Urban Planning and Land Use
701 North 7th Street, Room 423
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (913) 573-5750
Fax: (913) 573-5796
www.wycokck.org/planning
To:
Unified Government Board of Commissioners
From:
City Staff
Date:
January 26, 2012
Re:
Change of Zone Petition #3025 (120005)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Pang Fua Y. Xiong
Status of Applicant:
Applicant
Mighty Auto Sales
1009 S 12th Street
Kansas City, KS 66105
Requested Actions:
Change of Zone from C-1
Limited Business District to
CP-2 Planned General
Business District
Date of Application:
November 28, 2011
Purpose:
To open a used car lot with
limited auto repair.
Property Location:
6005 Leavenworth Road
#3025
January 26, 2012
1
Existing Zoning: C-1 Limited Business District
Existing Surrounding Zoning: North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Uses: North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1 Limited Business District
C-1 Limited Business District
C-1 Limited Business District
C-1 Limited Business District
A Shopping Center
Vacant
Commercial Use
Commercial Use
Neighborhood Characteristics: The neighborhood is mostly commercial in nature.
Total Tract Size: 0.35 acre
Master Plan Designation: The City-Wide Master Plan designates this property as
Commercial.
Major Street Plan: Leavenworth Road is designated as a Parkway
Advertisement:
The Wyandotte Echo – December 15, 2011
Letters to Property Owners – December 14, 2011 and January 12,
2012
Public Hearings:
January 9, 2012 and January 26, 2012
Public Opposition: The staff has received a letter in opposition. There were two (2)
persons that appeared in support of this application and one (1) person with questions
at the January 9, 2012 City Planning Commission meeting.
PROPOSAL
Detailed Outline of Requested Action: Pang Fua Y. Xiong with Mighty Auto Sales is
requesting a change of zone Change of Zone from C-1 Limited Business District to CP2 Planned General Business District. They intends on opening a used car lot that also
offers some minor auto repair.
City Ordinance Requirements: Article VIII Sections 27-340 – 27-765 and Article VII
Sections 27-245 – 27-339
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
1. Neighborhood character.
This is an older neighborhood that has developed with strip commercial along
Leavenworth Road.
#3025
January 26, 2012
2
2. The zoning and uses of properties nearby and the proposed use’s expected
compatibility with them.
The zoning of the nearby properties are set out above. With the proper site and
maintenance plan the proposal could be compatible.
3. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted.
Will removal of the restrictions detrimentally affect nearby property?
If properly managed and maintained, the proposed development would not have
a detrimental affect.
4. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned.
The property has been vacant since December 16, 2008.
5. The extent to which the proposed use is reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public and will not substantially or
permanently injure the appropriate use, visual quality or marketability of
nearby property.
The proposed use is not completely necessary for the convenience and welfare
of the public. It would just provide another option to purchase a used car. But,
with the proper site and maintenance plan, the proposal is not foreseen to have
the potential to substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use, visual
quality or marketability of nearby property.
6. The extent to which the proposed use would increase the traffic or parking
demand in ways that would adversely affect road capacity, safety, or create
parking problems.
The proposed development will have similar traffic generation numbers as the
previous developments that were once on this property. The streets are designed
to accommodate the need.
7. The degree of conformance of the proposed use to the Master Plan.
The proposed use does conform to the Master Plan.
8. The extent to which the proposed use could cause environmental harm or
enhance the environment.
With the proper disposal plans for tires, oil and other fluids, the proposed use will
not cause environmental harm to the environment.
9. The extent to which utilities and public services are available and adequate
to serve the proposed use.
a. Water service
#3025
January 26, 2012
3
Available
b. Sanitary sewer service
Available
c. Storm water control
To be designed to meet City code
d. Police
Police service is provided by East Patrol, District #444
e. Fire
Fire service is provided by Station #18.
f. Transit
Kansas City ATA provides transit service near this property, along
Leavenworth Road, Route #113.
g. Schools
KCK USD 500
h. Streets
See item #6 above
10. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community.
