 Wyandotte St


AGENT: James C. Bowers, Jr.

White Goss

4510 Belleview Ave, Suite 300


LOCATION: Generally located at 3939 Wyandotte St.

REQUESTS: a. To consider amending the Westport Planning Area Plan by

changing the recommended land use from one/two family

residential to multi-family residential high-density.

b. To consider rezoning from District R-6 (Residential 6) to District

R-1.5 (Residential 1.5).

c. To consider approval of a development plan in lieu of a special

use permit in District R-1.5 (Residential 1.5) to allow the

continued operation of an administrative, professional, or general

office use.


Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff

recommended approval for reasons presented in the staff report.


Mr. Jim Bowers, White Goss Law Firm there on behalf of the applicant; Mr. and Mrs. Marvin

operated a nursing home and their administrative offices were located here; they had owned the

property since 1976 and had occupied it as administrative offices since that time. They were not

aware they were in violation of zoning ordinance until 2013; there was a dispute in the

neighborhood about parking; and one of the unattended consequences was a citation for the

Marvins for operating a business in a residential zoning district. They met with Councilman

Glover and Councilwoman Markenson in the neighborhood to discuss the issue at some length.

They believed that the neighborhood was 100% in support of the Marvins in fact the letter that

was delivered as part of the packet indicated that the neighborhood was thrilled that the Marvins

owned property in the neighborhood and they had been an excellent neighbor since they had

been there.

Chairwoman Macy opened up the discussion to the public.

Mr. Vern Barnett, 3948 Wyandotte; across the street from the property and he wanted to support

the proposed adjustment in the zoning; the owner of the property was exemplary; the

Neighborhood Association fully supported the use of the property.

Mr. James Groff; represented the neighborhood association; supported the application; and the

owner had stated if they ever did sell it would revert back to a residential property.

Mr. Bowers stated that at the time discussions were held they were planning to rezone the

property from R-6 residential to O which was an office designation; since that time, after

consultation with the staff, they had decided to rezone the property from R-6 to R1.5 which was

a residential classification which allowed by special use permit administrative offices; so they

would in fact had done what Mr. Groff had wanted them to do; there was no commercial

designation on the property; strictly residential. The business was generational; Mr. and Mrs.

Markenson had been there 40 years and their children were becoming involved and would be

there another 40 years; he didn’t know how much more stable than that it could get.

Ms. Binckley stated it was identified as Administrative Office to be its use; just adding the fact

that residential was an allowed use on there as well would cover what the neighbors were

wanting and allowing for that usage.

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to APPROVE Case No.

132-S-41 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None


ABSENT: Gutierrez

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to APPROVE Case No.

14008-P-3 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commiss-P-4ioner May seconded the motion to APPROVE Case

No. 14008-P-4 WITH THE FOLLOWING ONE CONDITION:

1. That two (2) collated, stapled and folded copies (and a CD containing a pdf file, a

georeferenced monochromatic TIF file, and CAD/GIS compatible layer of the site plan

boundary referenced to the Missouri state plane coordinate system) of the plans, revised

as noted below, be submitted to Development Management staff (15th

Floor, City Hall),

prior to ordinance request showing:

a. That a title be added to the plan stating “A Development Plan in lieu of a Special Use

Permit for Office, Administrative, Professional or General use”.

b. Provide the dimensions of the parking area in the rear yard.

c. Add a note stating no exterior lighting is proposed.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: SD 1502 – Final Plat, Berkley Riverfront Park

APPLICANT/ OWNER: Port Authority of Kansas City

300 Wyandotte Street, Suite 100


AGENT: Rick Gard

Taliaferro & Browne

1020 E. 8th

Street


LOCATION: Generally located in an area bordered by E. Riverfront Drive on the

north, Front Street on the west, I-29/ I-35 to the east and railroad tracks

(KCS/ I&MRL/ UP & BNSF) to the south.


REQUESTS: SD 1502 – Final Plat, Berkley Riverfront Park - To consider

approval of a final plat in District MPD on about 20 acres, creating

one (1) lot and three (3) tracts.


Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff

recommended approval for reasons presented in the staff report.

Chairwoman Macy asked about the setback; the property goes up to the sidewalks.

Mr. Rexwinkle answered that many plans recommended that buildings be to the street like on the

Troost Corridor to be better served by transit and it created a better pedestrian atmosphere; that

was an area of high pedestrian activity being between two university campuses so they felt it was

appropriate for a 0 setback.

Chairwoman Macy asked about the western side of the parking lot and if he was satisfied with

the landscaping to shield the houses on the west of the project site.

Mr. Rexwinkle said that the applicant had agreed to comply with the zoning and development

code requirements which required a solid fence or wall along the west side in addition to

landscaping.

