For many years, a plumbing business operated at this location. However, the business has since closed, and the current owner is seeking to sell the property. Staff was contacted by the listing real estate agent with inquiries regarding allowed uses in C-1 zones. As explained to staff, the agent found a buyer that intends to operate a pest control and extermination business on the site. However, this is not an allowed use in C-1 districts. This type of business is considered to be “building maintenance services” and is explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of the UDO. Building maintenance services are only allowed in C-2 (General Commercial) and C-3 (Service Commercial) zones. The applicant, who has worked closely with the listing agent, is requesting this property be rezoned to C-2 to accommodate this buyer.
PROPERTY HISTORY:
This property was plated as Lot 1 of the Kentucky Hills Plat in 1957. It is the only lot of this plat to have frontage on Liberty Street. It’s irregular shape and larger size suggest that it was not intended to be used as a residential property, like the rest of the plated lots. When the City introduced zoning in 1965, this property was designated C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). Through the changes to the City’s zoning ordinances in 1980 and 2009, this property has retained its original designation and has been zoned C-1 for 58 years.
The date of the existing building is difficult to determine. However, aerial imagery from 1969 clearly shows the existing building, the large, paved area surrounding the building, and the open space that lies on the northern half of the property. Comparing this imagery to aerial photographs taken earlier this year, the property seems to have changed relatively little in more than a half-century. This property has surely had varying uses over the years. Most recently a plumbing business had been operating on the property. The property is currently vacant and waiting sale.
To the north of the subject property lies a church. Prior to 2022, the church property and the subject property shared a property line that ran diagonally to the northwest from the street right of way. For many years the church parking lot had encroached onto the subject property. In October of 2022, the church gained ownership of the northern “triangle” portion of the subject property, through the use of adverse possession. Now, the subject property is roughly rectangular in shape.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY:
The northern half of the property is open space that has never been developed and has the appearance of a vacant lot. The entirety of the remaining southern half is paved and impervious surface. A building sits in the middle of the paved portion of the lot, roughly equidistant from Liberty Street and Colonel Drive. The primary part of the building is square, with a flat roof and currently painted grey. The door to the building faces Liberty Street. Attached to the northwest part of the primary building is a taller section with two garage doors; one faces Liberty Street, while the other faces Colonel Drive.
The property abuts several single-family residential properties on its west side. Each of these yards is fenced in by a chain-link fence. The subject property itself does not have any fencing to screen the commercial activity and use on the property.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA:
Directly to east of the property, across Liberty Street, lies two large lots with single-family residences on them. South of these two lots is a large, wooded area that has remained undeveloped. Beyond the church that lies to the north, are more single-family homes. To the northeast of the property, on the east side of Liberty Street is Mill Creek Elementary, which is in the Independence School district. The areas to the west of the property are dominated by single-family residences. Directly to the south, across Colonel Drive sits a utility structure, owned by the City. The property on which the utility structure sits is also zoned C-1. Further to the south lies another commercial property that is zoned C-2, but currently is not occupied and sits vacant. The other properties to the south, along Liberty Street are single-family homes.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant, on behalf of the owner, seeks to have this property rezoned, and its use expanded, so that it can be sold to a specific buyer, seeking to operate a pest control and extermination business on the property. This would require the property to be rezoned from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial).
ANALYSIS:
Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
Rezoning these properties would not be consistent with the Independence for All, Strategic Plan. Although the strategic plan outlines goals to reduce blight and grow local business, this should be done in such a way that is compatible with the Comprehensive plan. Another goal outlined in the Strategic plan is to “stabilize and revitalized neighborhoods.” Allowing a heavier commercial use, intended to provide community-wide and regional service, in a single-family residential neighborhood will not provide stabilization. If a heavier commercial use is allowed, it will begin to alter the fundamental character of the area.
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles:
The Comprehensive plan envisions the future land use of this property and the surrounding area to be residential neighborhoods. The Plan provides for commercial uses in neighborhood environments by stating, “Neighborhood serving commercial developments, parks, and civic uses are also common in neighborhoods. The character of existing neighborhoods should be protected when new development is proposed in order to preserve the quality of life for the existing residents. Although, in terms of construction, this is not a new development, the spirit of the statement in the comprehensive plan applies to this situation.
The Comprehensive plan puts a focus on “small-scale retail” integrated into “self-sufficient neighborhoods.” A heavier commercial use intended for a community-wide and regional service area is not compatible with type of commercial suggested for residential areas. The existing zoning designation of C-1 is more in line with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning:
Section 14-301-02-D of the Unified Development Ordinance defines C-2 districts as being “primarily intended to accommodate community and region-serving retail sales and service uses.” Allowing heavier commercial use at this location may have a negative effect on nearby residents and alter the character of the surrounding residentially zoned area.
Historic and Archeological Sites:
There are no apparent historic or archeological sites located on the property.
Public Utilities:
All utilities are present in the adjacent rights-of-way.
CIP Investments:
Currently there are no CIP investments in this area.
REVIEW CRITERIA:
Recommendations and decisions on rezoning applications must be based on consideration of all of the following criteria:
1. Conformance of the requested zoning with the comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions this area to be Residential Neighborhoods.
2. Conformance of the requested zoning with any adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans in which the property is located or abuts.
There are no recent neighborhood or sub-area plans for this area.
3. The compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning and use of the nearby property, including any overlay zoning.
The surrounding area is almost entirely zoned for single-family residences, which is the predominant use for the area. The proximity to residential properties, in addition to the lack of other commercial properties, makes a C-2 Zone incompatible with the area and undesirable for this site.