The economic impact of the proposed use on the community will be minimal.
11. The capability of the proposed use to meet applicable ordinance
requirements.
The proposed use is capable of meeting applicable ordinance requirements.
12. The relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare as compared to
the hardship imposed on the individual landowner or landowners.
See #2 and #5 above.
#3025
January 26, 2012
4
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 24, 2011. Six people were in
attendance.
KEY ISSUES
Property History
Potential Code and Maintenance Issues, Parking and Removal of Automotive Waste
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 10 to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone
Application #3025, subject to:
Urban Planning and Land Use Comments:
Property History
This property is another in the long line of old three pump, two garage bay gas
stations that are struggling to find a new use. To give a little history, the C-1
zoning code has allowed these types of stations for many decades. Over time,
customer preferences have changed to prefer the larger convenience store. This
left older stations like this obsolete. This situation leaves many cities with the
dilemma of what to do with these sites. The approach that planning staff has
taken is one that asks the potential business to provide operational details that
will assure that negative impacts will not occur.
Through our best research we found that this particular property was a gas
station until some time in the late 1960s early 1970s. Then in 1978 a used car
dealership named Johnson Motors was in operation. We also believe that the
dealer uses the garage bays for minor maintenance of the cars. In the 1980s the
city ordinance changed and repairing cars were no longer a permitted use in C-1.
This change made the used car dealer with repair a non-conforming use
(grandfathering). The non-conformity remained until the last user (Cars 4 less)
vacated the property on December 16, 2008. It remained vacant and had no action
until the applicant requested a business license late this summer. Planning staff
denied that request because the non-conforming use was discontinued for more
than two years. Per Sec 27-388(2)b. of the code a non-conforming use must
conform after a period of 24 months. That is what brings the case forward today.
Potential Code and Maintenance Issues, Parking and Removal of Automotive
Waste
This proposal is on a small piece of property, when compared to some other used
car lots. This brings up concern because there are some issues that are inherent
to used car lots with auto repair. More specifically, these uses have large items
(cars, used oil, tires etc) that must be stored. They often begin as a clean site and
#3025
January 26, 2012
5
then grow into an unsightly stock pile of junk. The lack of a proper maintenance
and management plan has been the Achilles' heel of most applicants that have
applied.
To make sure that the applicant is planning to manage the site properly, we are
asking that they address the statements listed below:
1.
The current parking configuration proposes parking 2 cars on gravel lots.
Per code gravel is not allowed. The applicant can either remove those
spaces or pave them appropriately.
2.
Tandem parking or double parking will not be permitted for unoccupied
cars.
3.
Based on the square footage of the building (approximately 1,500 square
feet), six (6) parking spaces are required for customers. We are requesting
that the applicant identify the spaces that are reserved for customers.
4.
What services are going to be provided at the auto repair business?
5.
Are you permitting vehicles to be parked in the parking lot overnight?
6.
All parking lot spaces will need to be striped.
7.
One space shall be ADA compliant with a 5 foot stripped access aisle
adjacent to the accessible space.
8.
Sec. 27-467(6) state that any outside storage or keeping of parts,
equipment, inoperable vehicles or residual materials which is necessary,
normally related and accessory to the principle use of the premises shall
be screened from view from off the premises. Such outside storage shall
be limited to areas directly adjacent to the main building, not including
more than 20 percent of the area of the main building and not in a required
yard. The submitted plan does not specify and area for storage. Where will
the materials such as spent oil, used tires and auto parts be stored.
9.
We are asking that no inoperable vehicles or wrecked vehicles may be
parked outside overnight.
10.
Banners are not allowed to be hung from the building or on the structure of
the outdoor eating area. Attention attracting devices such as streamers,
pennants, inflatable’s, and wind catchers are prohibited. The applicant is
still eligible to use these devices for special events on a temporary basis
by applying for a temporary banner permit.