Chairwoman Macy asked if they would see the final plan.

Ms. Binckley stated they could request it to come back to them.

Chairwoman Macy stated that the neighborhood had been involved with them on many issues

regarding the parking and she wanted to understand the parking. If St. Francis Church was built

today, what kind of parking requirements would it need?

Mr. Rexwinkle stated he thought it would need 1 per 7 seats; but he didn’t know how many seats

were in the church.

Chairwoman Macy asked if part of their church parking was for the project’s parking as well.

Mr. Rexwinkle answered yes; the plans stated there were a total of 254 spaces being provided

which would be parking for the church as well.

Chairwoman Macy stated that it was more of a student facility so there would be parking in that

parking lot when they were going to church as well.

Mr. Rexwinkle answered that both the residents and the church use which would be the two

principle uses on the property would be allowed to park on either of the lots that had not been

segregated by specific use type; the church would have different peak hours for parking than the

residents would and the students who would be going to church would walk.

Chairwoman Macy stated they lived there and would park their cars there but he had stated in in

his presentation the church right now was not required to have any parking because they were

exempt; if they were to have parking it would be 1 space per 7 seats but right now that number

was not figured into the parking requirement.


Mr. Rexwinkle stated right, because it was not required; if they were expanding the church then

it would be recommended with the expansion.

Vice Chair Archie asked about the setback there now there was a setback with the church and

school the building line itself; bringing that all the way up to the curb he was saying it made it

more pedestrian friendly and created a more walkable environment; so the building would be 4-

stories high at the curb?

Mr. Rexwinkle stated there would be space within the right of way for a sidewalk; it wasn’t built

to the street it was built to the property line.

Chairwoman Macy asked if they recommended anything on the height; 4-stories going up to the

sidewalk.

Mr. Rexwinkle stated he wasn’t sure if there was a specific recommendation on height.

Vice Chair Archie asked on Volker & Troost where the townhomes were, was there a setback

there.

Ms. Binckley stated there was a setback there.


Mr. Michael White, attorney for the Diocese, 4510 Belleview, Kansas City, Missouri; they

wanted to lead off with Father Ken Riley who was the judicial vicar for the Diocese to talk about

the background and the reasons for the request; he would handle the land use issues, Patricia

Jensen would go into the site plan; Mark Bryant would go into the parking issue; Michael Knight

of Stroud Construction was there to talk about the condition of the existing building; he had Mr.

Eric Osborn present on the issue of the feasibility of the project which they did not believe was

truly germane to the charge of the Commission today.

As staff had pointed out in their report, they did agree with all of the conditions they had

recommended; but they judged the application on the 8 standards set forth; and Mr. Osborn was

there to answer any operational questions they had.

Father Ken Riley’s position with the Diocese was Judicial Vicar but also Chancellor and

Moderator Cur ad; the location they were talking about today had become the subject of much

soul searching of the Diocese for several years. It was a Catholic Grade School Ministry from

1910 to 2003; it closed due to declining enrollment and lack of finances to keep maintaining that

ministry. In 2004 to 2009 St. Francis Xavier Parish decided to lease the building to a charter

school and since then the building had been vacant. The Diocese took over the expense of

maintaining and operating the building from August 2009; because of their Mission leaving the

building empty for such a long time was basically not an acceptable option; in looking at all the

options for that property approved the use that was being presented today as one they found most

financially sound and the one most clearly and appropriately situated in keeping with the Mission

of the Diocese. Early on the alternative uses that had been suggested by some of the neighbors


including an early childhood center, a culinary center, business incubator, kitchen center. No

one had approached them with a use that furthers their Mission and was financial feasible for the

source of funding.

Mr. White stated the request before the Commission today was to rezone 5.2 acres to a district

MPD and to approve the associated plan that they had filed with that. They would submit to

them that the land use was ultimately reasonable because it was basically student housing located

between two college campuses; it conformed to the Troost Corridor Plan and that was why City

staff was supportive of it.

Ms. Patricia Jensen, White Goss law firm; before them was similar to what they had already seen

before which was a colored rendering of what the site plan would like from an aerial point of

view on what they were proposing to construct; Joe had already gone through with that the

building was a U-shaped building at the corner of 53rd

& Troost; the middle building was labeled

as the “existing commons” was not actually used by the Parish right now; it was part of the

existing school site which had the gym; and they were proposing to preserve that gym building

and provide for both a common use of that property including much needed Parish Hall space as

well as student space for those students who would reside there. Those details weren’t worked

out yet with the Parish, those would have to be worked out as they moved forward, but that was

what the site plan was showing.