4. The compatibility of the proposed zoning and allowed uses with the character of the neighborhood.
The existing character of the neighborhood is that of a single-family residential neighborhood. A C-2 zoning that allows for heavier commercial use may negatively alter this established character.
5. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the existing zoning regulations.
The existing building is relatively small for a commercial building. Some types of uses allowed in C-2 zones may not be suited for this property.
6. The length of time the subject properties have remained vacant as zoned.
The property has remained vacant and been for sale for several months.
7. The extent of which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties.
Allowing heavier commercial use at this location may have a negative effect on nearby residents and alter the character of the surrounding residential area.
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.
Denial of the application would keep the type of uses allowed on this property in line with the proposed future land use of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan places emphasis on walkability and neighborhood commercial where applicable. General Commercial may decrease the walkability of the neighborhood if the volume of traffic increases.
If the application is denied, the pool of potential commercial buyers may be limited. However, the property owner is still allowed to operate permitted businesses or to sell the property to an interested buyer.
Draft Planning Commission minutes:
"Case 23-100-24 – Rezoning – 2500 N. Liberty Street
Staff Presentation
Joshua Garrett presented the case. Mr. Garrett 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.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Garrett explained that pest control and plumbing are two separate uses that are specifically outlined in the UDO. Mr. Garrett said while personally he agrees that the two uses are similar, the UDO is specific and does separate them into different use categories.
Commissioner Preston stated he takes exception to staff stating their personal opinion and does not agree that the two uses are similar in any way.
City Attorney Jeremy Cover requested a short recess.
Chairwoman McClain called for a five-minute recess at 7:12 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:16 p.m.
Applicant Comments
Tim Bosler, 1303 Swift, North Kansas City, stated he represents the seller of the property. Mr. Bosler said this business will just be a point for customers to pick up product. He stated this business will be run very similar to the plumbing business that was in there formerly. Mr. Bosler noted there is C-2 property across the street.
Jason Smith, 3908 N. Union Street, stated this would be a place for his business to store product and noted all the chemicals are under lock and key per EPA regulations. He said employees take their trucks home, so there would not be vehicles left on the property. Mr. Smith reviewed some of the building improvements that need made.
Lindsay Vogt, 7014 NW Kearnes Drive, Parkville, stated she doesn’t believe C-2 is out of character for the neighborhood since there is C-2 zoning just to the south of this property.
Public Comments
Jana Evans, 3403 Delaware, said they were told in the past this property could not have a fence. She stated she is the president of the Kentucky Hills homeowner association, and the neighborhood is not in favor of this rezoning. Ms. Evans noted there are significant traffic concerns around this neighborhood already. She said this rezoning only benefits the seller and this deal could fall through which would leave them with a higher density zoning than what fits in their neighborhood. Ms. Evans stated the neighborhood has concerns about increased truck traffic, noise, and that their home values could go down with this rezoning. She presented the commission with pictures and information on the school pickup issues. Ms. Evans said there is no cross guard to help students across the busy street. She noted some of the surrounding property owners did not get a notification letter.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Garrett explained that he uses ArcGIS to get the list of properties within 185-feet for notification. He said letters were sent to those properties based on the information from Jackson County.
Diana Dewitt, 306 W 28th St N, stated her big concern is about the storage and disposal of the pesticides and chemicals. She noted this property backs up to several residential houses where kids play in the backyard.
Ross Jameson, 301 W Colonel Dr, stated he’s also against this rezoning due to the number of children that come and go around this property due to the proximity of the elementary school. He said he’s also concerned about the chemicals that will be stored so close to residential properties.
Evelyn Bray, 500 W Colonel Dr, stated she believes the building and lot are too small for a business of this nature. Ms. Bray also questioned what would happen if there was a chemical spill and expressed concern that they may go into the nearby creek.
Pastor Williams, Bible Fellowship Church, 2502 N Liberty St, restated the concerns about children walking in the area. Mr. Williams said he’s also concerned about the chemicals being so close to residential and a school.
Mary Jameson, 301 W Colonel Dr, said she also agrees with the other speakers. She said this is a quiet residential neighborhood and they’d like to remain so. Ms. Jameson stated this business would not add value to their neighborhood.
Mr. Smith stated he’s inspected often by the Department of Agriculture, who ensures they’re following all the safety regulations. He noted there are procedures in place if a spill did happen, they could prevent runoff. He said the chemicals they store, and use are general use and the same ingredients can be found in laundry detergent that everyone uses. Mr. Smith noted they only have three trucks that would come and go from the building.
Mr. Bosler noted the traffic issue is a known issue for their neighborhood, but this business would not be causing additional traffic. There would only be a few trucks coming and going from the business each week, not every day. He noted this business plans to improve the neighborhood by adding landscaping and improving the building.
Ms. Vogt noted a lot of permitted uses under C-1 would generate a lot more traffic for this building than the proposed business.
Ms. Evans stated the big concern of the neighborhood is that the C-2 use may work for this business, but if they go out of business, there are a lot of businesses that could then go into this property without more review. Ms. Evans reviewed the history of the commercial property in the area and reiterated this is a quiet neighborhood and they’d like to remain as such.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Nesbitt stated he agrees with the residents, that while the business might be good, the C-2 zoning for this property is not the best use.
Commissioner Preston said property owners should have a say in the types of zoning allowed in their neighborhood. He said he agrees with the residents that this should not be approved.
Motion
Commissioner Nesbitt made a motion to approve Case 23-100-24 – Rezoning – 2500 N. Liberty Street. Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion failed with zero affirmative votes."