Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, July 27th, 2026 Blue Springs Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, Tracy, can we get a roll call, please?

Of course. Commissioner Ingersoll? Here. Commissioner Pumphrey?

Present.

Commissioner Stokenberry? Present. Commissioner Ritchell? Present. Commissioner Sanderson? Present. Commissioner Irie? Present. Commissioner Graham?

Present.

Commissioner Henning?

Present.

Chairperson Howe?

Here.

Perfect.

Thank you very much. At this time, I would entertain a motion on the consent agenda for the approval of the June 22nd, 2026 meeting minutes. So moved. Thank you, commissioners. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Thank you very much. For all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Next on the agenda is item number four. It's the vacation for She Digs It, and that application has withdrawn, pardon me, withdrew that application on July 21st, 2026, which will take us to agenda items number five and six. I will open the public hearing for agenda items five and six, the rezoning, RZ 06269922, and conditional use permit CUP 06269923. For Point of Hope Church, I will ask for the exhibit from our city attorney, please.

The city would like to know exhibits one through five.

Thank you. At this time, I would like to ask for the staff's presentation, Mr. Logan Day.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Before you tonight is a request to rezone a portion of the property located at 1211 Northwest 7 Highway from general business to regional commercial, along with a conditional use permit to allow the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. The applicant is requesting to rezone track three located on the rear portion of the property from GB to RC. The applicant is also requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trailers. The property is being utilized as a secure outdoor storage area and this request is intended to bring that existing use into compliance with the city's current zoning regulations. no expansion of the storage area or is proposed as part of this request the future land use map designates the property as general commercial and staff finds this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the rc zoning district staff also finds the request will not negatively impact surrounding properties as it recognizes an existing use rather than introducing a new one The site is adequately served by existing public infrastructure and no significant traffic, utility, or stormwater impacts are anticipated. The conditional use permit is limited to the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. Staff recommended additional landscaping and a six-foot privacy fence along Northwest Jefferson Street and Northwest Northridge Drive to better screen the site. Vehicle sales, repair, maintenance, or similar commercial activities are not included as part of this request. Based on the findings contained within the staff report, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request and conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed at your staff report. And I am happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here to answer any as well.

Thank you, Logan. I will bring it up here to the commissioners. Any questions for the staff before we hear from the applicant?

Yeah. Yes, sir? I have a question. Can you... a GB to an RC, which is regional commercial zoning, what is the difference between those two? What does RC allow that GB does not?

Yeah, so it would be a long list that I couldn't name off the top of my head, but RC is intended to accommodate uses that are located within close proximity to an interstate. So it includes a variety of uses.

So why not leave this as GB?

Because the allowance of the recreational use, the recreational vehicles wouldn't be allowed within the GB.

But they're out of compliance right now. Correct.

This is to bring the site into conformance.

Any other questions? Yes, sir. How long have they been out of compliance?

That I'm not aware of, but to my knowledge, that would not matter for the request.

Chantel, do you know?

At this time, that wouldn't matter for the record.

Okay. On page seven of the staff report towards the bottom, it says the requested zoning change is justified by a change in conditions since the existing zoning was designated or by error in the current designation. I don't understand that. Could you elaborate on that?

the bottom of page seven of the 15 page stop report so it would be just whenever the site potentially came into rezoning or the base district was put in essentially the use just wasn't properly caught within the zoning

Are you talking about the criteria for number seven?

Yeah, number seven and then at the bottom it's 7A. It's at the bottom of page seven and it's number seven of the staff report.

So the number seven is a criteria language that comes directly from our UDC.

Are you talking about the seven?

Yeah, so seven. So the number seven is a staff criterion.

Is what you're looking at, the words, the requested zoning changes justified?

Yes. So that would be my response to the criterion for the rezoning.

So the change in conditions are because they decided to store RVs there without getting it zoned properly.

Correct. Or the site just wasn't properly zoned when they did that.

Okay, and on page nine of the staff report, if you want to flip to that. Staff's response is the existing site is currently utilized as an outdoor storage and recreation of vehicles, RVs, boats, and trailers, and is being brought into compliance through this application, which is referenced a lot in our staff report. It continues to say, while the site does not currently include the required surface materials identified in this standard, which I would interpret as per our current code, staff is not proposing full replacement or perhaps bringing up the code of the existing storage area at this time.

So the site is currently concreted, so they aren't proposing to resurface it or do anything. So essentially, the site would remain as is, as it's been standing with the addition of their screening.

