This property has been zoned C-2 (General Commercial) since 1965. The lot was developed with a 12-unit, colonial-style, office building in the 1970’s.
PROPOSAL:
Matt Turnbough & Monte Nordeen intend to convert the underutilized office building located at 420 S. Main Street into a multiple-family structure. The project would eliminate a commercial lot on a block that is mostly commercial or industrial in use. Its redevelopment would renovate a vacant property providing 12 apartment units located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Elm Street.
The apartments would be one or two bedrooms and rent for between $825 and $1,100 per month. Each unit would have individual electrical meters.
Six-foot tall decorative, opaque fences along the south and west property lines and adjacent to the Pergola. Further, landscaping would buffer the building from the industrial uses to the west.
Improvements would include resurfacing the parking lot and adding green spaces with plantings (including in islands and endcaps). Architectural elements added would include a dark roof, façades repainted white, wrought iron accents and antique gas lights. The renovated building would also have magnetic security doors and units with individual laundry hook-ups.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY:
The office building is a red brick, colonial-like structure with two-floors of tenant spaces (some with their own exterior doors). The office building is arranged with six-units on the bottom and six-units on the top.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA:
Underutilized industrial properties lie to the west and a union hall lies to the north. All the buildings were built in recent decades. To the east and south are single-family residences, most in generally good repair and attractive. They include a mixture of late nineteenth, early twentieth and mid-twentieth century construction.
Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
An objective of the City’s Strategic Plan is, ‘Building new housing units to fill a market need.’
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles:
The Plan recommends these two properties for Residential Urban Neighborhoods. Those are residential areas with nearby neighborhood retail that includes a mix of housing that provide for a diverse range of housing types. This property is adjacent to the South Main neighborhood. A few years ago, the City approved a rezoning for South Main area. This rezoning changed the zoning classification from R-12 and R-18 to R-6. The neighborhood is predominately single-family homes with a few churches and duplex and/or multifamily units sprinkled within the neighborhood.
The South Main neighborhood is identified in the Historic Preservation Master Plan. The South Main Neighborhood was originally made up of stately homes and large lots owned by Independence professionals and business owners, many of whom worked on the Independence Square. Several of these grand dwellings are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Properties at the northernmost and southernmost ends of the South Main Neighborhood have suffered the most from demolition, questionable alterations, and inappropriate infill.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for infill activity that should blend with the character of the existing neighborhood. The proposed zoning change with its redevelopment improvements could be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Sub-Area Plans:
The site is not located within any sub-area plan areas.
Zoning:
The proposed R-18/PUD (Moderate Density Residential/Planned Unit Development) zoning classification allows for two-family and multiple-family dwellings and various other uses (schools, churches, government facilities, cemeteries, home-based daycare, agriculture and others with conditions). Currently, the tract is zoned C-2 (General Commercial) which allows for retail, office, restaurants, banks, business and personal improvement services, hotels, construction services, daycare centers, nursing homes, government facilities, churches, employment agencies, funeral and interment services, schools, colleges and universities, veterinary and animal boarding services, sports and entertainment facilities, medical services, repair services and crop agriculture.
Historic and Archeological Sites:
There are no apparent historic/archeological issues with this property.
Floodplain/Stream Buffer:
There is not a floodplain or Stream Buffer zone present on the property.
Public Utilities:
All utility services are adjacent to the property and are operational.
Landscaping:
The office building and its front and rear parking lot set against the southern property line, so most of the existing green space, including existing trees, lie on the northern side of the lot.
The applicant proposes to add a new six-foot opaque fence dividing the subject property from the single-family properties to the south. The same style of fencing will provide a degree of privacy from the commercial structures to the north. The front parking lot will be redefined with additional landscaping islands, an additional street tree, and a monument sign.
Also proposed on the preliminary development plan is a strip of landscaping along the length of the rear (west) parking lot that softens the existing masonry walls that belongs to the industrial properties to the west. To the north and to the rear of the property, the trash enclosure with landscaping and with a roof and cupola to match the rebuilt one on the main structure. A new feature includes the barbecue/picnic area designed to accommodate the rental occupants in a landscaped open area near a grove of large trees. At the final development plan stage staff will ensure compliance with the UDO’s landscaping requirements.
Parking:
More than twice as many parking spaces will be provided than is required by the Code. The parking lot is to be resurfaced and striped. Total parking is to be twenty-seven spaces that includes two handicapped spaces. This is more than two per unit.
Amenities:
A pergola will be constructed in the green space north of the north parking row to be a gathering place for residents.