The next slide was the rendering of what the building would look like; Joe had stated it was his

preference to go back to the original rendering and they certainly were not opposed to that; they

felt like the new rendering would address some original comments that they had heard. As they

knew, the building was basically a private, residential function and it should project a residential

feel to relate to its surroundings; it was surround by two universities and primarily the materials

surrounding was an institutional style with various stones and greyish brick colors. It was also

adjacent to the Parish which was primarily Indiana Limestone.

The next slide showed the apartment model; showing private bedrooms, kitchen, washer/dryers

in each of the units as well as them being fully furnished; there would be a resident assistant on

each floor with programs and social activities to connect the community, the Parish and the

universities. It was a primary opportunity to engage the students in the life of the community

and in helping neighboring areas in doing outreach and service projects, etc.

The next slide was to emphasize they had a number of neighborhood meetings since February

2014 when they recommended denial of the rezoning; there had been 4 separate meetings with

neighborhood representatives to discuss the project. Prior to February 2014 there were at least 8

meetings with various neighborhood groups as the Diocese proceeded to engage the community

in the process. Prior to filing the plan on January 30th

they had a neighborhood meeting at the

church on January 28th

; pursuant to some of those neighborhood meetings and trying to work at

increasing the parking, originally when she set the letter up for an initial meeting, they had 156

spaces now they were up to 176 spaces.

As their discussions occurred with the neighborhoods they heard a number of things; one had

been the density of “too much” at that corner; they could see on the slide that the original MPD


submitted had116 units; and there today was 85 units. Another thing was increased parking;

parking was an issue and Mark Bryant would speak to the parking issue; the parking issue was

really a daytime issue because of the UMKC campuses; they had gone from 127 spaces to 176;

those were new parking spaces. They were not decreasing the Parish’s use of their existing

parking lot; they had 69 spaces and they didn’t propose to do anything there to decrease their

parking and the students/residents would not be parking in the existing Parish parking lot.

Chairwoman Macy, but they were using those spaces in the overall count?

Ms. Jensen answered they had emphasized their overall count of 176 was the new parking

spaces; that represented twice the number that was required; yes their plan totaled 254 but that

was because of the plan requirement to show and count all of the parking that was shown in the

plan. The number of new parking spaces being added was 176.

There was a concern about the site line for the existing Parish; they had moved the building

south as one of the original submissions to the site line as well as providing green space on the

north side of the site in between the Parish and the building. They were working on retaining the

existing gym building to make it a commons building and additional Parish Hall space.

Finally, it was said that one of the buildings was too high; originally, it was submitted with a 5-

story elevation on the east, 4-stories on the west; they were now at 4-stories on the east and 3-

stories on the west.

Mr. Mark Bryant, White Goss Law firm; the zoning and development code adopted by the City

required that the project had 85 parking spaces; what was provided in the plan was substantially

more than double. The other point, what they were proposing would relieve the pressure on the

surrounding area for more students coming into the area. The pressure was coming from the

existing uses not from the proposed use.

Mr. White stated they had received a lot of comments from the neighborhood about use of the

building and if they would like to hear more on rebuttal they could do that. The building would

be financed by tax-exempt bonds and ruled surrounding those bonds was that the residents could

be students only with the exception of perhaps some faculty members or some resident advisors;

it could not be opened to the general public. There would be bond covenants that would be

recorded with the Jackson County recorder of deeds to that effect; and were the covenants to be

violated the bond would lose their tax exempt status and that would make the bond holders very

unhappy.

The City had a desire for residential developments along Troost; it was consistent with the

Troost Corridor Plan; it was supported by staff; building size was consistent with surrounding

structures; the land use was eminently reasonable, it was student housing between two colleges

and without the rezoning there was no real viable option for the existing school building.

Chairwoman Macy stated that Father Riley had mentioned they had some consultants that

consulted with the Diocese who developed the proposal and came up to the conclusion that


student housing would be the best fit for the property and she was curious to know if their

consultants had met with UMKC, Rockhurst or the neighborhood.

Father Riley stated the two he had mentioned were the Diocese and Plans Council, both advisory

bodies to the Bishop so they took what was presented to them from the developer; those two

bodies did not meet with outside consultants or bodies; they did have their information presented

to them.

Chairwoman Macy stated then the decision to make it student housing did not involve the

neighborhood to come to that conclusion. In the previous cases, one of the things that they asked

was that the Diocese get involved with the neighborhood and have conversations; and in his

testimony he had stated that their consultant or board that the best use for the property would be

student housing; and she wanted to know that if in that decision if the neighborhood had been

involved to come to that conclusion.

Chairwoman Macy asked about the land use; when looking at the land use for it and engaging as

a student housing project, they received a letter from UMKC stating they didn’t feel like it was

appropriate; they didn’t receive anything from Rockhurst saying it was appropriate; she was a

little curious that not having the support of the two universities for the project raised a red flag

for her.