So my question is, the report says that The site does not currently include the required surface materials, but yet you're saying it's okay to leave it that way. How is it that they're not currently in compliance with their surface material?

So it would be, that'd be an error.

So what that means is that staff is saying because they're not proposing to expand the site, they're not required to bring that material into compliance. In the future, if they were to expand on that site or put a new addition building or something of that nature, they would be required to bring in the site full compliance at that point.

And so, again, my question is still how is it that the current surface is not up to current code?

Correct. So that's where I was. So it is concreted. So it is in compliance.

But it doesn't answer my question. It says here that it's not up to code.

Correct. That's where I'm.

But it is up to code? Correct. So it.

That would be my error.

Okay. One more. Page 10. uh the pedestrian access no new pedestrian access improvements are proposed with this request the subject property functions as an outdoor storage facility and it is not intended to serve pedestrian oriented oriented commercial activity there's two subdivisions within a couple hundred feet of this i understand it's not a new project would a new project trigger sidewalks and um struggling with that in the sense that And this is, I'll let you answer the question before I get to my opinion.

So there is new sidewalk along Northwest Jefferson. On the other side? So there is sidewalk along this frontage. So this is an outdated aerial.

What about the long side? There is existing sidewalk along this side. I was by there today and that's the only thing I did not look at. Correct. So there is existing. There is sufficient sidewalk on the opposite side. Okay. All right. Thank you, that's resolves my questions, and I'll have some comments. Yes, sir.

Thank you commissioner Is the applicant here? Yes, would you like to speak on behalf of you project? If you can please just state your name and the address for your record please Yes, please My name is Chuck Evans.

I'm the President was just elected in February, a point of hope. I live in Lee Summit at 2207 Northwest Hook Farm Drive. Thank you. I'll say this, it's a vital revenue source for us. It's always been a challenge. It was a lumber yard in its previous life and so we have these big kind of tea sheds as well as a big lumber barn. that were there that really weren't part of what we were doing with the church. And so just, like I say, lends itself well to what we're doing, but we do want to be good neighbors.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. All right, I am going to ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this project. Yes, please step up there. State your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name's Melinda Bowman. My husband and I own BR Carpet. So if you're familiar, we're just right down Jefferson. We're probably half a mile to the west of this. So we currently rent space there. and I'm here tonight to ask you to allow them to continue to do that. As a small business owner, protecting our equipment is a serious concern. We've had several trailers stolen from our business location down the street, in addition to several vehicles over the 21 years that we've been in this location and Last March when we had our last trailer stolen. We just said that's it or you know, we need to find someplace secure to put it and Point of Hope was the absolute best place that we could find it was convenient for our work because we do use that trailer quite a bit that's there and You know, it's reasonably priced and We just would like it to stay. It provides, I think, a valuable service for people that have RVs or boats or whatever that they can't have them because of HOA rules or they just don't have a place for them. And for us, our trailer just feels safe there. So we would ask that you guys consider keeping it the way it is.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Have a good day. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the project? Yes, sir, please step up. I do need to remind you we are going to limit your comments to three minutes, and if you could please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Rick Fillers, and I don't go to the church. I'm an unpaid consultant for the church and try to help them through this project. And what has happened in the past has never been intentional. These people are, the pastor basically runs the church with the board. All of them are very inexperienced, and that's how I got involved. I actually did a lot of the build out on it. We approached their lender on the building. The lender wanted us to get the zoning changed, which I said was the first thing we needed to do. Bring everything in compliance. What they intend to do is come up with a flex space or dry storage. something that will generate income for the church. Unless you're a big denominational facility or a Catholic facility, most churches are struggling for money. And me, living in this area, one thing that does bother me is people that have campers parked next to the house, have them in the driveways, blocking the sidewalks, and other than being a hazard you know it doesn't seem like that seems to bother a lot of people or the neighbors or even the city but it is it's a danger and i think it shows the city in a very favorable part when you have storage or forced storage out of the neighborhoods and i'm asking that you people kind of walk through this with us and let's get them through it and have an income base built for the church and also a tax base for the city you know they're here to clean it up do their part and the area that this property is in with that motel that motel is a problem you know we uh we have put a pretty secure storage facility and in uh it has cameras it has you know, surveillance and these things. The other thing that I would like for you to take in consideration is whatever we do on the Jefferson Street side, you know, police protection is also important to where they can see and they can view and in their patrols they can see what's going on. Thank you guys for your time. Thank you for your comments.

Anyone else in the audience, too, would like to speak in favor of? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to the project? Seeing none, the public comments section of this public hearing is over. Any final questions for staff back up here?

