KC says no to Tomahawke annexation

Developer’s hopes now rest on March 12 lawsuit against Platte County

Jeanette Browning
Citizen Staff

The Kansas City Council last week put an end to its controversial discussions on annexation and urban sprawl with an 8-5 vote against the annexation of the Lake at Tomahawke Ridge property.

The vote had been postponed from the Feb. 11 meeting, where proposition sponsor Councilman Ed Ford asked for a two-week delay. Supporting Council members were Ford, Beth Gottstein, Russ Johnson and Cindy Circo. Only those Council members, along with Mayor Mark Funkhouser, voted for the annexation, after an hour of contentious discussion.

Fourth District Councilman Jan Marcason said the annexation of land in a remote end of the Northland stretched already scant City resources. She also pointed to the Mid America Regional Council (MARC) Transportation Outlook 2040 plan, which advocates high-density growth in more developed areas.

Ford, who characterized the possible development as a “gift from heaven,” said he would agree with Marcason if the City were offering incentives for construction.

Funkhouser said he supported the annexation and the development and didn’t feel it was a “leapfrog” development of the kind discouraged in the MARC plan, because it was near KCI, which was already a recognized node of activity. He said the City needed workforce housing and he felt the development would be an asset to the City.

“It’s a net revenue plus,” he said. “Why would I vote against a net revenue plus for the City?”

Marcason asked if the proposed price of $170,000 per home was really viable workforce housing for people in entry-level positions in the KCI area.

Councilman Bill Skaggs, who has been the most outspoken opponent of the application since chairing the Council subcommittee that first considered the annexation, said with an average income of about $76,000 per year, most families couldn’t afford the average home price at Tomahawke of $250,000.

An average home price of $250,000 was recently floated for the development, made up mostly of homes around $170,000, but with some homes costing around $350,000 in the mix as well.

Skaggs said he opposed the annexation for many reasons, stating the property was closer to St. Joseph than downtown Kansas City. He also said despite Ford’s earlier statement that Highway 92 was slated for improvement by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), his MoDOT contact had said there were no current plans to improve the highway.

Skaggs also reminded the council of the findings of the City’s own planning staff before Funkhouser called the vote, which ended in denial of the annexation petition.

During the subcommittee process, the petition was altered to state that first the developer and then a private homeowners’ association would provide for solid waste pickup, recycling and snow removal. Future residents would also be forced to sign a waiver acknowledging the development’s proximity to industrial operations and the possibility of excess noise.

Last year, the Kansas City planning staff released a report recommending refusal of the applications. The report states that the proposed land use is contrary to the KCI Area Plan, the Platte County Land Use Plan, is too dense for the location and is unneeded due to the amount of already existing developable land in the Northland. The report included several scathing letters from City service providers, including MAST ambulance and the police and fire departments and led to an adjustment to the petitions allowing for the installation of sprinkler systems in all homes.

With this denial, developer Tim Dougherty and landowner Hal Swaney are forced to return their attentions to Platte County, where Swaney sued the County for its denial of a rezoning application to begin construction of the housing development.

Swaney vs. Platte County is due in Division V Court at the Platte County Courthouse at 11 a.m. March 12.