Mr. White stated the letter they had received recently from UMKC only raised the issue of

parking; because UMKC on their newer building certainly not on the older ones, used a standard

of .80 per bed parking spaces; they had .72 it was a pretty small difference. The other issue they

raised they were complaining of the quality of their engagement with the neighborhood; but they

never raised an issue about land use.

Chairwoman Macy stated that the neighborhood meetings and Ms. Jensen stated they had

numerous meetings; what was the notice time for those meetings, how many days in advance did

they notify UMKC and the neighborhood of those meetings. There had multiple times where

people have said it was very short notice.

Mr. Colby Crowl stated they had a meeting on the 28th

and the submittal went in on the 30th

of

January; what were the concerns at the 28th

meeting and were they addressed in the submittal on

the 30ths.

Ms. Jensen answered on the notices that went out at the end of January; they had originally

scheduled that meeting for January 16th

on January 6th

and that meeting was postponed and sent

notice to the four neighborhood representatives on January 13th

of the postponement. The last

meeting was scheduled on the 28th

that again was scheduled after talking with the representative

and formal notice, via email was sent on January 22nd

. She said the meeting on January 28th

was

attended by over 100 people.

Commissioner Archie stated that it sounded like the intended use was there would be some

restrictions or whatever was laid out in the covenants would open the door to students from

UMKC and Rockhurst or students in general to occupy the properties. How they would use the


property he didn’t know if it was his roll to say “this is what you should do with the property.

He was listening to more or whether or not on how the property was laid out fits the décor; it was

an invasion into that area if it integrated and fit well was part of their responsibility; there were

other issues and he appreciated the neighbors’ voices on its recommended use was a negotiation

that should take place between them and the neighborhood. He would be concerned, for his role

and responsibility, it fits in the neighborhood and the community as it was laid out now.

Chairwoman Macy opened up the discussion to the public.

Mr. Les Kline, 5431 Charlotte; President of the Rockhill Association; also the President of

UMKC/Volker’s Neighborhood Council and also President of the 49/63 Neighborhood

Coalition; the 4963 Neighborhood Coalition enthusiastically supported the values and inherent of

the MPD process because they clearly reflected community values prescribed for projects for

benefit of their local neighborhoods and the City at large. Those values included flexibility,

public benefit, stewardship of resources, compatibility of design and social equity. There was

much to support in those principles, they were written by their fellow community members.

There was one value inherent in the MPD process that perhaps they held above all others; to

them it was the embodiment and foundation of all the others and that value was community

engagement; it was the one thing that neighborhoods respected the most because it showed a

willingness to meet them where they lived. In the three year history of the project their

community had not been sufficiently engaged by the Diocese of Kansas City/St. Joseph in any

way that they recognized as authentic. The first time they were there in 2012 community

engagement was so deficient that the Body of the CPC unanimously denied approval of the

project and supported the community needs assessment surrounding the existing St. Francis

School. That needs assessment was completed by BNI and published in June of 2013. It

included Diocesan representation and showed clear broad-based support for repurposing the

existing building for purposes of education, health care and connecting neighbors. They had

hoped the Diocese would have recognized the connection between those community needs and

the Catholic Mission; particularly the Mission of St. Francis Church a community of faith in the

heart of their neighborhoods. The second time the community faced this project was in February

2014; they were notified only a few days before a hearing date through a second-hand source,

not the Diocese that the project was again on the docket before the CPC and there was even less

community engagement and communication than before; again the CPC denied approval citing

the lack of community engagement. As a result a group of neighborhood and Parish leadership

requested to meet with Diocesan representatives about implementing the findings of their needs

assessment with the hopes of finding a win-win; what became clear from several meetings with

the Diocese was the unflinching commitment to the original project; they were told that the ideas

expressed in the needs assessment were not viable and not on the table for discussion. To their

concerns that it did not meet community needs and had virtually no community support among

their local area residents, they had to agree to disagree. In short, from their perspective the

community engagement offered by the Diocese amounted to offering them less of what they had

never said they wanted in the first place. They didn’t feel it was responsiveness to community

needs and concerns.

He asked for the audience to please stand (full audience) that lived in the community and

attending St. Francis Xavier Church; please stay standing who opposed the project and the same


still remained standing. There were those in their community who supported the project, but

there was a vast majority that had concerns and had more questions than answers.

Mr. Bill Shift (sic), 5400 Cherry; member of St. Francis Xavier parish; wanted to talk about two

areas: (1) the church had been without a parish hall for 3 years; it was located in the old school

building; it was closed by the Bishop with 5 days’ notice which undermined the aspects of the

functioning of a church; it was difficult to have educational presentations, children’s programs,

boy scout meetings, social gatherings, etc. They were offered a space for their parish hall in the

new building; however, the determination of that parish hall had been an excruciating process.

They were told that the old gym would be provided for use and would get that information about

how it was divided and it never came. At the next meeting, they asked the same questions about

the parish hall; they wanted to know the dimensions, kitchen and how it could be used, etc. but

the answers were promised later, always later. At the last meeting there was still no answers

provided but were given another surprise; the control of the parish hall would become the

domain of the administration of the proposed dorm. They were told a tax exempted bond

requirement necessitated 50% control of the hall. The control of the parish hall had always been

promised to St. Francis Xavier Parish and now they would now be required to seek permission to

use it. Yet, they know from testimony at a St. Francis hearing that the gym would likely be used

only once or twice a month by student housing. That was another example of a promise not kept.

They had been lied to and kept at arm’s length with negotiations despite being invited to enter

into a process that would determine the outcome of the building.

Secondly, the Diocesan planning process had been disappointing; the MPD provided the dorm

would provide housing for all ages, sizes, incomes and lifestyles. He didn’t see that happening.

He was disappointed in the Diocese and hoped they denied their request.

Mr. Kenneth Spear, 5310 Holmes; had been involved with the process of trying to come up with

a solution that the community would appreciate. First, he felt the Commission deserved an

apology from everyone that was there because there was really no reason they should be back

there. If the Diocese and the Bishop, which was the first time he had come to a public meeting

on it had met them where they said they would, in the middle, and they were back looking at a

nonviable use. He knew that if city staff would have known the truth about what had been

presented at public meetings, they would not have supported it. The project had gotten smaller,

but it was still too big for the site. He also felt that parking would be a big problem.

Dr. Eric Wasmall (sic), 446 E. Meyer Blvd.; went to UMKC, he lived in the Brookside area; and

he supported the project. When taking into consideration trying to bring college students

together was a wonderful idea. He read an article from a psychology magazine; “Research

consistently shows that engagement in religious activities is directly related to positive psycho-

social, educational and behavior” development.

Mr. Keith Speaker, President of the South Plaza Neighborhood Association; everyone had talked

about parking; he would like to talk about the effects of putting 200 students in little bitty

cubicles where there was almost no space for anyone to live comfortably. If you wanted to do

something nice for students, give them a facility where they had room to move; where they could

congregate and talk; those rooms do not sound like they had room for a computer. What would


happen if there would be conflict; sex eventually, people fall in love; if people were not

adequately cared for the community would be negatively impacted. That was really important;

mental health cannot be sustained in that kind of density and if you were not welcomed by the

neighborhood it would be worse.

Mr. Bruce Palmer, 215 E. 79th

Street; the existing school building was what could be called a

“low road building”; they survived because they were sturdy, flexible and adaptable; because of

those things they were “loved”. The dormitory that was proposed was neither sturdy, flexible or

adaptable and then the neighborhood would be stuck with a structure where there was no history

and consequently no affection. Would the project, if built, attract the 226 students it needed to

be financial sustainable; who would sign their consent to a code of conduct regardless of their

faith a code that the developer on January 28th

said it would be enforced if necessary by the use

of security cameras. He wanted to emphasis he supported Bishop Finn’s intention to rekindle the

diocese ministries to Catholic students at UMKC; but those students’ needs were genuine; the

question was whether those needs were best met by the construction of the proposed structure or

by the imaginative repurposing of the existing school building to accommodate a smaller number

of UMKC students who were interested in living in a Christian community together with a large

number of simply those who wanted a “go to” place not a dwelling, i.e. a Newman Center, a

meeting center, a chapel and a priest which the feasibility study conducted came up with 80%

were more in preference to that than a dorm.

Mr. Bob Jenkins, 601 Lydia; and listening to what had taken place today and that was that the

viability of the proposal was seriously in question; and being in the business of rental to students

none of them wanted to pay more than $350.00 per student, $500.00 all utilities included and

parking; with the new proposal parking would be additional to the rent which might also explain

why Rockhurst parking was empty; students did not like to pay additional for parking; not only

was the problem of parking in the neighborhood not resolved, it had expanded. The second was

the amount of money the project was asking per student and that was totally not viable with the

students he had talked with and he had talked with 25 within the last week.

Ms. Jane Lawson, UMKC student; supported the project as a student at UMKC and as a

Catholic; would like to have a community of support and a high number of people fall away

from their faith in college and she believed it would be a place where students could go to and

worship and have that faith-based family that was needed for support.

Mr. Austin Volora (sic), UMKC student; they would like a place to gather and grow in their

faith; they needed a bigger space to do that. Please support the project.

