Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome. I would like to call the Monday, September 14th, 2026 Blue Springs Planning Commission meeting to order. If you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. And Tracy, can we get a roll call, please?

Of course. Commissioner Ingersoll? Commissioner Pumphrey?

Present.

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

Present.

Commissioner Henning?

Present.

Chairperson Howe? Present. All right. We have a quorum.

Thank you, ma'am. At this time, I would... entertain a motion, sorry, to, uh, to approve the minutes and the consent agenda, uh, from the August 10th, 2026 meeting, as well as the extension of the links, preliminary plat and the extension of the ironwood preliminary plat.

So, um, yes, sir.

Are we approving those items already?

Yeah. They're part of the consent agenda.

Oh, I had some questions about them. I did not realize they were part of the consent agenda. If you would like to pull those and hear those.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I have a motion. Do I have a second?

We're only voting on the minutes.

Yeah, for just the minutes.

Do we need a motion to pull those from the consent agenda?

I will make a motion to pull those two items and hear them individually and the approval for just the minutes for the last meeting.

I second that.

All right. For those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Wonderful. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda, I will open the public hearing for agenda item number six, the UDC text amendment, UDC T08.

Do you want to do the? Pull the first two items?

Yes. So up next we will hear considerations of the two-year extension

That one? Yeah. Preliminary plan approval for the links.

Yes. So chair and commissioner, good evening. Before you this evening is just the same extension letter that we've done in the past with Hoodow Meadows. The LINCS was originally approved in October 28th of 2024, and they have submitted a memo requesting a two-year extension because they are in the process of doing their infrastructure design and construction documents. So this is by code to allow one more extension for two years to go ahead and go forward with it. I'd be happy to answer any questions on that one.

Thank you. I'll bring it back up here for the –

The one question I have is, I see that we're doing a two-year extension. I'm not opposed to that, but in the letter that the applicant wrote as part of our packet, it says, I am working on final design and infrastructure layout right now and I'm requesting a 12-month extension. So, I mean, I'm more in line to, per code we don't do a 12 month per code it's only a two year option we don't have but we can't do a one year typically not typically we need to go ahead and do the two year per code in our written code yes it has to be a two year okay that uh that makes sense the client would be able to come back sooner though right oh yeah yeah okay okay so let's do this let me uh entertain is there a motion from a commissioner

on approving the extension of the preliminary plat approval for the links. So moved. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. So all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion carries. Now, second up is the consideration of a two-year extension of the preliminary plat approval of Ironwood. Would you give some information on that, please?

Yes. So, Chair and Planning Commissioners, again, this is the same thing as a memo. The original Ironwood was approved on September 23rd of 2024. They, again, have requested a formal request to extend their preliminary plat to expire September 23rd of 2024. Excuse me of 2028 And again same thing we've we've been going through some litigations with them and solving some of their infrastructure and water issues So this would be the same thing Asking for the approval to extend it for two years Thank you, I will bring it back up here is any questions on that I

all right oh yes sir yeah go ahead okay then i would uh ask for a commissioner to have a motion on approval of the consideration of a two-year extension with the preliminary plat approval of ironwood is there a second all right those in favor say aye aye any opposed all right that motion also carries All right, so that will take us to a public hearing of the Unified Development Code Text Amendment. This is UDC Text Amendment UDCT08269958 for city development fees. I will ask for exhibits from our city attorney, please.

The city would like to enter exhibit one, this city staff report.

Thank you very much. And I will bring it over to Ms. Chantelle Pryor, who I believe is gonna talk about this.

Yes, so the item before you is the UDCT 08269958, which is a proposed update to the fee schedule for the city of Blue Springs. The current fee schedule has not been comprehensively updated since 2017, and staff has reviewed the city's existing fees, recent public notice expenses and fees that are charged by comparable communities throughout the Kansas City metro area. The proposed update includes an approximately 30% adjustment to certain application fees, which will incorporate $175 for the required public notice costs and the applicable application fees, which is reducing the need for a separate invoicing. As of right now, they get two different invoices, so they get their invoice for their application. and then some weeks after they get an invoice for their public notice. So it's not actually capturing an accurate cost of fees. So this will allow the developer or the applicant to see all fees up front rather than kind of like the surprise on the back end. So like I said, it will actually capture the public notice expenses. And then if that 175 is exceeded for any reason, it allows staff to adjust the invoicing to capture the public notice at that point. The amendment also establishes a $400 fee for the general development plan applications, which currently have no application fee at this time. Then the Development Advisory Commission meeting was scheduled for September 3rd It was counseled due to a lack of quorum staff has attempted to reschedule the meeting before tonight's hearing But we could not identify a date where quorum was available So staff recommends that the Planning Commission Recommends approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions on this one.

