Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning amendment for proposed Dillon’s site; developers seek CID to fund site and road work
Summary
Council amended a material‑mix requirement and advanced rezoning for a proposed 99,000‑sq‑ft Dillon’s grocery, fuel canopy and retail center; applicant requested a 1% CID sales tax to reimburse off‑site road, signal and grading costs while residents raised notice and traffic concerns.
Council members advanced a rezoning and preliminary development plan for a Dillon’s (Kroger)‑anchored center after a lengthy presentation of site plans, proposed modifications to UDO design standards and a conceptual request for a Community Improvement District (CID).
Patricia Jensen, the applicant’s attorney, and Tim Goyette of Phillips Edison presented the plan for a new 99,000‑square‑foot grocery with a fuel canopy and out‑parcels along Northeast Douglas Street. Goyette described the project as neighborhood‑serving and said the design team had worked with staff to refine elevations and landscaping; he called the scheme “pedestrian friendly” and emphasized façade articulation and a masonry‑based material palette on primary customer faces.
Kroger’s corporate representative highlighted the economic case: Jill Giles said the company expects roughly $40–50 million in land and building investment, about 250 full‑ and part‑time jobs and roughly $9–10 million in annual payroll. The applicant estimated CID‑eligible work at about $6.8 million covering road widening, a new traffic signal, sidewalks and a rear access that would route truck traffic off Douglas.
Planning staff supported most modification requests but recommended the council not waive the UDO requirement that primary facades include a mix of three Class 1 or Class 2 materials. Staff argued the code’s intent is to create visual interest and reduce large uninterrupted wall planes. The applicant countered that the rear (west) facade is primarily a service/loading elevation, low‑traffic, and that topography, detention basins and new planting would substantially screen the view; the applicant also said adding extra masonry materials along the loading side would materially increase project cost (applicants referenced a roughly $2M uplift on a referenced Olathe project).
After public comment, which included objections about whether public notice signs were present and concerns about traffic and student safety near the high school across the street, council members debated design intent, pedestrian connectivity and the CID concept. One resident asked the council to postpone action because, he said, the required public hearing signs were missing; staff replied the applicant installed signs as required before the planning commission hearing and the city mails notices to property owners within the required radius.
Council amended Condition 6 to allow one Class 1 or Class 2 material in at least two colors to cover 50% of the western primary façade (a narrower design requirement than the UDO’s three‑material rule) and advanced the rezoning and preliminary development plan to second reading; the amendment passed by a 7–1 vote per the meeting minutes.
What’s next: The applicant indicated it will return with a CID petition and more detailed agreements if council signals support; council members asked for additional legal and financial detail about which grading/site costs can lawfully be reimbursed through a CID before final approval.