A lady dressed in black and addressing the audience made a statement (inaudible) “Mere”;

founder of the Society of Jesus;

Mr. Daniel Bonderer (sic); 5736 Harrison; he thought everybody wanted something that was

good for the community; one thought, 65 years old, went to 1st grade at St. Francis; Parish

recognized the need for a new school; over 3 to 4 years they evolved from the old structure to the

new structure now. The structure now was part and parcel responsible for thousands of Catholics

in the City, students, alumni who had been educated by the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary


and the Jesuits who were in Kansas City living in other parishes who sent their kids to Catholic

colleges and continue to attending Catholic school and they were all educated at St. Francis

Xavier.

Ms. Lois Culverson, 2801 W. 62nd

Terrace, Mission Hills Kansas; member of the parish for 17

years; they had been given a lot of misinformation and the Bishop did send a letter asking them

to attend the meeting in support of his project; they brought the photos of the project and only

brought two sides of the building; the back of the building would be a mess because there would

be underground and above ground parking which she thought it would detract from the building.

They were not seen the entire project and there had been a lot of misinformation.

Sister Connie Balt; Superior General of the Sisters of St. Francis; alumnus of UMKC and

Rockhurst; she was in support for the following reasons: First, it was location was so important;

right where the students are and that was what was needed. The most important thing about the

project had to do with the students; not with the buildings and what they looked like. The project

would provide opportunities for the students to build and support their faith-life through

educational and spiritual offerings; it would allow them to live in an environment where Catholic

values were encouraged and lived by others of their own age and their own interests. It meant

building relationships; relationships with other students who were like-minded which was

important in keeping their young people on a track of morality, of conscientious life –style.

Ms. Bria Roger, 10755 NW Hillsborough Rd.; not involved with the project but shehad been

involved with education, catholic ministry and the many benefits of residential living; she had

experience around the country with projects like it and it was thriving along with others; she

wanted to share that with them; she was 100% confidendt with her past experience it would be

successful.

Ms. Carolyn McDonald, 5412 Locust; she wasn’t a member of St. Francis and as a member of

the area she had gone to meetings that would be held there; her concern was the viability of the

Church; one of the things was necessary was a Parish Hall and with the problems with the

parking. A concern she felt there had been was “half-truths”; they weren’t privy to the plans.

Kathy Baily, 709 N 87th

Street; they were strong believers in the Catholic Church; she thought a

strong Newman center/area for gatherers of like-minded, like-faith students; they didn’t need to

close in an area of restrictive settings of housing for their faith to be preserved. It seemed it had

limits the Mission of the church.

Ms. Mary Earnst Murphy, 411 W. 57th

Street; if the parish stays viable; and she opposed the

project because she thought it challenged the viability of that Church; one thing she came back to

was the use of that community space; she didn’t see how residences/dormitories would help to

continue the Church to be viable.

Ms. Amelia Ernsman, UMKC student; and she supported the project she agreed with the

previous speakers that were in support of the project.


Mr. John Gail, 635 E. 70th

Street; attends St. Francis; wanted to address “the fit”; the project

cannot meet the Church’s needs on the scale that was proposed. The dual nature of the facility

was not just a residence hall it was also to be something like a Newman Center; there was no

accommodation for parking. The parking was for the residents only; if the residents had visitors

there would be a problem.

Mr. Dave Denutzo, Director of Campus Ministry for the Diocese; he believed that all were

understanding was that there were two sides; he didn’t think they were concentrating on the

facts. It was the property of the Diocese, they were working to accommodate, although they

disagreed, but more importantly from his office for the specific and needed use for campus

ministry within the City. They sorely needed space to serve their Catholic students, specifically

UMKC but also Rockhurst, which was private, was why they did not serve them technically.

Mr. Thomas Lynn, 10000 Woodson; wanted them to read the last 3 lines inscribed on the wall

behind them “let honor, truth and justice rule within these walls”; they had heard person after

person say they had asked questions and more questions and the response “will we get to that

later”. He didn’t have a problem with what they wanted to do with the building, but the truth

hadn’t been told. The people that lived there, worked there had not been told the truth. For

example, he didn’t understand, he was making a sacrifice as a lot of people were, to pay off the

Parish debt, the debt was to the Diocese because Parish’s can’t borrow money they had to

borrow it from the Diocese; they paid it off, what do they have for it? Nothing; the Diocese came

in and said “they wanted the building”; he would like to know if any other building in the

Diocese was renting or leasing to a Charter school or private school and it was income.

Mr. Dominican Winn; supported the project to promote the Catholic community.

Mr. Jack Copley, 631 W. 58th

Terrace; his concern was that he had no confidence in the financial

viability of the project; especially with the property attached to Bonds; and he was afraid of what

might happen to his Parish.

