Northeast News

June 1, 2016

KANSAS CITY, Missouri – A decision to approve an overarching Transit Oriented Development policy for the city of Kansas City, Missouri will have to wait.

The Transportation & Infrastructure and Planning, Zoning & Economic Development joint committee agreed on Thursday, May 26 to delay a decision on the TOD policy (Resolution No. 160361) until June 9. Several council members expressed reservations about the size of the sprawling 155-page document, while also asking for the chance to present the policy to their constituents before making a final decision.

6^th District Councilman Scott Taylor began the meeting by attempting to assuage fears about the goals of the TOD resolution, specifically as it relates to expansion of the streetcar. Taylor clarified that the policy is merely a development guideline, stating that even if the policy is enacted, the City Council would still have to follow other steps to create development in a specific corridor.

“Passing this alone does not mandate anything specifically,” said Taylor.

The TOD policy was created as an outgrowth of several city development plans, including the Nextrail Phase II Streetcar Expansion Plan, the Smart Moves Regional Transit Plan, and the Greater Downtown Area Plan. The policy focuses on four key characteristics of transit-oriented development: connectivity, density, diversity, and design. In addition to planning around the streetcar line, the policy also homes in on pedestrian traffic, the city’s bus system, bike systems, and even future light rail corridors like the Rock Island line, which was purchased by the city from Union Pacific this spring.

During a short presentation to the council, City Planner Jeffrey Williams discussed exactly what the benefits of a TOD policy are to the city.

“With this policy, we’re talking about almost all modes of transit. We’re concerned about everybody who is walking, somebody who is taking a rail line, and every other transit mode in between,” said Williams. “It’s characterized typically by more dense, more compact, more pedestrian-oriented development. It’s a tool box, if you will, for how to appropriately develop along the city’s transit corridors.”

Several council members had questions or concerns about the resolution in its present form. For instance, Taylor recommended a change to the document as it related to limitations on prevailing wage for public works jobs. As it stands, prevailing wage laws are waived for owner-occupied residential properties. Page 144 of the proposed TOD policy suggested extending that exemption to low-medium and high density multi-family housing projects within the TOD plan area. The policy suggests that such an extension could save 20% in construction costs, enticing developers in the process.

“I’m going to already suggest that we take out the section on the limitation of prevailing wage,” said Taylor. “I do not agree with that, and I think most of the council would agree that this is something that should not be in this document.”

Later, 1^st District Councilwoman Heather Hall acknowledged her discomfort with the role that the policy could play with a possible expansion of the streetcar line.

“The question at the root of my hesitation with supporting something like this is the ability to usurp the voters’ opportunity to vote on expansion of the streetcar,” said Councilwoman Hall.

Williams responded to her concerns, reiterating that the TOD policy does not change the steps necessary to approve streetcar expansion.

“The adoption of this resolution does not usurp the additional steps that need to be taken before there is any type of a city endorsement moving forward with expansion of the streetcar,” said Williams. “The action of putting this policy in place does not automatically lead to any form of streetcar expansion.”

Some council members, though, wondered if the tool box still might be too large for the task at hand. 3^rd District Councilman Quinton Lucas spoke about the wide scope of the plan, including the focus on housing priorities and issues within the policy.

“It doesn’t seem like the stakeholders reflected in this discussion actually are largely representative of all of our housing issue needs,” said Lucas. “So that begs the question: are we in a way almost trying to bite off too much with what this resolution is trying to accomplish?”

2^nd District Councilman Dan Fowler also probed details of the plan during the joint meeting, wondering if his district was being overlooked in the document.

“To me, the overall impact of what I’ve seen so far seems to be center city-oriented,” said Fowler. “In other words, it’s focusing on the more densely populated sections of the city, and my district is not that. I also noted that of the list of organizations that this has been presented to, I didn’t see any that were north of the river.”

Proponents of the TOD policy outnumbered opposition during public comments, with roughly a dozen individuals – developers and transit rider’s alike – providing public comment in favor of the plan. Ultimately, though, the joint committee was not ready to make a decision on the TOD policy during the May 26 meeting. Citing revisions suggested by both the council and the public, 4^th District Councilwoman Jolie Justus recommended holding the vote.

“I am requesting that we not vote on this today, so that we can make a committee substitute and present it to the joint committees before we have a final vote,” said Justus.