I have one. Yes, sir. Being this is revenue generating for the church, is it tax exempt? So the city sees no... No revenue from this.

Okay. Okay. Any other comments up here? Yes, sir. I'll need a couple minutes then. You've got a couple minutes.

Okay, I've got some comments here. I'm struggling with this project a lot and I cannot wrap my head around it. On page four of our staff report, it talks about the comprehensive plan. And it states that general commercial, which is what it's zoned now, serves the community, retail, service, office, commercial activities, expected to convenient access to goods, services, maintaining compatibility with adjacent land uses and appropriate site design. That's in our staff report. The rezoning to regional commercial, along with the requested CUP for the outdoor storage of RVs and boats and trailers, is intended to bring them to confirming use, but it does none of what it's zoned as now as general business. It's next to a gas station, a hardware store, a dispensary, a grocery store. Staff found that it's generally consistent with the general commercial future designation. I disagree with that belief. I don't think that it does. I think outdoor storage of boats and trailers belongs more along 40 Highway on the next project we're going to hear than this project. A few other things. On page six, it talks about precedences that staff finds the rezoning. It's not going to affect or establish any anticipated precedent. I think that it absolutely will. I think every project that we consider we should be considering the fact that we're setting a precedence. And I think it would be unfair to every applicant, now and in the future, if we did not consider that, and the citizens of Lewisburg. And my final comment, well maybe not final, but almost. Under the review criteria, staff is, and one of the conditions is a six foot high fence along Jefferson, And I did drive by there today, parked in the little gravel lot immediately off of Jefferson looking right at it. And there is a triple axle fifth wheel trailer that is 13 feet tall and the fence is gonna be six feet tall. So while I see is that earnest effort for some kind of compliance to bring it to current standards, I think the fence will fall very short of what's needed for this project, and it's hard for me to consciously vote for this project on one of Blue Springs' most prominent intersections of Seven Highway and Interstate 70. It's not on the corner, but it's immediately behind the corner, and I just see it as a lot of problems and flaws with it, and I'm struggling with it a lot for those reasons and a few more, but I'm done.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments up here?

I do. Yes, ma'am. So is the gravel lot just the driveway right now? You said grab a lot.

It is a gravel pseudo driveway, immediately after Jefferson, straight into it, but it's blocked by the fence, and you can only go in two carpets.

So it is a secured lot at this point.

It is.

I have not, I did not do my due diligence, as you did, to go by and see the site. I wish. I feel like we're really... not getting a full picture of it here, which bothers me. I wish that I did have pictures. I should have made a point of going by, but the six foot fence was a concern for me as well. The majority of exterior storage facilities are not pleasant to look at typically, but I don't, that's all I have to say.

I have one more additional comment.

Go ahead. From the time I have lived in Blue Springs, which is many, many years now, that site has been either a lumber yard or a storage place. They've been storing, do I remember that? You've been storing boats and RVs there for quite some time.

That's the case, I believe. Yes. Isn't that the case? It's been storage for, yes.

Okay.

Post the lumber yard.

It was the lumber yard. Yes. So I guess I'm struggling to figure out what is the main difference here?

They need to call them compliance so they can get a fine.

Right. But as far as the actual site itself, there's not been a real change, right? Is that correct?

Right, but just the fact that they've not been in compliance should not be a reason just to approve it. I don't think that was by their fault though. I'm not saying it is. but your thought is that you would not allow them to have this there well it's regional commercial it's the same zoning as we did for windwater and it's surrounded by offices and homes and regular general business commercial and my final comment that i failed to mention earlier is on page seven it talks about not adversely affecting the condition or value of surrounding properties I would have disagreed with that as well because I would think that something zoned regional commercial right next to all those offices right there, if their value is going to be much better and sustained better if there's like kind zoning right across the street and not regional commercial where they're storing boats and trailers and RVs and just like wind water, like commercial pipes and stuff. No offense to the church. I love the church. I've been to the church a couple times. It's just this project and I cannot give it any grace for approving it simply because the city has been letting them perform on a non-conforming basis for however many years.

Many, many years.

Many years. And that's on the city. That's not on the applicant.