Ms. Carol Train (sic); 5324 Locust Street; she could speak for most of the residents that lived in

the area and said they would support that students would get housing; but that really was not the

role of the Diocese; that was the role of the universities to provide housing for students. At the

January 28th

meeting she was surprised that the project represented the Mission for the Church;

very expensive tight quarters and not addressing the needs of the Parish or the wishes of the

community. The excitement one year ago was where the Church, the community and the

neighborhood could address the real needs of the “community” from there across Troost; in some

way it was a very different mission that the neighborhood and residents understood; she would

encourage the Diocese to go back and work with the group of energetic residents.

Mr. Vincent Goteay (sic), 5720 Rockhill Rd., Kansas City; representing of the neighborhood St.

Francis Xavier Parish and a long time adjunct professor at UMKC who generally understood the

conditions that existed in the subject property. He and his wife were actively involved in the

area and the Troost Corridor Action Plan as well as St. Xavier Church and school which had

been there over 100 years; he wanted to focus on the facts and the context related to the specific

site.


They were not getting a fully accurate assessment of the property by jumping from the first

project to this project to make it seem there was a significant reduction in size. In fact, the last

time this Body saw the project in 2014 it was 283 beds and now it had 237; that was exactly

equivalent from going from 850 lb. pig to a 710 lb. pig; it was still a big pig.

First it showed that parking had been cut into the Church’s lawn on the north side of the drive;

that was inaccurate; second, it had been shown that the existing building was a large block

building; when in fact, it was a “C” shaped building with a substantial playground/greenspace;

this was important.

His main objective was the issues of context in the staff report and it was critical in 3 particular

areas; (1) the immediate institutional surrounding with their setbacks; (2) the neighborhood

which has some of the worst parking issues in the City; and (3) the institutional history in this

area in doing true community engagement.

1. The immediate institutional surroundings with their setbacks. He had been involved

with the Parish Building Committee for 15-years; please visualize the immediate area of

Rockhurst University and St. Francis Xavier with their green wall and stone work and

appropriate setbacks for these institutions. As noted, every institution, even the housing,

immediately north had setbacks; green buffers between the large buildings and the

sidewalks; the improper setbacks on this project were an affront to the neighborhood.

The plan was not compatible with other improvements around. There would be a

continuous 430 feet of mass wall with no access to the building; 6 inches between

building and sidewalk and you couldn’t grow bushes in six inches.

2. Parking. On Sunday he had counted 20 cars parked in the area being removed by the

project that they would lose at St. Francis Xavier and that was during spring break when

the demand was even less than normal. Where would the majority of the kids and their

cars be on Sunday, early mid-morning; very likely in their dorm? When would they have

their meetings and gatherings; he was a staunch supporter of shared parking; but

understand the real contest and the staff report was void of the real contest. For example,

parking could be shared with the church and staff agreed with the proposed amount of

parking; frankly, the church was going to lose all of the upper lot, 75 spaces as well as a

refigured drive and no required new parking for potential tenants or visitors to the

building and they think that it was going to work.

3. The institutional history in the area in doing true community engagement. Both of the

universities which it was purported to serve had vastly improved their community

engagement processes over the years. Why is this institution not being held to the same

standard? As part of what they had heard today, there were 3 examples; first, they hadn’t

seen a legal description of what part of the St. Francis Xavier property was being

transferred to the shell 501(C)(3) to do the project; secondly, at the one single public

meeting, the developer committed to specifically providing an updated market space and

they never have; thirdly, the actual owner of the school was not the shell 501(C)(3), but it


was the Parishioners who were the ones who spent the money to build that Church--$1

million.

The Church could lose the property; and then reduced green space; over 26,000 sq. ft. of the

current school was now basically green pervial area; the proposal generally had 12,000 sq. ft. of

such pervial space; 38% of the site was now green compared to only 16% going ahead with the

plan; more than double; it did not preserve natural resources; in fact, it was being negative to it.

They believed the denial of the application would not cause a hardship on the owner, please deny

the request and protect the neighborhood community.

Mr. White responded that a lot of people believed they could save that building; they wished

they could agree with that; they didn’t make the decision lightly; they relied on the experts who

knew about construction to tell them it was not a viable option. That was very important there

today because if the zoning for the project was turned down, what was left to do with that

building; they sincerely believed and he didn’t denigrate the people who disagreed with them,

but based on the experts they heard they just didn’t think it would work.

Again, they agreed with the staff report; the 8 standards which the Commission was charged to

judge the case; staff had found that the project met and had recommended approval.

Commissioner May asked about the parking; she had heard reference to underground parking

was there going to be underground parking, and if so, how many; secondly, there was reference

to the occupants to the building they were going to construct, would there be a parking fee for

the people who lived there?

Mr. Bryant answered there were 13 spaces that were under the building the others were surface

parking; any student who attended UMKC or Rockhurst had to pay a separate parking fee; visit

their website and they advertised that in no uncertain terms.