Thank you, ma'am I'll bring it back up here as any questions for staff This just sounds like it makes sense

and makes life easier. Awesome, excellent.

All right, we will open it up to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this project? Seeing none, any audience member would like to speak in opposition to? All right, seeing none, the public comments of this section of the public hearing is over. Any final questions or comments from staff? All right, any discussions or comments from the commission? All right, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion on the UDC text amendment.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

I move to approve the Unified Development Code Text Amendment, UDCT 08269958.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. All right. So this will be a roll call. Tracy, please.

All right. Commissioner Pumphrey?

Aye.

Commissioner Stoker-Berry? Aye. Commissioner Ritchell? Aye. Commissioner Irie? Aye. Commissioner Graham?

Aye.

Commissioner Henning?

Aye.

Chairperson Howe?

Aye. All ayes. Fantastic. This motion carried. This item will be recommended and heard by the City Council at their Monday, September 21, 2026 meeting at 6 p.m. Up next on the agenda, I will open up the public hearing for agenda item number 7, the UDC Text Amendment, UDC T08269959, for the planned development final plan.

And I'll ask for our City Attorney to please enter exhibits. The city would like to enter Exhibit 1, the staff report.

Thank you, sir. And at this time, again, Ms. Chantel Farai.

Good evening, chairing and members of the Planning Commission. The item before you is UDCT 08269959, which is proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code regarding the approval process for a plan development final plan. Currently the PD final plans require review and approval through the public hearing process and that proposed amendment would allow a PD final plan to be approved administratively when substantially conforms to the previously approved PD concept plan and meets all applicable city requirements. The purpose of this amendment is to streamline development review process and to eliminate an additional public hearing when the overall development, including its uses, density, layout, and approved modifications have already been considered and approved through the PD concept plan. Any substantial change or deviation from the approved concept plan would still be required to proceed through the appropriate public hearing and approval process, and staff recommends this amendment for the PD final plan to be administratively approved, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I'll bring it back up here to the commission. Any questions for staff?

Yes, ma'am. The substantial seems subjective to me, and that concerns me a little bit. So is there any definition of what determines if it's substantial or not? In the staff report, I have it listed. You do?

Yes. Basically, if things are changing, increasing the density, changing land uses, new modifications, anything that would be a deviation from what was originally approved, would bring it back. Anything, changes of architecture and things like that, for the most part would still remain administratively, but anything that would constitute where we would have to come back forward, it would allow us. What we're basically capturing is right now, we bring the PD concept plan and there's absolutely no changes between the PD concept plan and the final plan, and so it's not worth bringing the PD final plan when you've already heard and approved the concept.

Yeah, I would totally agree. If it's 100% the same, that doesn't seem... Too good?

I don't want to say good, but it satisfies your question.

I think it just says substantial still, but I guess, I don't know. That answers my question a little bit.

That's a... that's a common terminology used across the entire UDC and so whether it's a plat or development project we use substantial compliance as a standard term to me I mean you said architecturally so finish changes and stuff like that wouldn't be require any No, I mean, unless it's a requirement of the approval and it was a item that was called out in the concept plan specifically, that wouldn't be a substantial change. But if it was a specific material type or composition of the architecture that was in the concept and it wasn't included in the final, then we would require it to go back through.

Did we have a question or comment down there?

I'm just a little more confused on the architecture changing. So if we took saying that there's a metal building at the or say the building at the concept plan is CMU brick blah blah blah all this stuff and then if they came back and said no actually it's a metal building then it would come to final plan.

review or would that be done administratively because in my mind that's a significant material change of architecture so it would that would be something that would come back through the concept to be approved i would say that that would be a substantial change um assuming that that was a specific condition of the approval of the concept plan itself when it originally came through

So it would need to be spelled out as a condition? Correct. Versus just them showing the renderings that we are voting on and deciding for a flex space, for instance? Correct.

Because most of the time, we're not regulating the architecture specifically. That's not a specific condition of the PD concept. But it can be a part of it if it is included.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to say? I do. I share the same similar concerns, although I'm in agreement with it. The struggle that I have and the one change that I would like to have is that although some may seem as minor, this is a big deal in letting staff approve it. On the top of page three, it says the amendment would authorize the director of city development or designee. And to stop... Any potential problems down the road, I would like to discuss or just strike the words or designee and leave this in the hands of the director of city development, because I think it's pretty important. And I imagine designee would be anybody that the director of city development would appoint, and that concerns me. I'd prefer just to be the director.

The designee would be myself or Logan, the planners.

Can we add the word designated planner to make it more specific?

That means the same thing.