Chair, I had something. Yes, ma'am. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've had plenty of situations where we have acknowledged that like grandfathering in basically, this is the status quo, this is what's been going on, but oh, by the way, we need to get you into compliance. So that's happened before. I mean, for me, to acknowledge what you said, it has been a storage facility for a long time. They're just trying to fix it, to make it right. Correct. And if any of the other businesses had an issue with the rezoning, they didn't come here to tell us that, that they had a concern about any... property value concerns that they had those houses right behind there could have they could have come they could have submitted a comment about that instead we have people who are supporting to continue to use that as as a storage unit so that's that's my thought on the matter thank you thank you for your comments any more comments up here i would like to give it back to staff any comments you'd like to add from what you've heard so far no

The only thing I would want to say is I think all of the comments that the Planning Commission has said is being heard and definitely under consideration and something that we will keep in mind as we move forward with City Council. Absolutely.

Thank you very much. One clarification. Yes, sir. So the CUP is for the church to have it as storage for RVs, boats, and trailers. That's my understanding. If they sell the building and go somewhere else, the CUP goes away, but it's still some regional commercial? Is that correct?

Correct.

So then anything regional commercial could go in right there. That's correct.

Okay. Any more comments from up here? All right. I am going to now close the public hearing portion of this. And I would ask for a motion on the rezoning portion.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

I move. to approve RZ06269922 for point of code.

We have a motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. This will be a roll call. Tracy, please.

Yes. All right. Commissioner Pumphrey?

No.

Commissioner Stokenberry? Yes. Commissioner Richel? Yes. Commissioner Irie? Yes. Commissioner Graham?

Yes.

Commissioner Henning?

No.

Commissioner Ingersoll?

Yes.

Chairperson Howell?

Yes.

All right. Passes.

That motion carried. This item will be recommended and heard by the City Council at their Monday, August 3, 2026 meeting at 6 p.m. Next is the Conditional Use Permit. I ask for a motion on that Conditional Use Permit, please. Chair? Yes, ma'am.

I move to approve the Conditional Use Permit, CUP 06269923, for Point of Hope.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. This will also be a roll call. Tracy, please.

Yes, of course. Commissioner Stokenberry? Yes. Commissioner Ritchell? Yes. Commissioner Irie? Yes. Commissioner Graham?

Yes.

Commissioner Henning?

No.

Commissioner Ingersoll?

Yes.

Commissioner Pumphrey?

No.

Chairperson Howe?

Yes. That motion also carried, and the item will be recommended and heard by the City Council at their Monday, August 3rd, 2026 meeting at 6 p.m. All right. Next, I'm going to open the public hearing for agenda item number seven, the planned development concept plan PDC04269865 for Ford Warehouse. I will ask for exhibits from our city attorney.

The city would like to enter exhibits one through five.

Thank you very much. And now it's time for staff presentation. Again, Mr. Logan Day.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Before you tonight is a request for approval of a planned development concept plan for a building addition to the existing Blue Springs parts warehouse located at 3110 Southwest Eastbound US 40 Highway. The applicant is proposing to construct a building addition on the south side of the existing lot to expand the property's facilities. The project also includes the installation of a new fire service line that will provide fire sprinkler protection to both the existing building and the proposed addition. As part of the plan development concept and to accommodate the expansion, the applicant is requesting several modifications, including an alternative frontage buffer, utilizing existing topography and landscaping, Reduction in the required parking from 39 spaces to 15 with nine deferred for future demand. The use of an improved crushed stone aggregate with a composite geograde system in lieu of traditional pavement. Continued use of the existing septic systems since no additional wastewater demand is being anticipated and a reduction in the front setback from 40 feet to 18 feet due to the location of the existing warehouse. The proposal also removes one of the site's three existing driveways, reducing the access points from three to two. The driveway will be restored as a landscaped green space, and the access modifications have been approved by MoDOT and City Engineering. Because the warehouse employs only three people and the addition is strictly for storage, staff does not anticipate any significant traffic impacts. Staff finds the requested modifications recognize the existing site conditions while allowing reasonable expansion of the facility the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and can adequately be served by existing utilities and remains compatible with surrounding properties based on this review staff recommends approval of the plan development concept subject to the conditions outlined in the staff reports and I am here to answer any questions and applicant is here as well thank you sir I'll bring it back up here to the commissioners any question for staff

I have one. The driveway that's going away, if you're looking at the diagram, is it the one on the far right?

So there is a shared access right here off Woods Chapel. So they are getting rid of this existing gravel access that kind of differs off of there. Gotcha. Thank you.

Can we make them clean up the blight next to them?

We'll keep moving. So the applicant is here. Would you like to speak on behalf of your project, sir? And just please state your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Powell Minnis, architect with Davidson Architecture and Engineering, 4301 Indian Creek Parkway, Oakland Park, Kansas. On behalf of our client, Bob Balderston and his group, we've been here. with him to design the building and the site as best we can to comply with the city, and I believe it was just recently annexed as well, so that's been part of the process. But I'm here to answer any questions you guys might have.