Public Improvements:
No public improvements would be required.
CIP Investments:
The City does not have any capital improvements planned near this site.
Recommendations and decisions for proposed planned unit development rezoning and its accompanying preliminary development plan must be based on consideration of the criteria listed in Section 14-703-05-H:
1. Conformance of the requested zoning with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions Residential Urban Neighborhood use for this area. The Plan calls for infill activity that should blend with the character of the existing neighborhood;
2. Conformance of the requested zoning with any adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans in which the property is located or abuts.
The site is not located within any sub-area plan area;
3. The compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning and use of nearby property, including any overlay zoning.
This site abuts single-family zonings and uses to the south and east, commercial zonings and uses to the north and industrial zonings and uses to the west;
4. The compatibility of the proposed zoning and allowed uses with the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed zoning change with its redevelopment plan, could be an improvement to the neighborhood.
5. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the existing zoning regulations.
The existing zoning is appropriate for the Square area, but it is not located along a high-traffic commercial street;
6. The length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned.
This office building has been underutilized for many years;
7. The extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Residential Urban Neighborhood land use category;
8. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety, and welfare due to denial of the application, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application.
If the rezoning is denied, the owner may have difficulty leasing the space for office use.
Planning Commission minutes from December 13, 2022:
"Case 22-100-22 – Rezoning/PUD – 420 S. Main Street
Staff Presentation
Brian Harker presented the case. Mr. Harker 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. Harker stated staff does not recommend approval of this application, but if approved, staff would recommend the following conditions be placed on the application:
1. That the submitted site plan be revised to include more plantings in a number and manner as prescribed by Code;
2. That a landscaped buffer and screen be provided along the south property line per Code;
3. That a masonry trash enclosure be provided somewhere north or west of the building.
Commissioner Michell asked why City staff is not in favor of this application. Mr. Harker stated staff believes this application is lacking some important details and not enough information was provided to recommend approval.
Applicant Comments
Montague “Monte” Nordeen, 509 NW Fairway Dr, Blue Springs, provided a packet of information to the Commissioners. He provided a brief history of the property and stated they would like to turn this into four 2-bedroom units and eight 1-bedroom units. Mr. Nordeen stated he provided the Commission of some recently rehabbed units that his company has completed. He said they plan to complete quality renovations to these units to create great living spaces. They will add a fence to provide a buffer to the single-family homes, the parking lot will be refinished, a trash enclosure will be added, and they will add landscaping as requested and required by the City. Mr. Nordeen stated the purchase and renovation of this property will be around $650,000 and take 8 to 12 months to complete. Rent will be between $900 and $1100. Mr. Nordeen stated they met with the South Main Community Group and have gained their support for this project. They’ve also received support from the Independence Economic Development Council and Independence Square Association.
In response to Commissioner L. Wiley’s question, Mr. Nordeen stated they expect the 1-bedroom units to be approximately 700 square feet and the 2-bedroom units would be approximately 850 square feet. He said the entire building is 8,000 square feet. Mr. Nordeen said this building is already sectioned into 12 office units.
Chairwoman McClain stated she’s concerned about the exterior of the building and keeping the quality of that neighborhood. She said she doesn’t feel she has enough information to know if this plan is fit for the neighborhood.
Mr. Nordeen reviewed the outside improvements, including resurfacing the parking lot, additional landscaping and replacing all the windows. He said the brick will be painted white and the windows and railing will be painted black. Mr. Nordeen said they haven’t brough in an architect yet because they aren’t at that stage in the process. Mr. Nordeen said they plan to have laundry facilities in each apartment as an amenity.
Commissioner Nesbitt questioned how an 8,000 square foot building can hold twelve 700-850 square foot units. He noted the math doesn’t add up. Commissioner Nesbitt questioned if the electrical service could handle each unit having its own laundry and heating/cooling units. He said he would like to see better drawings before an informed decision can be made. Mr. Nordeen noted they don’t own the property yet and it would be expensive to have architectural drawings made. Mr. Nordeen said the heating/cooling will be mini units that don’t require duct work. He noted there are already 12 electrical meters for the building. Mr. Harker stated full architectural drawings are not required, but a more complete set of plans and drawings would be helpful when determining if staff would recommend approval of a project.
Commissioner Preston also questioned how twelve 700-850 square foot units could fit in an 8,000 square foot building. Mr. Nordeen apologized and stated he misspoke. He said he believes the 1-bedroom units would be closer to 600 square feet. Commissioner Preston stated he is disappointed and hopes the applicant can provide additional information before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation.
