Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

[chaglang]

Despite whatever the neighborhood association thinks they did here, they're demolished at some point unless Shields provides MAC with close to 3/4 of a million in city money.

Damn! You’re going to make me give Shields credit now too?! Was hard enough grudgingly giving the HOA a compliment.

Sigh. I know. Hopefully this will be her main accomplishment on council and she won’t end up as city manager in a couple years.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

MAC Properties is proposing a new apartment building at 520 E Armour (the parking lot across the street from the Newbern). I don't know any of the details.

I am sure there is going to be some neighborhood opposition to this (concerns over parking, density, traffic, too "modern" etc). It will probably need to have a large garage portion to replace the existing lot, plus add more parking for the new building to have any chance of neighborhood approval.

I hope it includes a mixed-use/retail portion (although I'm sure that would see some objections, as well). I was a bit disappointed that 3 of the 4 tennants at 301 E Armour ended up being offices (and the 4th is an underwhelming coffee shop). Some sort of neighborhood amenity/cafe would be great for the 520 E Armour location.

This building is going to be discussed, along with the Armour and Troost development at the November Hyde Park Neighborhood Association meeting, 11/21 at 7pm at the Central Presbyterian Church at Armour and Campbell. I encourage anyone who is interested to come.

[beautyfromashes]

Being right in the middle of several of their properties, it would be smart for them to put some entertainment amenities in the building. The existing pool down the street is always very crowded and the other older buildings don’t have as much entertainment space, gyms, etc. it could be a good anchor location for all the buildings.

[chaglang]

The parking is going to be a huge fight. Hyde Park’s anticipated parking demands are already causing alterations in the Troost project.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

I'm curious where these demands from "Hyde Park" are coming from. As far as I know, it hasn't been discussed at any neighborhood meetings. I haven't heard people talking about it or seen any discussion on any of the neighborhood Facebook pages (although I usually stay away from those).

I guess you did say "anticipated" and I think it would be right to anticipate that there will be complaints from some neighbors about parking.

[chaglang]

The second part. It's going to be fun arguing with people who have driveways why they shouldn't be able to control the parking on the street in front of their house.

[chrizow]

a few years ago, I was present at an intimate meeting of the HP board (and maybe a handful of other engaged neighbors) with City personnel and a group of neighbors on a single block of hyde park who were pitching a fit over MAC tenants parking on the street. literally every homeowner had a private driveway (not even shared driveway like much of midtown) with capacity for several cars.

the homeowners typically, begrudgingly, acknowledged that the streets are public and people can park on them. so the focus shifted to rude parkers who partially or entirely block driveways, drop trash at the curb, make lots of noise, etc.

i have no idea how prevalent these problems are, but i think it could go a long way if MAC and other landlords could use their communication channels to ask their tenants to be good neighbors and not to block driveways. with all of the controversy, i hope landlords already do this - but if not, they should.

[chaglang]

There's a perception that the streets are parked up in a block or more north and south of Armour. That's not even remotely true, and even if it were, almost 95% of the houses within a 1/4 mile radius from Armour and Troost have driveways. You're completely right, some smart public messaging from MAC about polite parking can help the situation and combat the perception that MAC is indifferent to parking concerns.

There's a larger conversation about parking that needs to take place. There's a perception that by forcing more parking into a project, it's the developer pays the costs. Stuctured parking runs $30k per space, and surface parking is around $4k. The developer is most definitely NOT paying for that. Those costs are being passed through to the tenants. If the parking lot/garage is free, then the costs are probably being passed on to the residents in the form of higher rents. If you're a neighborhood that's concerned about affordability, demanding more parking can make units less affordable. And if the lot/garage requires a monthly pass, the people who can afford the pass will pay for it, and everyone else will park on the street, which defeats the purpose of the additional parking. The Bainbridge parking lot is an excellent example of the pitfalls of a parking pass setup.

There are some potential solutions that could work here. First would be the introduction of neighborhood parking passes that would be free for residents. There are some on 39th I believe, and many many cities use these in high-density parking situations. Then the city would have to step up enforcement, especially in the evening hours. And a sweep of all the legacy no-parking zones on side streets would help relieve congestion. Finally, it's also time to start thinking about a shared parking scheme along Troost, modeled on Mass St in Lawernce. That would provide some nighttime resident parking and daytime parking for businesses on Troost. The idea is to keep businesses from having to knock down a building in order to meet their 6 parking space minimum.

Sorry for the ramble. Been thinking about this a bit.

[flyingember]

There are some potential solutions that could work here. First would be the introduction of neighborhood parking passes that would be free for residents. There are some on 39th I believe, and many many cities use these in high-density parking situations. Then the city would have to step up enforcement, especially in the evening hours. And a sweep of all the legacy no-parking zones on side streets would help relieve congestion. Finally, it's also time to start thinking about a shared parking scheme along Troost, modeled on Mass St in Lawernce. That would provide some nighttime resident parking and daytime parking for businesses on Troost. The idea is to keep businesses from having to knock down a building in order to meet their 6 parking space minimum.