Public Works Comments:
None
#3025
January 26, 2012
6
Applicants Response to Staff Comments:
#3025
January 26, 2012
7
#3025
January 26, 2012
8
#3025
January 26, 2012
9
Letter from Neighborhood Opposition
Staff Conclusion
After reviewing this case we believe that the crux of this case boils down to one
main issue - maintenance. The property was originally developed using an older
design style that packs a lot of development (building, pavement etc) on a small
piece of property. If not properly maintained, these smaller properties can
become eyesores, house vermin and become targets for crime. When we
compare staff’s original comments with the neighbor’s letter, we find that the
concern about maintenance is shared. But does this concern about maintenance
warrant a recommendation of denial. Staff does not believe so. We believe that
#3025
January 26, 2012
10
properties designed in this older style need good business owners in order to
become vibrant again. Unfortunately, and too often, the wrong types of owners
have not properly maintained sites like this throughout the city. What is even
more unfortunate is that adjacent neighbors would rather live with an empty
commercial building than deal with the issues of another bad business owner. On
a positive note, staff believes that there is a method to differentiate between good
owners and bad owners. That method is approval through a public hearing and
ideally rezoning to a planned district. The public hearing allows for neighbors to
voice their concerns to potential business owners and allow both parties to
discuss and resolve their issues. These solutions between the two parties often
become staff stipulations that are permanently tied to the property and are
transferred from owner to owner. If in the future, this or any future owner violates
the stipulations, plans and promises made on record, the city had a strong legal
foundation to remedy the situation through the legal system. As for this case, this
owner has worked diligently with staff to address the maintenance issue. They
have clearly spelled out how they will cleanly operate at this tight location. They
also are in agreement with all stipulation proposed. This willingness is rare and is
a sign that they are truly seeking to be a good corporate citizen. Staff
recommends approval with the following stipulations.
1.
Only employee vehicles that will be removed after closing can be parked
outside of the fenced area.
2.
Tandem parking or double parking will not be permitted for unoccupied
cars.
3.
Customer’s cars that are parked overnight should be kept at a minimum.
4.
All parking lot spaces will need to be striped before a business license will
be approved.
5.
Failure to comply with Sec. 27-467(6) will result in a citation from Code
Enforcement.
Sec. 27-467(6) state that any outside storage or keeping of parts,
equipment, inoperable vehicles or residual materials which is necessary,
normally related and accessory to the principle use of the premises shall
be screened from view from off the premises. Such outside storage shall
be limited to areas directly adjacent to the main building, not including
more than 20 percent of the area of the main building and not in a required
yard.
The applicant has addressed this issue in their response letter above.
6.
No inoperable vehicles or wrecked vehicles may be parked outside
overnight.
7.
Banners are not allowed to be hung from the building or fence. Attention
attracting devices such as streamers, pennants, inflatable’s, and wind
#3025
January 26, 2012
11
catchers are prohibited. The applicant is still eligible to use these devices
for special events on a temporary basis by applying for a temporary banner
permit.
STAFF COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
The staff concurs with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners concur with the findings contained
within the staff report related to Factors to be Considered and Key Issues and
recommends APPROVAL of Petition #3025 subject to all comments and suggestions
outlined in this staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
January 9, 2012 City Planning Commission Minutes
Zoning Map
Vicinity Map
Site Plans
Site Pictures
REVIEW OF INFORMATION AND SCHEDULE
Action
Planning Commission
Public Hearing January 9, 2012
Rezoning
Approval
STAFF CONTACT:
Board of Commissioners
January 26, 2012
J. Bradley Munford
[email protected]
MOTIONS
I move the Unified Government Board of Commissioners APPROVE Petition #3025, as
meeting all the requirements of the City code and being in the interest of the public
health, safety and welfare subject to such modifications as are necessary to resolve to
the satisfaction of City Staff all comments contained in the Staff Report; and the
following additional requirements:
1._________________________________________________________;
2. _____________________________________________________; And
3. ________________________________________________________.
OR
#3025
January 26, 2012
12
I move the Unified Government Board of Commissioners DENY Petition #3025, as it is
not in compliance with the City Ordinances and as it will not promote the public health,
safety and welfare of the City of Kansas City, Kansas; and other such reasons that have
been mentioned.
JANUARY 9, 2012 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
120005 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION #3025 – PANG FUA Y. XIONG WITH
MIGHTY AUTO SALES – SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from C-1 Limited Business
District to CP-2 Planned General Business District for a used car lot with light
repair/service work at 6005 Leavenworth Road.
Ms. Parker stated that the following items should be included as part of the record for
this case:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
The official zoning map for the area in question;
The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
The staff report and attachments dated January 9, 2012;
The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
The Notice in the Wyandotte Echo dated December 14, 2011;
The Notices to property owners dated December 15, 2011;
Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this case. (No one responded in the affirmative.)
Ms. Pang Fua Y. Xiong, 9102 West 92nd Street, Overland Park, Kansas, 66212,
applicant, appeared in support of this application. She stated that they want to open a
used car lot with light repair work. They have been in business for three (3) years now.
The business is operated by her and her husband, who is a certified Honda master
technician. They would like to expand their business. This property has been vacant for
several years and they think that they can make this property more attractive to the
neighborhood. They pride themselves in selling affordable, reliable used import
vehicles. They would like to expand their business to sell used vehicles and do light
repair work. Chairman Walden asked where their current business is located. Ms.
Xiong stated at 1009 South 12th Street, Kansas City, Kansas and they have been there
for 1 ½ years. Chairman Walden asked if they will keep that location. Ms. Xiong stated
that they will close that location.
Planning Commissioner Ellison asked if she said that it would be import service only or
would it be import and American service. Ms. Xiong stated that they pride themselves
in selling reliable import vehicles but they do have domestic vehicles as well so it will be
both but their main focus is import.
Planning Director Richardson asked if they have had any code violations at their current
location. Ms. Xiong stated no.
#3025
January 26, 2012
13
Ms. Lou Braswell, Director of Leavenworth Road Association, appeared in support of
this application. She stated the property owner has always kept this property up. It has
wrought iron fencing around it and she hopes that this applicant receives this change of
zone. Maybe it will entice some of the other car lots to spruce up their lots. Their
website is also very impressive and she has talked to the applicant. The hours that they
post, they want them to keep those hours as they have had problems in the past with
some businesses coming in and not keeping the hours that they have posted.
Chairman Walden asked about the lot to the east of this property (across the street).
Ms. Braswell stated that it looks like a salvage yard. That was the first thing that she
asked the applicant. The cars that they have on their website are very nice and
affordable.
Ms. Catherine Dodd, 6005 Leavenworth Road owner, appeared in support of this
application. She stated that she wants to sell the building to a reliable company. She
has been through a lot of people offering to purchase the building and right now the
applicant is most suitable. She had people that came to her about a liquor store, beauty
shop, etc. and she felt these were businesses that would not last. It has been a used
car lot for the past ten (10) years; she has been out of business for the last 1 ½.
Mr. Eric Meyer, 3027 North 60th Street, Kansas City, Kansas, appeared concerning this
application. He stated that he is really not opposed to them moving in there and doing
something with it because it is an eyesore. If they do move into the property, he hopes
it will not be like the one on the east side of the street. He is concerned about the two
(2) properties to the south. There are two (2) small sections of property there. If it has
already been a used car lot, why does the zoning need to be changed for the car lot
now? If the zoning is changed to CP-2, they could possibly purchase the small
properties in-between their houses and park cars there also. He does not feel that they
should be able to purchase those properties and move their business closer to their
front doors depreciating the home values and bringing the activities closer.
Planning Director Richardson stated that when this came into the city this was a “G”
category in the zoning ordinance. All those were converted to C-1 when they came into
the city. If the use that was there was not a C-1 use, it was allowed to continue as a
non-conforming use. This location did so for a period of time but then it did not apply for
a business license for two (2) years. After that two (2) year period, they lose their nonconforming status and had to rezone the property to get to that previous use. The
property to the south is zoned C-1 and they could buy the property and expand the
parking. There would be a significant setback required that would take most of that
land. They would have to put in a fence and landscaping, etc. If they were to put used
cars there, they would have to rezone that property to C-2. A parking lot would
theoretically be allowed, but he thinks that would be an expansion of the C-2 use and
the staff would make them rezone it before they would allow that construction permit to
go through. There would be another public process that they would have to go through
and the neighbors would have a chance to comment and they would have to prepare
plans for landscaping and buffering before they did that.
Ms. Xiong stated that they do not have any plans to expand the property now or in the
near future. If they do expand, the only thing they would do is build a fence around the
existing paved lot in the back. That is probably the furthest that they would expand.
#3025
January 26, 2012
14
Chairman Walden asked if the paved portion she is speaking about is off 60 th Street.
Ms. Xiong stated that is correct; there is area behind where it is currently fenced and
paved. That is the only place that would be fenced but that is not in the plans at this
time.
Planning Director Richardson stated that that there are several comments and
stipulations in the staff report. Subject to adherence of those, the staff recommends
approval of this application.
On motion by Ms. Huey, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted as
follows to recommend APPROVAL of Change of Zone Application #3025:
Angelotti
Aye
Dercher
Aye
Ellison
Aye
Ernst
Aye
Escobar
Aye
Huey
Aye
Hurrelbrink
Aye
Schwartzman
Aye
Serda
Aye
Walden
Chairman
Walker
Aye
Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 10 to 0
Subject to:
Urban Planning and Land Use Comments:
Property History
This property is another in the long line of old three pump, two garage bay gas
stations that are struggling to find a new use. To give a little history, the C-1
zoning code has allowed these types of stations for many decades. Over time,
customer preferences have changed to prefer the larger convenience store. This
left older stations like this obsolete. This situation leaves many cities with the
dilemma of what to do with these sites. The approach that planning staff has
taken is one that asks the potential business to provide operational details that
will assure that negative impacts will not occur.
Through our best research we found that this particular property was a gas
station until some time in the late 1960s early 1970s. Then in 1978 a used car
dealership named Johnson Motors was in operation. We also believe that the
dealer uses the garage bays for minor maintenance of the cars. In the 1980s the
city ordinance changed and repairing cars were no longer a permitted use in C-1.
This change made the used car dealer with repair a non-conforming use
(grandfathering). The non-conformity remained until the last user (Cars 4 less)
vacated the property on December 16, 2008. It remained vacant and had no action
until the applicant requested a business license late this summer. Planning staff
denied that request because the non-conforming use was discontinued for more
#3025
January 26, 2012
15
than two years. Per Sec 27-388(2)b. of the code a non-conforming use must
conform after a period of 24 months. That is what brings the case forward today.
Potential Code and Maintenance Issues, Parking and Removal of Automotive
Waste
This proposal is on a small piece of property, when compared to some other used
car lots. This brings up concern because there are some issues that are inherent
to used car lots with auto repair. More specifically, these uses have large items
(cars, used oil, tires etc) that must be stored. They often begin as a clean site and
then grow into an unsightly stock pile of junk. The lack of a proper maintenance
and management plan has been the Achilles' heel of most applicants that have
applied.
To make sure that the applicant is planning to manage the site properly, we are
asking that they address the statements listed below:
1.
The current parking configuration proposes parking 2 cars on gravel lots.
Per code gravel is not allowed. The applicant can either remove those
spaces or pave them appropriately.
2.
Tandem parking or double parking will not be permitted for unoccupied
cars.
3.
Based on the square footage of the building (approximately 1,500 square
feet), six (6) parking spaces are required for customers. We are requesting
that the applicant identify the spaces that are reserved for customers.
4.
What services are going to be provided at the auto repair business?
5.
Are you permitting vehicles to be parked in the parking lot overnight?
6.
All parking lot spaces will need to be striped.
7.
One space shall be ADA compliant with a 5 foot stripped access aisle
adjacent to the accessible space.
8.
