Parkville Missouri

FAQs: Development at Intersection of I-435 and Route 45

The City of Parkville frequently receives questions and comments regarding the potential for development within Parkville’s city limits on properties near the intersection of I-435 and Route 45. The following webpage was created to respond to questions and provide a single source of accurate information about development prospects for this area.

Frequently Asked Questions:

FAQs updated March 8, 2019.

Why is the City interested in development in this area?

The Parkville corporate city limits extend west of I-435 and north of Route 152, so this area is part of the western entryway into Parkville. The City desires to accommodate appropriate development to support community growth and to aesthetically signify the entrance to Parkville. In addition, the City issued limited general obligation debt to support the extension of street and sewer infrastructure to the area. Appropriate development will ensure the City receives a return on that investment.

What does the City plan to build in this area?

In 2016, the City issued two requests for development proposals (RFPs) for the properties owned by the City of Parkville. The City asked respondents to propose development concepts appropriate for the area that were compatible with the City’s development objectives and Master Plan. The City received one response. A selection committee was established to review the proposal, but ultimately recommended for the Board of Aldermen not to enter into development negotiations with the applicant based on several issues identified. A work session was held at Parkville City Hall on December 6, 2016, and staff recommended the Board of Aldermen continue to work with the Parkville Economic Development Council and Platte County Economic Development Council in marketing the property, evaluating alternatives and pursuing other development teams.

The City does not own all of the property at the intersection and the City cannot build on properties it does not control. That would be up to the property owners. In the event that a property owner wishes to build something on the property, an application would be made to the City. The application would be reviewed by staff for compliance with zoning and other applicable regulations. If rezoning is required, a public hearing would be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, followed by a public meeting of the Board of Aldermen. Both are opportunities for all questions or concerns to be voiced in a public forum.

The City owns Tract 9 in the southeast quadrant. The Board of Aldermen approved a real estate agreement for Tract 9 on March 5, 2019.

What process did the City follow to proactively encourage development in this area?

On December 2, 2014, the Board of Aldermen conducted a work session to review the zoning, land use projections, development plans and development challenges for all of the vacant neighborhood improvement district (NID) properties.  The City and PEDC have participated in numerous meetings with the property owners and prospective developers to evaluate potential development options for the area. Unfortunately, many of the development concepts discussed so far only involved small portions of the properties (less than 5 acres) and did not address development challenges for the common areas. The City is mindful of how incremental development on small parcels will affect the broader area. The City has made clear that it will consider a range of economic development incentives within its discretion to assist with implementing the right kind of project(s) that are compatible with the Parkville Master Plan and will not have a detrimental impact on development for the rest of the area.

On September 9, 2015, the Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution of intent to use economic development incentives to promote appropriate development in the Brush Creek and Brink Meyer NIDs. The resolution affirms the City’s willingness to use public incentives to offset the impact of the NID assessments on development. The resolution is a policy statement that is intended to supplement the master Economic Development Incentive Policy. In accordance with the findings of the recent feasibility study, the resolution also affirms the Board’s willingness to support appropriate multi-family housing in this area. The resolution states that owners who are delinquent on NID assessments will not be considered for incentives and Tract 9 will be given the highest priority for public incentives since it carries the greatest debt burden. Staff and the PEDC have used this policy as a marketing tool to generate more developer interest in the properties.

On June 22, 2016, the City concurrently released two Request for Proposals (RFPs) for (1) Tract 9 on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I-435 and Route 45; and (2) Tracts 1, 3, 5 and 6 on the west side of I-435. The City views these as distinct and separate development opportunities but, due to proximity, each may have development implications for the other. Developers were encouraged to respond to both or either RFPs. The RFPs solicit interest from qualified developer(s) or development team(s) to design, construct, finance, own and manage a development on the advertised properties. The City intends to convey the properties to a private partner, but is not simply disposing of publicly-owned property. Rather, the goal is to encourage development that will be an asset to the I-435 and Route 45 corridor and the west side of Parkville by meeting the objectives outlined in the RFPs.

Are there any pending applications for development being considered in this area?

Yes. The Planning & Zoning Commission held public hearings and approved applications for developments at I-435 and Highway 45 on September 11, 2018, October 9, 2018, October 10, 2018 and November 13, 2018. The development proposal followed the normal review process as set forth in the Parkville Development Code.

Why did the City issue debt related to properties in this area, and what is the City’s current debt obligation related to the properties?

