After acquiring this lot on Englewood Terrace a few years ago, the Center for the Developmentally Disabled (hereafter CDD) now plans to construct a two family dwelling (duplex) on the site to rent to lower income individuals with disabilities. The building will contain 3,100 square feet divided into two mirror image dwelling units. Each unit will feature three bedrooms, two baths, a kitchen and dining room with an occupancy for three tenants.
Building Design and Materials:
This proposed duplex is a single story structure constructed on a concrete slab foundation; the building’s height being 16 feet to the ridge line. Arches are featured on the front façade covering the two front doors of the units with a larger arch over the central drop-off/pick-up area. Horizontal painted wood lap siding comprises the front elevation; the siding rotates to vertical on the sides and rear of the building.
Access and Parking:
Access and parking are provided via a half-circle drive in front of the building for drop-off/pick-up; as the tenants don’t drive, transportation is provided by a mini-bus service. Three parking spaces are provided for personal care assistants and tenant guests.
The provided landscape plan shows three trees planted in the front yard along S. Englewood Terrace with the entire lot sod covered.
Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
This project helps to fill a need within the community for this type of housing.
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles:
The project promotes a diverse mix of residents and housing types in this neighborhood.
Recommendations and decisions on preliminary development plans must be based on consideration of all of the following criteria:
1. The consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions the subject property for ‘Residential Neighborhood’.
2. The consistency with the PUD standards of section 14-902, including the statement of purpose.
Besides providing a public benefit, the project is an attractive residential building and is economically served by existing utilities.
3. The nature and extent of Common Open Space in the PUD.
This small project doesn’t feature actual ‘open space’ but traditional yards typically found with single- and two-family homes, which will be maintained by the CDD.
4. The reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of Common Open Space.
The CDD will maintain the yards and all exterior portions of the building.
5. The adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of Common Open Space in terms of the densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan.
Considering this project includes a single residential lot for a two family dwelling, the amount of open space provided via front, sides, and rear yards is functional and adequate.
6. The extent to which the proposed use will adversley affect the capacity of safety portions of the street network or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. Whether adequate provisions for public services, provides adequate control over vehicular traffic, and furthers the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.
There is adequate public utilities services available for this project. As the tenants don’t don’t operate vehicles, traffic will be sporatic.
7. The extent to which the proposed use will have a substantially adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.
Sited in an area just west of Sterling Avenue which already contains a combination of duplexes, single family homes, and an apartment building, its not expected that this project will have an adverse effect on the neighboring properties.
8. Whether potential adverse impacts have been mitigated to the maximum practical extent.
By constructing a duplex style home already prevalent in the area, using the existing public infrastructure, and having minimal traffic impacts, the project has mitigated adverse impacts as much as possible.
9. Whether the Preliminary Development Plan represents such a unique development proposal that it could not have accomplished through use of (non-PUD) conventional zoning regulations.
This project could have been completed as typical duplex on a R-12 (Two Family Residential) non-PUD property but this property was already zoned R-18/PUD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development) prior to acquisition by the CDD.
10. The sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect the interest of the public and the residents of the PUD in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years.
Being a single two family structure on an existing lot, it is being constructed in a single phase.
Planning Commission Action: At its June 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the motion for approval with the above conditions, passed 7-0, after consideration of the following facts:
- That, the Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the review criteria listed in Section 14-703-05-H of the City Code.
- That, a public hearing was held pursuant to a notice duly published according to law, at which time all interested parties were given the full opportunity to be heard.
- That, the project is a two family dwelling which will ultimately house three developmental disabled tenants in each unit.
- That the building will contain 3,100 SF divided into two mirror units, each with three bedrooms.
- That the owner, the Center for the Developmentally Disabled (CDD), owns and operates multiple housing units in the metro area, this would be its second duplex project.
- That, during the Planning Commission hearing, the owners and the owner’s agent spoke in favor of the application, and no one spoke against the proposed plan.
Draft Planning Commission minutes:
"Case 20-810-01 – Preliminary Development Plan - 2740 S. Englewood Terrace
Stuart Borders presented the case. Mr. Borders presented the Commission with a vicinity map, noting the area and surrounding zoning. He presented the Commission with an aerial map indicating the project area and explained the surrounding land uses. Mr. Borders outlined two conditions, including the addition of brick to the front façade and adding a shade tree to the rear yard.
Commissioner Preston clarified that staff recommends the stone on the front columns must be brick. Mr. Borders confirmed staff recommends the stone be changed to brick.
Andy Gabbert, 8653 Penrose Lane, Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting, stated they agree with the conditions required by the City. He stated he believes this is a good use for this lot and it fits the neighborhood.
Sarah Mudd, 9150 E. 41st Terrace, Kansas City, MO, stated they chose a duplex because it can house more and it fits the neighborhood.
In response to Chairman Ashbaugh’s question, Ms. Mudd stated they have 45 locations in Jackson County. She stated they have four apartment complexes and several larger group homes.
In response to Commissioner Weir’s question, Ms. Mudd stated there will be one person per bedroom in each side of the duplex.
Steven Henderson, 1734 E 63rd Street, Suite 414, Kansas City, MO
Commissioner Ferguson asked how many bedrooms are in each duplex. Mr. Gabbert stated there are three bedrooms in each duplex. Ms. Mudd said there will be six total tenants. She clarified there will be staff at the house, but it would be based on the needs of the residents and they would not be living at the duplex.
In response to Chairman Ashbaugh’s question, Ms. Mudd stated there will be a separate lease for each bedroom. Ms. Mudd stated they have clients on both ends of the spectrum, those that need a lot of help and those that are mostly self-sufficient.
No public comments.
Commissioner Wiley stated she is excited about this project and believes this is a great use for this property.
Commissioner Preston stated he is also happy to see this project come to Independence.
Commissioner Preston made a motion to approve Case 20-810-01 – Preliminary Development Plan – 2740 and 2742 S. Englewood Terrace, with recommendations as presented by staff. Commissioner Dreher seconded the motion. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes."