KCRag Forum

New hotel proposed for 20th & Main--if they can get rid of the billboard.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/04/49 ... nt_refhome

.

My god, why not talk to the owner of the billboard? Maybe this wouldn't have even been an issue if these people all spoke to each other pleasantly and tried to come up with a deal. It feels like the developer just went behind the guy's back and called eminent domain on it. That's kind of lame. Hopefully this guy doesn't try with all his might to screw with the developer.

And yes Pash, what is up with the rendering? L shaped should not only be strongly suggested, but I don't even know how you would come up with that original rendering without being like "hey, don't you think this site calls for more of an L shape??"

Another good development though if everything works out. KC's really trying to fill in the missing pieces right now. I never would have guessed this site would be developed before the Hereford House/ Midwest Hotel block though. I wonder what is happening with that lot these days...

The billboard is less of a blight than that hotel design. That looks like something that would have gone up on Metcalf in 1975.

Who in their right mind grants a permanent visual easement to a billboard?

Jason's a good guy, but he needs to get over this. They can build the hotel with the billboard still there.

chaglang wrote:The billboard is less of a blight than that hotel design. That looks like something that would have gone up on Metcalf in 1975.

Who in their right mind grants a permanent visual easement to a billboard?

Jason's a good guy, but he needs to get over this. They can build the hotel with the billboard still there.

there's some history with this billboard that's worth noting -- the owner tried to digitize it years back and the neighborhood was (justifiably) opposed. there is also a significant streetscape plan for 20th (first in the crossroads), so we're very focused on maximizing that investment (financed with PIAC and TIF).

jason is indeed a good guy and we'll definitely support the request.

Demosthenes wrote:My god, why not talk to the owner of the billboard? Maybe this wouldn't have even been an issue if these people all spoke to each other pleasantly and tried to come up with a deal. It feels like the developer just went behind the guy's back and called eminent domain on it. That's kind of lame.

billboards = lawyers

I never would have guessed this site would be developed before the Hereford House/ Midwest Hotel block though. I wonder what is happening with that lot these days...

watching midwest hotel closely. they have said they will demolish it and have refused to sell to those interested in renovation.

The HM is in a catch 22. Nobody wants to redevelop it without HTCs, but the existing floor plan makes it very difficult to redevelop to meet SOI's standards and still be reasonably sized. The rooms and corridors are very small.

"Who in their right mind grants a permanent visual easement to a billboard?"

The owner of the property that the billboard is on. What good is a billboard when no one can see it?

chaglang wrote:The HM is in a catch 22. Nobody wants to redevelop it without HTCs, but the existing floor plan makes it very difficult to redevelop to meet SOI's standards and still be reasonably sized. The rooms and corridors are very small.

Is this some type of maritime coded message?

pash wrote:That site design is pathetic. I'm heartened to read this:

The original design called for the hotel to face 20th Street. The city wants an L-shape building that would front both 20th and Main. That orientation would give the project more visibility from the streetcar route along Main.

Well. here's hoping we get an 'L' shaped building addressing the corner. Honestly, I hadn't noticed the article included the rendering until I saw it tweeted by Dave this morning. It is hideous. It basically in no way addresses the dimensions of the lot. I would protest the city spending money to remove the Walnut viaduct just to get a crappy suburban box hotel.

Honestly, that rendering should be as offensive to the downtowners and urbanists on here as the Broadway Jimmy John's. Terrible suburban design that refuses to adapt itself to the neighborhood.

FWIW, I always imagine a sort of Flat Iron-esque building on that parcel because of it's irregular shape. Tall-ish building sitting on top of its parking and fronting both 20th and Main with a parking garage entrance on Walnut.

beautyfromashes wrote:

chaglang wrote:The HM is in a catch 22. Nobody wants to redevelop it without HTCs, but the existing floor plan makes it very difficult to redevelop to meet SOI's standards and still be reasonably sized. The rooms and corridors are very small.

Is this some type of maritime coded message?

The cock crows at midnight.

HM- Hotel Midwest
HTC-Historic Tax credits
SOI-Secretary of the Interior

I just noticed that they seem to have the building in stilts, with parking underneath at street level. If so, WTF.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"Who in their right mind grants a permanent visual easement to a billboard?"

The owner of the property that the billboard is on. What good is a billboard when no one can see it?

Who grants an easement to themself?

smh wrote:New hotel proposed for 20th & Main--if they can get rid of the billboard.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/04/49 ... nt_refhome

ironically, billboards have been illegal in the city limits for a few years now. I'm sure they will find a way to get it removed. existing billboards were not "grandfathered-in" but were give legal non-conformance variance or something like that, I'm sure the city could just make them legally tear it down if they wanted considering the law that's in place.


here is the city ordinances they could use to get it removed:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10156/ ... UADSI.html

Sec. 4-61. Purpose of article.permanent link to this piece of content

The purpose of this article is to create a framework for the removal of legal nonconforming business advertising signs, as defined by sections 80-20 and 80-230 of the zoning ordinance, when the continued existence of such business advertising signs has a blighting influence on a particular area of the city. The provisions of this article would permit partial or total compensation from funds so designated for the legal nonconforming business advertising signs. It is not the purpose of these provisions to provide compensation for the removal of illegal signs, or to require removal of legal conforming signs.

]

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"Who in their right mind grants a permanent visual easement to a billboard?"

The owner of the property that the billboard is on. What good is a billboard when no one can see it?

So in other words, the permanent visual easement is pretty much worthless unless what is obstructing it is on the same property.

"Who grants an easement to themself?"

"So in other words, the permanent visual easement is pretty much worthless unless what is obstructing it is on the same property."


Usually the owner of the billboard is not the owner of the property. There is a lease arrangement. To protect the value of the billboard the property owner will grant the billboard owner certain rights - like access and in this case nothing on the property to block people from seeing it.


"I'm sure the city could just make them legally tear it down if they wanted considering the law that's in place."

In this case there might be two parties that would require compensation. The billboard owner itself for loss of revenue and the landowner also for loss of revenue. That itself may make the project too costly.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"Who grants an easement to themself?"

"
In this case there might be two parties that would require compensation. The billboard owner itself for loss of revenue and the landowner also for loss of revenue. That itself may make the project too costly.

I doubt it. Why would the government be obligated to provided financial compensation when enforcing the law? Have an old car that doesn't meet air quality standards and you cannot get a permit for it? The government doesn't reimburse you for the cost. Do you think the government compensated the makers of CFC's when they were banned as AC components?

The proposed hotel is among the ugliest things I've ever seen proposed in KC though. I am a little surprised a major chain even put it out there for an urban area - looks like a Motel 6 you'd find along I-35 in southern Olathe.

"I doubt it. Why would the government be obligated to provided financial compensation when enforcing the law?"

Here is the wording in the ordinance:

"The provisions of this article would permit partial or total compensation from funds so designated for the legal nonconforming business advertising signs."

"Noncomforming" does not mean "illegal". All that it means is that the current usage does not comply with current zoning or approved land use. Right now the billboard is legal and, therefore, the property owners would be entitled to compensation if the property is taken away from them.

With that design, I'm not sure why they are worried about the billboard....very uninspired for a unique space.

They appear to be rebuilding the Cherry Street Inn.

pash wrote:That site design is pathetic. I'm heartened to read this:

The original design called for the hotel to face 20th Street. The city wants an L-shape building that would front both 20th and Main. That orientation would give the project more visibility from the streetcar route along Main.

Edit: Here's the rendering from the article:

it's kind of awesome that the original rendering is from 1964...