Well, I think he's saying that the ultimate approval should be with the director. At least run by the director of the department. So you don't want to have, it's just the director and that's all?

Yeah, just the director instead of the, or designee.

So if we're without... for a period of time, then that wouldn't limit, nobody could approve it.

Pardon me?

If we didn't, if let's say the director was out and somebody needed to approve it, the reason, I read that or designee, if somebody's gone, then you have a backup. If somebody, right?

Right.

So. Isn't the designee in a chain of command, and so you wouldn't just assign it to anybody, it would go down on the chain of command?

Correct. Designee means anybody in the department could approve it.

See, I don't read it like that. Or the planners. I think it's by chain of command, and so he or she would have designated a certain person to speak on their behalf.

Which basically, potato, potato means any of the planners could also approve it, and I mean, initially, I just, that's just my thought.

Yeah, I wouldn't leave it to just one person, in my personal self.

I mean, if the director is out for an extended time, is somebody appointed an interim director or a, like if it's two days, that's no big deal. They can wait two days, right?

And this stuff is gonna be.

But if somebody's sick, I mean,

like long-term well most also is it fair to say that most of these approvals would come with substantial notice like a week or two weeks that it's coming

My concern, limited to just the director, is it's so specific, even if you have an interim, I don't know if that person would be allowed to approve it. So the designee allows the director, and it would have to be specifically, he would have to, there would have to be some type of email paper trail saying you you are the designee for this project or something like that. It's not just, I wouldn't even consider the chain of the command. He would have to take a step to give that permission to the person doing it. Understood.

You're saying as it is now, that permission has to be given?

Yes, yes. And if we took that out, it would specifically be just the director. I don't even know if an interim would be allowed to make that decision.

So then should it say or designate with written permission or something? Right. Or with some sort of form on staff, you know, filed on the project record?

I think he's saying as it is, is what that would be, that they have to be designated per project. Right.

And as of right now, the process includes all of us, including the director, myself, and the planner who's assigned. we typically do a development review of each project in-house. So it's nothing that the director wouldn't have any idea, you know.

I understand that, and by no means am I having any doubt with any of the current planners. I love all of you. I'm just thinking long-term and protection of the city. That's what I'm thinking about. That's where I have a little bit of concern. But as long as there's, and it doesn't say that, but if there's a paper trail that, yeah, the director is out and it's part of the history of it that you're gonna designate so and so to approve this, I would be more inclined to approve that and be okay with that.

Are you saying you would like to have the language changed or are you fine with the language as it currently is?

I'm just verbalizing and I'm struggling right now.

So let's do this. Is there any more conversation on this topic from up here?

Yes, ma'am. Just to clarify, for me, when I read or designate, I'm inferring that there is written communication. I'm designating so-and-so in lieu of myself to approve this. So I don't... For me, I feel like I'm comfortable with that language because, you know, just to... cover your bases, dot all your I's, et cetera. A designee, to me, means you've written out a designation for someone to sign off on it in your absence.

And it's going to be someone qualified. They're not going to grab someone off the street and say, this is my designee. It's going to be someone qualified to make the decision. And from what I'm hearing, it sounds like it's kind of a collaborative decision made anyway. So it's not one person making that decision. It's the group. So I'm fine with the way it's printed as well.

OK, I'm going to take it to the audience since we're in the open discussion. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this project? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to? All right, seeing none. The public comments of this section of the public hearing is over. Any final questions for staff? Any final questions? Well, there's no applicants. So let's close the public hearing. And any discussion up here, final discussion from the commission before we move on? All right, seeing none, I would ask for a motion on the UDC text amendment.

Chair? Yes, sir. I would move to approve the Unified Development Code Text Amendment for Plan Development Final Plan UDCT-08-26-9959.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do I have a second?

Second.

All right. And so this will be a roll call. Tracy, please.

All right. Commissioner Stokenberry? Aye. Commissioner Ritchell? Aye. Commissioner Irie?

Aye.

Commissioner Graham?

Aye.

Commissioner Henning?

Aye.

Commissioner Humphrey?

No.

Chairperson Howe?

Aye. That motion carried. And this item will be recommended and heard by the City Council on their Monday, September 21, 2026 meeting at 6 PM. Next agenda item is the Planned Development Final Plan, PDF 08269953 for Ford Warehouse. At this time, I'll ask for staff's presentation for Mr. Logan Day.