In 2006, the City responded to petitions from private property owners and began the process to create two NIDs in accordance with Sections 67.453 – 67.465 RSMo. The City previously issued temporary notes to finance the construction of improvements, but upon completion of all the work, 20-year permanent financing was issued in June 2014 as follows:

  1. Limited General Obligation Bonds – Brush Creek Drainage Neighborhood Improvement District – Series 2014A – $5,375,000. The Brush Creek Drainage NID extended sanitary sewer utilities to all of the properties in the petition.
  2. Limited General Obligation Bonds – Brink Meyer Road Neighborhood Improvement District – Series 2014B – $3,675,000. The Brink Meyer Road NID financed the extension of Brink-Myers Road and a related retaining wall to serve the southeast quadrant of the intersection.

All of the City’s general obligation debt is held by private investors (bondholders) and the City does not owe money to the Platte County Regional Sewer District related to the Brush Creek sanitary sewer. The NID debt is backed by special assessments on properties that benefit from the public road and sewer improvements that were constructed. Due to a variety of factors, including the recent economic recession, private development did not occur as envisioned or scheduled by the original owners. The majority of properties are now owned or controlled by Bank of Blue Valley and the City of Parkville. If the properties are delinquent on assessments, the City must absorb the cost to make the annual debt payments on the bonds. The City foreclosed on one property and accepted a deed transfer on another delinquent property due to the lack of payment of the assessments. The City owns approximately 118 acres in the corridor. The City has saved over $1.5 million of emergency reserve funds in part to protect against the debt liability. In May 2014, Standard & Poor upgraded the City’s credit rating to AA, a very high rating that indicates a very strong capacity to meet financial commitments. The City intends to encourage development that will assume part of the original debt and to generate revenue to help offset the debt burden the City has assumed due to the delinquent property assessments.

What percent of the yearly NID assessments were paid by property owners in 2018?

The Brush Creek assessments collected $253,511 out of $372,982 (68%). The Brink Meyer assessments collected $1,809 of $271,948 (1%).

What is the current outstanding debt for the NIDs?

As of December 31, 2018, the Brush Creek Drainage Area NID had $4,950,000 in outstanding bonds. The Brink Meyer Road NID had $3,390,000 in outstanding bonds on the same date. In 2019, the debt payments for the two bonds is $678,225. The City will collect $252,826 in assessments and will be required to pay the remaining $425,399 from emergency reserve funds it has accumulated for the delinquent debt and from transfers from the General Fund of the City.

What is the City’s strategy to cover outstanding NID delinquencies?

In addition to the economic development efforts, staff and the Board of Aldermen devised a financial strategy to ensure adequate funding for debt payments if assessments continue at the 2015 level. The strategy involves the following:

  1. Series 2006 Certificates of Participation (COP) were refunded in December 2015 which will reduce the City’s annual principal and interest payments through 2027. These savings will be redirected to offset NID debt payments as needed. Payments using these savings may be combined with General Fund and temporary operating levy revenues as necessary to meet the NID debt payment obligations.
  2. The temporary operating levy currently authorized through 2024 may be renewed in 2025 through a “no tax increase” ballot issue. The levy will remain level but, due to the retirement of debt issued in 2006, the proceeds will be available to offset NID debt payments.
  3. Interfund loans will be authorized from the Emergency Reserve Fund as needed for debt payments. If and when delinquent assessments are ultimately collected through late payments or land sales, the proceeds will be reimbursed to the Emergency Reserve Fund.


Will the City consider apartments or other multi-family housing in this area?

Yes. A portion of the property is currently zoned “R-4” Multiple-Family Residential District. In 2006, development plans were approved (following public hearings) for approximately 500 residential units in a mix of single-family homes, row houses, condominiums and apartments. Although those development plans were never implemented, the zoning is in place to accommodate multi-family development. It would be expected that plans for multi-family development could be submitted for other properties zoned for these uses in the future. Any development proposal must meet all applicable regulations for zoning, density, quality, character, etc.

Is multi-family housing a permitted use in this area?

Yes. A portion of the property is currently zoned “R-4” Multiple-Family Residential District. Portions of other properties are zoned “RMD” Residential Multiple Dwelling District – a county zoning retained from the time of annexation. For those properties that retained county zoning, rezoning will need to be approved before development may proceed. Chapter 6 of the City’s Master Plan designates the following future land uses in this area: office/business park; mixed use; mixed use residential neighborhood; moderate density residential mix; and parks and open spaces. Projected land uses include multi-family housing in planned neighborhood developments.

Is the City considering multi-family apartments as a way to retire the NID debt?