Commissioner L. Wiley said she’s a potential renter but doesn’t believe there’s enough information submitted to make an informed decision.
Public Comments
Robyn Mun, 500 S. Main Street, stated she’s in favor of this rezoning. She would appreciate having a 6-foot fence added for separation from the single-family houses. Ms. Mun said she currently oversees this property and has to contact the owner when problems arise. She noted initially she and her husband were against this project, but after talking with Mr. Nordeen, she believes this is a good project and will improve the neighborhood.
Colleen Huff, 717 S. Willis Ave, said it’s currently an eyesore for the neighborhood. She said this would be a good project and will support people that want to invest in the city.
Muriel Luedeman, 620 S. Main Street, stated she would like to see Main Street have curbs. She noted visitors go by this property all the time and it’s an eyesore. Ms. Luedeman said she’s in favor of this project and she would like to see a more complete plan for the property. She noted Mr. Nordeen represents a local company and she appreciates that they met with the neighborhood before this application came before the Planning Commission.
Barbara Taylor, 524 S. Liberty, stated she lives in a small apartment on the square. She said she’s seen the work of Summit Holdings and believes they do great renovations. Ms. Taylor believes this is a great project and she believes Summit Holdings is the right company to see the project through.
Maria Vargas, 713 S. Willis Avenue, stated she believes this is a good project and will provide a great opportunity to bring more residents to the Independence Square.
Mark Ransom, 2300 S. Old Mill Avenue, stated he and his siblings inherited this property from their father. He said his father couldn’t keep up with the maintenance the building required. Mr. Ransom stated he believes this will be a good project for this building and will fit in with the neighborhood.
After discussion with the Commissioners, the applicant stated he believes he could get staff updated plans and documents two weeks before the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. The Commissioners reviewed the details they hope to review.
Motion
Commissioner Nesbitt made a motion to continue Case 22-100-22 – Rezoning/PUD – 420 S. Main Street to the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Preston seconded the motion. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes."
Draft Planning Commission minutes from January 24, 2023:
"Continued Case 22-100-22 – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan – 420 S. Main Street
Staff Presentation
Brian Harker presented the case and noted updated from when the case was first heard before the Planning Commission on December 13, 2022. Mr. Harker 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. Harker noted staff recommends approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with the following conditions:
1. The development shall be in accordance with the Preliminary Development Plan dated January 5, 2023; and,
2. That the applicant obtains all appropriate building permits required by City Code.
In response to Vice-Chair Preston’s question, Assistant City Attorney Rich Wood stated that the Review Criteria states that the plan has to be consistent with the PUD standards in Section 14-902. Within that City Code, it states that the plan has to be conveniently, efficiently and economically served by existing and planned utilities and services. Mr. Wood stated utilities are something the Planning Commission can take into account when rending their recommendation.
Applicant Comments
Montague Nordeen, 509 NW Fairway Drive, Blue Springs, stated he’s under contract to purchase the property, which has been sitting vacant for some time. He reviewed their plans and noted there will be a new six-foot opaque fence to help screen the property from the commercial, industrial, and single-family residential properties nearby. Mr. Nordeen reviewed the landscape and parking lot plan. He said they will have a nice trash enclosure and they’ve added a barbeque picnic area.
Jim Gamble, 3500 S. Mize Ridge Court, stated he is the architect for this project. He showed the commission a rendering and reviewed the project. Mr. Gamble noted all new windows will be installed, the guardrail on the front is not up to code, so it will come down a new one installed.
Vice-Chair Preston asked Mr. Gamble to talk about the utilities. Mr. Gamble stated there are already 13 meters in the back and the electricity use should be similar to the office use that was previously there. He said the water and sewage lines should be big enough to handle the new residential use.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Harker stated the number of handicapped parking spaces is determined by the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Gamble noted they have exceeded the number of parking spaces required for the project.
Public Comments
No public comments.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner H. Wiley stated she likes the rendering and believes this will be a great project for the area.
Commissioner L. Wiley said she appreciated that the applicant listened to the items the Planning Commission wanted to see before making a recommendation on this project. She stated she is also excited for this project.
Chairwoman McClain stated this updated plan has exceeded her expectations and she’s glad this project will be moving forward.
Motion
Commissioner Nesbitt made a motion to approve Case 22-100-22 – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan – 420 S. Main Street, with recommendations and outlined by staff. Commissioner H. Wiley seconded the motion. The motion passed with five affirmative votes."