Sorry for the ramble. Been thinking about this a bit.

Neighborhood parking passes won't change anything, just codify MAC residents who buy a pass to be able to park in front of their homes.
If these are all single family homes the neighborhood probably isn't dense enough to do parking passes without including the larger density apartment buildings in the parking district.

There will need to be what amounts to hundreds of jobs in the area with people parking on street. Parking passes only apply in neighborhoods where there's an employee parking problem.

Not that they likely qualify but what if they do?

You can't do shared by time of day parking on street where businesses get in the day and residents at night. Parking zones are about controlling daytime parking. Parking districts are meant to make businesses provide off street parking in neighborhoods where employees take all the prime spots rather than pay for off street parking. A corridor like 39th has jobs right on it and people could easily park a block down in the neighborhood all day for free.


70-537

Eligibility. The residential parking permit area boundaries, for purposes of administration and enforcement, should generally coincide with natural boundaries where feasible. A street shall be deemed eligible for designation as a residential permit parking street if it meets all of the following criteria:

(1) At least one side or 50 percent of each street and block must be zoned residential.

(2) Each street and block must have more dwelling units or lodging rooms in lodginghouses than legal off-street parking spaces. Single-family dwelling units are excluded for purposes of satisfying this requirement.

(3) On streets that have unrestricted parking, a majority of the on-street parking spaces must be occupied by commuter vehicles a majority of the time between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

(4) There must be a desire and need of more than 50 percent of the residents of the street and block to have residential permit parking and a willingness to pay the cost for the residential permit parking program.

(5) There must be reasonable and generally acceptable alternate areas for the displaced commuter vehicles to be relocated or other modes of transportation that can be utilized so that the commuter vehicles are not merely shifted to an adjacent neighborhood residential area.

(6) The street may not have parking meters.
.

[chaglang]

Neighborhood parking passes won't change anything, just codify MAC residents who buy a pass to be able to park in front of their homes.
If these are all single family homes the neighborhood probably isn't dense enough to do parking passes without including the larger density apartment buildings in the parking district.

This is aimed more at overnight visitors. It has worked well in other places I've lived.

There will need to be what amounts to hundreds of jobs in the area with people parking on street. Parking passes only apply in neighborhoods where there's an employee parking problem.

The parking complaints have focused on overnight parking. What I described is a way of addressing that. As for employees, given the relatively small scale of Troost buildings that would contain businesses, it would be difficult to concentrae hundreds of employees in an area such that they would create a parking "problem."

You can't do shared by time of day parking on street where businesses get in the day and residents at night. Parking zones are about controlling daytime parking. Parking districts are meant to make businesses provide off street parking in neighborhoods where employees take all the prime spots rather than pay for off street parking. A corridor like 39th has jobs right on it and people could easily park a block down in the neighborhood all day for free.

I'm not at all interested in what the current code has to say about this, or what current things are "meant" to do. There's a high likelihood that the solution isn't in the current KCMO ordinances. If there's a promising solution, make the ordinance fit it, not the other way around.

[flyingember]

Your ordinance very quickly becomes unmanageable if you don't treat spot uses equal. It's not a resident vs business problem or a single home vs expensive apartment parking problem, it's that there's too many residential cars for the amount of free parking.

Trying to limit by time of day just creates it's own mess. How do you account for businesses like a neighborhood restaurant open until 11 and account for workers who may work a 5-1 shift or overnight and go to bed at 7 or 8pm? How do you account for delivery drivers coming at all hours? This is why places often have dedicated parking because people complain if they try to use on street during peak hours when people are home.

The only way to change things is to take actions to reduce the number of cars to below what the immediate area can support. If there's a problem with apartment dwellers blocking driveways you ticket heavily until they stop and either get rid of their car, park further away or pay for dedicated parking.

There's no chance that all but a handful of neighborhoods outside downtown has so many people and shops open late that there's not free parking somewhere within a few blocks they could use.

We need to stop being ok with the only fix accepting someone not wanting to walk very far and making this possible. It's the same reason that every business has it's own parking lot.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

Peter Cassel of MAC Properties spoke at the HPNA meeting this evening about the developments on Troost and Cherry. At the beginning, he framed all of this as one project. He didn't go into the specifics, but I'm guessing Cherry might be part of the same financing on Troost and might help add a little insurance with a more predictable sight rather than risky Troost.

Cherry is planned to be 5 stories with 111 units and 75 parking spaces, on ground, under a pedestal. This would be a reduction of the current 80 spaces on that lot.

Troost would be 372 units and 30k sq ft retail with 114 parking spaces. The market building on the SW corner would be demolished.

