The CPC docket with staff reports is available here:https://data.kcmo.org/Development-Review/City-Plan-Commission-Docket-with-Staff-Reports/yckm-q3pc
The staff report on the Armour and Troost development begins on page 103.
Here is probably the most important part of the report, discussing parking:
With these reductions; the total number of spaces required is 414. A total of 189 are
proposed to be provided, which is a gap of 225. Other options to reduce the total parking
requirement may be available, as outlined in the paragraph below; however, these likely
will not close the gap completely. Staff is supportive of a gap between the number of
spaces required and provided, but is uncomfortable with the extent of the gap proposed.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider a ratio of 0.7 spaces per unit which would
result in an adjusted parking requirement of 279 spaces, or a gap of 54 spaces. This gap
could be reasonably accommodated by one of the other options provided below. Staff
recommends a condition requiring each project plan for each phase be accompanied by
one or more of the proposed alternatives below to fill the gap. Staff believes that this
location, with an east/west bus route on Armour, the MAX route on Troost lend support to
the reduced ratio. Furthermore, requiring more parking only creates an economic incentive
to retain existing surface lots in the area or demolish buildings to create new surface lots in
the area, which is contrary to relevant city policies.
Other options available include Shared Parking (88-420-16-I), Off-Site Parking (88-420-16-J) or
Car-Share Vehicles (88-420-16-P). These options provide the ability to arrange an
agreement in which two or more uses with different peak parking periods (hours of
operation) use the same off-street parking spaces to meet their off-street parking
requirements. The parking can be on a remote or separate lot from the lot on which the
principal use is located. Lastly, car-share vehicle(s) provide for the opportunity of a vehicle
available that can be used for residences within the development.
Overall, it sounds like the city is supportive of this project, which is not a surprise considering that the city has already contributed money and resources in helping MAC obtain all of the necessary parcels. As long as the NIMBYs aren't successful in derailing this, it sounds like they will be able to work something out.