Commissioner May what were the costs to rent the units and what were they?

White Goss representative answered 799.00 per dollars for a 4 bedroom up to a one bedroom

would be 1200 (mostly for resident advisors) with utilities.

Commissioner May asked if there was going to be common space within the building they were

constructing and if so, could he describe that.

Ms. Jensen answered there was a fitness space for those students as well as the administrative

office buildings and chapel space for the students to be able to go to worship; just for the

residents of the building.

DISCUSSION:


Commissioner Archie said his greatest concern was the design and setback and its fit,

architecturally; he didn’t think it was a fit for that particular community; all of the other issues,

some might be debatable, but he was concerned that the process was not a process that they

endorsed and it was not a process that they had tolerated in the past in other cases. Even if the

process was well done with much involvement and community support, he would still have a

concern for that building having no setbacks off of Troost in that space.

Commissioner May agreed with his concerns; today’s planners felt that they didn’t have to have

setbacks, but with the setbacks within that area seemed appropriate that there be setbacks; there

was beauty in a setback and one of the things that concerned her was that the center part of the

city was making sure they didn’t forget about how things look. Increasing the pride that people

had in the area and being able to refer to it as a place of beauty.

Commissioner Crowl stated it was a wrestle between the criteria put forth in order to develop the

project before them and how to go about the process; having two pieces to him. As far as the

project itself, the criterion was being met. The process of getting there to the particular project in

what had been presented was one that was not supported from even the Parish itself as well as

the residents around it and it was hard for those members to get on board and support it by those

would use it and pay for it really.

Commissioner Baker-Hughes stated she believed the setbacks drove the entire conversation; the

setbacks drove the number of parking spaces available; drove the look within the community;

drove where the master plan went; and she was opposed to the process.

Commissioner Martin agreed; the community engagement had been less than nil from the

beginning and the Church had stated its Mission was having community involvement and

engagement and she didn’t see where they had fulfilled that Mission with the surrounding

neighbors, in her opinion; she didn’t like the setback or the design; if she would vote on a design

it would be the first one that was presented. She wasn’t in favor of it because of lack of

community engagement with the surrounding neighbors.

Chairwoman Macy stated she was concerned with the setbacks; but she stated that creating the

facility for Catholic students which UMKC and Rockhurst were not supportive was a red flag for

her; also the facilities would just be used for the people that lived there; she understood that was

what had to be done for the financing of the project, but the testimony they heard from the

people that were for the project asked for them to provide space for which they could have,

serve, study and be together and if they didn’t live there, there wasn’t going to be an opportunity

for that; to her, the Mission which was stated by the people that wanted it, it didn’t meet what the

people who were for stated that they needed. Parking was another issue; she felt like if they did

approve the plan it would be difficult for the people that attended the Church to have parking for

funerals, for anything other than Saturday and Sunday services with the students that would be

parked there; she thought it would be intruding on the neighborhood and she felt she would be

remiss by adding that burden on the neighborhood. Lastly, the engagement that had taken place,

she specifically asked certain questions, because the previous two times that the Diocese had

come before them, the Commission had specifically asked that they go back out into the

community and engage the community; she realized it was a new case and they had to look at it


objectively, but she didn’t feel like they had engaged the community; for that she would have to

vote on denial of the project.

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to DENY Case No. 249-

S-13.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to DENY Case No.

14296-MPD-2.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

RE: Case No. 12202-SU-2

APPLICANT: Dan Braik



Columbia, MO 65201

AGENT: Matthew Hunt



Columbia, MO 65201

OWNER: Kevin J. Slyester

1609 Crystal Ave


LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 40 and

Manchester Trfy.

REQUESTS: To consider approval of a special use permit in District M1-5

(Manufacturing 1 (dash 5)) to allow for a general recycling service

use and any necessary variances.


Ms. Binckley, Assistant Secretary stated the applicant had been there earlier and was willing to

come back but would agree to a continuance to the April 7, 2015 meeting date without fee.

Chairwoman Macy asked if there was any one in the audience; there was no one to oppose this

matter.

Vice Chair Archie moved and Commissioner May seconded the motion to CONTINUE Case

No. 12202-SU-2 to April 7, 2015 without fee (No Testimony – No Set Quorum).

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

OTHER MATTERS:

Approval of minutes from the February 17, 2015 meeting date; Vice Chair Archie moved and

Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to approve the minutes from these meetings.

Motion carried 6-0


VOTING NAY: None

ABSENT: Gutierrez

There being no further business, Chairwoman Macy adjourned the meeting at 1:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane M. Binckley, AICP

Assistant Secretary

APPROVED:

______________________

Babette Macy, Chairwoman

minutes of the meeting of the city plan … · materials onto the site. (ifc2000:§1412.4; nfpa...

Documents