Sec. 27-467(6) state that any outside storage or keeping of parts,
equipment, inoperable vehicles or residual materials which is necessary,
normally related and accessory to the principle use of the premises shall
be screened from view from off the premises. Such outside storage shall
be limited to areas directly adjacent to the main building, not including
more than 20 percent of the area of the main building and not in a required
yard. The submitted plan does not specify and area for storage. Where will
the materials such as spent oil, used tires and auto parts be stored.
9.
We are asking that no inoperable vehicles or wrecked vehicles may be
parked outside overnight.
#3025
January 26, 2012
16
10.
Banners are not allowed to be hung from the building or on the structure of
the outdoor eating area. Attention attracting devices such as streamers,
pennants, inflatable’s, and wind catchers are prohibited. The applicant is
still eligible to use these devices for special events on a temporary basis
by applying for a temporary banner permit.
Public Works Comments:
None
#3025
January 26, 2012
17
Applicants Response to Staff Comments:
#3025
January 26, 2012
18
#3025
January 26, 2012
19
#3025
January 26, 2012
20
Letter from Neighborhood Opposition
Staff Conclusion
After reviewing this case we believe that the crux of this case boils down to one
main issue - maintenance. The property was originally developed using an older
design style that packs a lot of development (building, pavement etc) on a small
piece of property. If not properly maintained, these smaller properties can
become eyesores, house vermin and become targets for crime. When we
compare staff’s original comments with the neighbor’s letter, we find that the
concern about maintenance is shared. But does this concern about maintenance
warrant a recommendation of denial. Staff does not believe so. We believe that
#3025
January 26, 2012
21
properties designed in this older style need good business owners in order to
become vibrant again. Unfortunately, and too often, the wrong types of owners
have not properly maintained sites like this throughout the city. What is even
more unfortunate is that adjacent neighbors would rather live with an empty
commercial building than deal with the issues of another bad business owner. On
a positive note, staff believes that there is a method to differentiate between good
owners and bad owners. That method is approval through a public hearing and
ideally rezoning to a planned district. The public hearing allows for neighbors to
voice their concerns to potential business owners and allow both parties to
discuss and resolve their issues. These solutions between the two parties often
become staff stipulations that are permanently tied to the property and are
transferred from owner to owner. If in the future, this or any future owner violates
the stipulations, plans and promises made on record, the city had a strong legal
foundation to remedy the situation through the legal system. As for this case, this
owner has worked diligently with staff to address the maintenance issue. They
have clearly spelled out how they will cleanly operate at this tight location. They
also are in agreement with all stipulation proposed. This willingness is rare and is
a sign that they are truly seeking to be a good corporate citizen. Staff
recommends approval with the following stipulations.
1.
Only employee vehicles that will be removed after closing can be parked
outside of the fenced area.
2.
Tandem parking or double parking will not be permitted for unoccupied
cars.
3.
Customer’s cars that are parked overnight should be kept at a minimum.
4.
All parking lot spaces will need to be striped before a business license will
be approved.
5.
Failure to comply with Sec. 27-467(6) will result in a citation from Code
Enforcement.
Sec. 27-467(6) state that any outside storage or keeping of parts,
equipment, inoperable vehicles or residual materials which is necessary,
normally related and accessory to the principle use of the premises shall
be screened from view from off the premises. Such outside storage shall
be limited to areas directly adjacent to the main building, not including
more than 20 percent of the area of the main building and not in a required
yard.
The applicant has addressed this issue in their response letter above.
6.
No inoperable vehicles or wrecked vehicles may be parked outside
overnight.
7.
Banners are not allowed to be hung from the building or fence. Attention
attracting devices such as streamers, pennants, inflatable’s, and wind
#3025
January 26, 2012
22
catchers are prohibited. The applicant is still eligible to use these devices
for special events on a temporary basis by applying for a temporary banner
permit.
#3025
January 26, 2012
23
#3025
January 26, 2012
24
#3025
January 26, 2012
25
#3025
January 26, 2012
26
#3025
January 26, 2012
27
#3025
January 26, 2012
28
#3025
January 26, 2012
29
#3025
January 26, 2012
30