As expected, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by neighbors over the parking situation. Somewhat surprisingly, it was almost entirely focussed on Troost and not on Cherry. I was one of two neighbors who spoke up in the meeting in favor of lower parking amounts and I did have several people speak to me after the meeting saying they appreciated and agreed with my comments. I think some may have been afraid to voice their opinions with some of the loud complaints about parking.

It sounds like they are expecting it to take until the 2nd quarter of 2018 to get everything approved. I expect there will be a lot more neighborhood back and forth and we will see a reduction in units and/or increase in parking.

[chaglang]

Thanks for speaking up about the parking. I'm going to do the same at the SPNA meeting in January. I'm optimistic that this can get done without building a garage, but it may take some organizing to make sure the city hears us.

I have a huge ethical problem with a garage, which if built will probably be because of Hyde Park, being located in Center City. If Hyde Parkers want a garage, put it in Hyde Park.

[JBmidtown]

I’m pretty bummed they’re planning on demolishing the market building.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

I’m pretty bummed they’re planning on demolishing the market building.

Yeah, me too.

Maybe a solution can be reached where that building is saved, which would reduce the number of units to alleviate the "parking problem". I feel like the neighbors on the 3500 block of Harrison might be the most vociferous opposition to the parking situation, so less units on that corner might appease them.

[Critical_Mass]

Yeah, this will be the 3rd historic commercial building on a SW corner of some street and Troost to be demolished.

SW corner of 27th & Troost gone.
SW corner of Linwood & Troost gone.
SW corner of Armour & Troost next.

On the plus side, Linwood & Armour locations are being replaced with bigger residential developments. Can't remember if anything is planned for 27th or if that was just remediation / removal of a dangerous building.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

Can't remember if anything is planned for 27th or if that was just remediation / removal of a dangerous building.

IIRC, at the same time the LCRA awarded the northeast corner of 27th and Troost to UC-B/Milhaus, Botwin was selected to develop the SE and SW corners. As far as I know, no details or renderings were ever made public for their plans and I don't know if anything is happening with those corners.

[chaglang]

All are being replaced with equal or larger developments. The ones at 27th and Linwood were cool but completely rotten inside. I was inside the one at Linwood. That one could have been saved with a very large amount of money. The building at 27th would have had to had the roof and top floor rebuilt. It sucks that they got to that point, but Kansas City.

The one at Armour could be saved but I'll trade it for more density.

I'm more sympathetic to the preservation arguments than I let on, but not every old building is worth saving. And not every old building is "historic", in the sense that it has any significance other than its having been standing for a long time. I'm not shedding any tears over any of these demolitions.

[FangKC]

I’m pretty bummed they’re planning on demolishing the market building.

Yeah, me too.

Maybe a solution can be reached where that building is saved, which would reduce the number of units to alleviate the "parking problem". I feel like the neighbors on the 3500 block of Harrison might be the most vociferous opposition to the parking situation, so less units on that corner might appease them.

I don't get what the problem is. Almost every house on the 3500 block of Harrison has off-street parking and private garages. From what I can see, there is only one house on that entire block that doesn't, and it's the first house south of the grassy park area on the west side of the block. Do all of these homeowners have multiple guests visiting all day long?

Sometimes I think the solution to the parking complainers is for the developer to offer to buy their house, so they can move somewhere else that has ample parking. Once they are gone, and the development is completed, the developer can put the house back on the market. The houses would probably be worth more once the nearby blighted areas are gone, so the developer wouldn't lose much money on the carrying costs of property taxes and insurance. They could rent the houses while the construction is going on.

If I were a developer with resources, that is the first thing I would do when the complainers show up at the community meetings. "I can see you are unhappy living in a dense environment--that is changing. I will give you a fair market price for your house so that you can move to a more preferable situation."

This is also a situation where city council members must be practical and go see for themselves that the homeowners have their own private parking, so their complaints are probably exaggerated. Then, council members must put the city's interest in creating healthy density ahead of these complaints. The need to revitalize Troost supersedes in this case.

I would be more willing to acquiesce to their concerns if they lived on a street of row houses closely-spaced together with no driveways, or alley parking access, and residents had to park on the street.

[chaglang]

94% of the houses within 1/4 mile of Armour and Troost have a driveway. The majority of the houses that don't are in Center City. This isn't a MAC talking point; I counted them myself.

I think there are 2 reasons we keep having this discussion about parking, with the same people:
1. Nobody has ever pushed back hard and said no to them;
2. Nobody has explained that parking costs money, and that cost is paid by the building residents, not the developer.

There's some council support from one council rep to not build a garage, and either make the lots behind the new buildings work, or figure out how to create a shared parking scheme that would benefit a larger section of Troost than just this corner. If we can't get either of those done on this project, it's hard to see when something like that could happen.