I'll bring it back up here, any questions for the applicant?

I feel like we grilled them a lot last time they originally talked about this.

Can you show the site plan? Just so. Okay, thank you.

The addition is right at the far south. This gray highlighted portion. Yeah, far south of the existing building.

All right, thank you, sir. You're welcome.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

And we'll go to the audience members. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this project? In favor of? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of the project? Seeing none, the public comments section of the public hearing is over. Any, bring it back up here, any final questions for the staff? Any final questions for the applicant? All right, I will now close the public hearing. And I will ask for a motion on the planned development concept plan. Don't be shy.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

I've moved to approve the plan development concept plan for Ford Warehouse, PDC-04-26-9865.

Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you very much. Tracy, a roll call, please.

Of course. Commissioner Ritchell? Aye. Commissioner Eyrie? Aye. Commissioner Graham?

Aye.

Commissioner Henning?

Aye.

Commissioner Ingersoll?

Aye.

Commissioner Pumphrey?

Aye.

Commissioner Stokenberry? Aye. Chairperson Howe?

Aye. All ayes. That motion carried, and the item will be recommended and heard by the City Council at their Monday, August 3rd, 2026 meeting at 6 p.m. Up next on the agenda is item number eight, the planned development final plan, PDF 052698854, Lux 2. And at this time, I would ask for staff's presentation. Ms. Farai.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. The application before you this evening is the plan development final plan for Lux 2, which is located at 1500 Northwest Northridge Drive and consists of a total of 2.9 acres. The plan development final plan is for the mixed-use development consisting of general business, retail, and the multifamily residential uses. The development includes a five-story building with the first floor containing approximately 11,500 square feet of retail space and garages, and the upper four stories will contain approximately 70 residential units consisting of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom apartments. The project is proposed to be completed in one single phase. The vehicle access to this development will be provided through two existing driveways along Burdette Crossing. One access point connects to the Northwest Northridge Drive and then the second one is directly to Burdette Crossing. There will be no additional access points proposed. The pedestrian access will be provided along an ADA compliant sidewalk along the east side of the development, which is clearly marked with crosswalks that will be installed within the parking area. I would say not installed, but with markings to the primary building entrance. The final plan includes a sidewalk connection extending from the internal parking area to the south property line, which then connects to the existing sidewalk system. Traffic impact study has been completed for this project, and the study determined that the development resulted in minor increases in vehicle trips consisting of the retail and residential use. The projected traffic volumes can be accommodated by the existing roadway infrastructure, so therefore there are no off-site roadway improvements currently required. The development will comply with the city stormwater detention and water quality requirements. including the applicable APWA Section 5600 Standards and Design Procedures contained in the MARC Best Management Practice Manual. Overland flow paths and detention facilities must be contained within the appropriate drainage easements. The development requires a total of 170 vehicle parking spaces, and the final plan has provided those required spaces. They've also provided the approved framework and application and documents to utilize 11 community parking spaces within the O'Reilly Auto Parts and 25 parking spaces within the Price Chopper parking lot. And again, these parking shared agreements have been accepted and are on file with the city. Because this property is smaller than the five acres, it's not required to have the provided 15% open space, but they have provided a colored landscape plan that will show the landscaping that they will be putting on site. This development will also have access to the open space amenities that's provided as part of the Lux One development just to the north. All the landscaping complies with landscaping requirements. All roof mounted and ground level mechanical equipment must be screened completely from public view and any proposed screening must be shown on the building permit plans and will be reviewed administratively before a certificate of occupancy is issued. The appropriate city departments have reviewed the final plan for LUX2. Any remaining technical requirements related to engineering, utilities, stormwater, building permits, and construction plans will be addressed before any construction begins. STAC recommends approval of the plan development final plan for Lux 2 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. And I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. I'll bring it back up here. Any questions for STAC? Seeing none, is the applicant here?

Yes.

Would you like to speak on behalf of your project? And please state your name and address for the record, please.

Dave Williams with Finkel Williams Architecture, 8787 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas, 66219. Not much to say, really. We've worked hard with staff to get this resolved, some of the final issues, and we're in agreement with everything that's been proposed and look forward for your vote.

Thank you so much. Thanks. I'll bring it back up here. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none, I will ask for a motion on the planned developmental final plan.

Chair, I move to approve PDF 05269885. Thank you, Commissioner.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you very much. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That is good. Next on the agenda is the adjournment. If there's no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Have a good night. Thank you very much.

Thank you.