No. The City has a financial strategy in place to help guard against any potential delinquencies on the NID assessments. All development proposals will be considered on their merits in accordance with applicable City standards and development regulations. However, the City desires to see development in this area as evidenced by its numerous prior public actions to extend public infrastructure and approve development plans in the area.

Is there a better development concept for this area than multi-family housing?

Maybe. The City is willing to consider all development proposals in accordance with applicable zoning, land use and regulatory requirements.

Would the City consider large lot residential development or other uses in lieu of multi-family housing?

Yes. However, infrastructure was extended to support a higher density of commercial, office and residential development, and that investment may be too costly to support with some other lower density uses. The Brush Creek NID assessments are approximately $1,200 per acre per year over the life of the bonds (20 years). The Brink Meyer NID assessments are approximately $3,800 per acre per year. Developers, property owners, lenders, realtors and economic experts have communicated to the City that it is difficult to finance a project at a lower density due to the existing infrastructure costs that must be repaid through the NID assessments.

Did the City fund a study to evaluate apartment complexes?

No. The City completed a study to evaluate the feasibility of a sports complex and other viable uses in this area. In 2014, the PEDC appointed a task force to explore and promote development for the I-435 and Route 45 intersection. The task force concluded that a soccer complex, or some similar youth sports facility, may potentially be a viable economic development project for the southeast quadrant of the intersection. The idea was to generate a customer base to support spin-off retail and commercial development. Based upon the recommendation of the PEDC, and in consultation with the property owners, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a market feasibility and economic impact study. The scope of the study was twofold: (1) to determine if a youth sports facility was viable on the proposed site; and (2) if not, to determine the highest and best alternative use for the site. The $40,000 cost of the study was shared by the City and the PEDC.

The final report concluded that the best possible sports facility would be an 8-field (turf) soccer complex. The complex would serve recreational needs in the Kansas City northland, but it would not generate the level of associated economic development desired. Furthermore, the initial capital investment of $12-14 million made the project infeasible. Instead, the study concluded that most likely successful development, based on current market demand and demographics, is upscale multi-family apartments.

Why is this development being pushed through so quickly?

The development proposal is following the normal process as set forth in the Parkville Development Code. Once an application is received by a developer, it is reviewed by City staff and a public hearing is scheduled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The staff review process includes consulting with the City’s engineers and planners in considering issues related to the development’s infrastructure, impact on traffic, stormwater and public safety. Proper notices required by the ordinance are provided. After a recommendation is received by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which may or may not occur the same date as the public hearing, the Board of Aldermen will consider the development proposal after the required notice and after an additional opportunity for public comment. Both bodies will carefully consider the evidence provided by the developer, City staff and the public when making decisions.

The City has followed a long process in seeking development for this area. The Board of Aldermen annexed the subject property into Parkville city limits on May 2, 2000, via Ordinance No. 1874. Based on staff analysis reports, interviews with former staff and elected officials, and other records, the City desired to have control over the I-435 and Route 45 and I-435 and Route 152 corridors for future development. City plans dating back to 2004 show future land use projections for the area, as well as the Parkville Master Plan (adopted July 7, 2009). A similar major development was proposed in 2006 which necessitated the extension of sewers and major road improvements to support the development. While the development plans halted when the recession occurred, the area is considered prime development due to its location adjacent to major highways and its proximity to the metro area. Over the past two decades, the Board of Aldermen has identified economic development as a top priority for the City, specifically the goal of investigating and analyzing development options for the I-435 corridor. Following the conclusion of the 2016 RFP solicitation, the Board of Aldermen recommended continuing to work with the PEDC and PCEDC in marketing the property, evaluating alternatives and pursuing other lead development teams. It has done this and now has a formal development proposal to consider.

Why didn’t you allow for public input on what will be put there?

There have been multiple public processes where the public was invited to participate in the planning for western Parkville. Public hearings were held for the annexation of the subject property into the Parkville city limits between 1999 and 2000. Public input and hearings were also held for the creation of the Parkville Master Plan and its adopted future land use projections between 2006 and 2009; for the establishment of the Brink Meyer NID and Brush Creek Sewer Drainage NID in 2006; for the rezoning of the subject property from Platte County “AG” Agricultural District to Parkville City “R-4 CUP” Multi-Family Residential Community Unit Plan on June 6, 2006; for the previous 45 Park Place residential development plans on June 6, 2006; and for the creation of the Market Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis for Sports Complex and/or Commercial Development document in 2014 for the subject property. The development of this area has clearly been part of the City’s plans for decades. Public hearings were held by the Planning and Zoning Commission in October, November and December and public comments were accepted during the Board of Aldermen meetings in November and December.

Follow Us!