Good evening chairman and commissioners before you tonight is a request for approval of a plan development final For a building addition to the existing Blue Springs Ford part warehouse located at 31 10 Southwest eastbound us 40 highway the applicant is proposing to construct a storage addition on the south side of the existing warehouse to expand the facility storage capacity The project also includes a new fire service line to provide fire sprinkler protection to both the existing warehouse and the proposed addition. The planned development final reflects the modification previously approved within the planned development concept, including the alternative frontage buffer utilizing the existing topography and landscaping, a reduction in the required parking from 39 spaces to 15 with nine spaces deferred for future demand, The use of an improved crushed stone aggregate with a composite geogrid system in lieu of traditional pavement and continued use of existing septic system and a reduction of the front setback from 40 feet to 18 feet due to location of the existing warehouse. The project also removes one of the site's three existing driveways, reducing access points from three to two. The removed driveway will be restored as landscaped green space, and the proposed access modifications have been approved by both MoDOT and City Engineering. Staff has reviewed the plan development final and finds the submitted plans are consistent with the approved plan development concept and address the applicable conditions and requirements. Based on this review, staff recommends approval of the plan development final subject to the conditions listed at the end of staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here as well.

Thank you, sir. We will bring it back up here. Any questions for staff?

I have a question. Yes, sir. When this came back through in July, this is the final?

Yeah, this is just the final.

Right, and then when it came through in July, what was it? A concept. A concept, okay. I remember, it's probably too late, but I want to make these comments on record. When we heard it in July... I remember us talking about improving the bigger space and I didn't really think through it at the time like I did yesterday when I was reviewing my packet. There was a question as to and a comment about the septic system and that a number of employees that work there was like two or three or three or four. And again, it may be too late, but the existing warehouse is 12,000 square feet. and they're doing an expansion of 15,200 feet, which is more than twice the size. If I remember correctly, in July, there was to be no additional employees, and that's why the existing septic system was approved or okay. How do we know that? And it seems like so many things that we approve The number of parking spaces is dependent on the square feet or the size, and we're over. We're doubling more than doubling the size of it. But yet there's no additional employees. Does the city do anything to check that to check the controls? Because it just seems like common sense to me, and I'll look at you and also the city attorney that if you're going to double the size, you're going to need more employees to run that. So. I guess that's a statement and also a comment if I could get some feedback from anybody on that.

Yeah, of course. So back in July, the septic for the project isn't for the warehouse itself. So the frontage building has a septic. So the warehouse, the existing warehouse and the proposed addition don't have any like bathrooms or anything. So they have to go to this front and So between that, there's no addition of wastewater. So the condition of the concept was in the event that they come back and they add any more toilets or anything that would increase increase their wastewater, they would be required to connect to our sewer. So that was a condition that we kind of foresaw and was something that we were kind of looking at in regards to the parking. through numerous conversations between the applicant and then Ford themselves. Essentially, the warehouse is operating as a parts storage. So really the only people that are there are to monitor the Cummings from the Ford dealership that's off of, I don't remember what road, outer road. So it's just essentially just for the Ford dealership to come pick up parts and then leave. So it's a very low maintenance staffed position. And then even in fact, they're just keeping the existing parking. And then the event that they do need to, we've given them some room to increase that as well.

Any more comments up here? I see the applicant is here. Would you care to speak on behalf of your project? And please remember to state your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you, Commissioner, Chair and Commissioner. My name's Powell Minnis, I'm the architect with Davidson Architecture and Engineering. Our address is 4301 Indian Creek Parkway, Olin Park. We're the architect of record and civil engineer for the project. On behalf of the Balderston Group, we've worked with them on several projects in Lee's Summit and Blue Springs. And what Logan, everything Logan says is accurate. And we've verified that as well, that they just need more space for parts, fenders, things like that is a good example. And they just don't quite have enough space there now to serve the needs of the dealership. They've said many times that there would be no more employees than they have right now. I think two really is the maximum on any given day. But that may fluctuate one or two. So no additional bathrooms were, were required for the addition, it all meets the current standards, code standards for proximity, length, and quantity based on occupant load, so we feel comfortable about that. But really, it's just for the Ballston group to have more space for their parts, and they have the room here. It's a good use, I believe, of the south part of the site. It's It's the furthest away from the street, so that really does limit the proximity to any visual issues that one might have from Highway 40. But yeah, they're excited about it, and we're happy to get it going. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much for your comments. Appreciate it. All right, I'll pull it back up here. Any questions, final questions for staff? from the commissioners. All right, don't see any questions for the applicant. All right, I will ask for a motion on the plan development final plan.

Chair. Yes, sir. I move to approve plan development final plan PDF 08269953 for the Ford warehouse development.

Thank you very much. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that motion carried. Is there any further business from up here? I would just like to say I hope I see you all at Fall Fun Fest this weekend. All right. Gotta get that Timmy burger. Yes, sir. All right, if there's no other business, Commissioner, I'd like to have a motion to... So moved to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? I didn't think so. Have a great weekend and thank you very much. Go Chiefs!