Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Good evening. I would like to call the Monday, July 28th, 2025 Blue Springs Planning Commission meeting to order. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Tracy, can we get a roll call, please, for attendance? Of course.

Commissioner Ingresol, present. Commissioner Pumprey, present. Commissioner Stokenberry, Commissioner Smith, present. Commissioner Sanderson, present. Commissioner Kra, here. Commissioner Graham, present. Commissioner How here. Chairperson Henning here. Thank you, Tracy.

Thank you and welcome everyone this evening here and watching from home. Tonight's agenda consists of item number one, the minutes from the last meeting. Items number two through four is a reasonzoning general development plan and preliminary plat for Boulder Springs. At this time, I would entertain a motion for the consent agenda for the approval for the minutes for the July 14th meeting. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? That motion carries.

Moving right into it. I will now open the public hearing for agenda item number three and four. Reszoning RZ06259614 and general development plan GDP 06259615 with agenda item number four being run concurrently. At this time, I will ask for exhibits from our city attorney, Josh Newell. The city would like to enter exhibits one through eight. Thank you, Josh. Anybody that's here that would like to speak for or against this project or about this project, please stand and be sworn in as a group collectively.

I do.

Thank you. And it looks like Miss Fry is ready to go to talk to us about this project. So, Chantel Fry on behalf of the city, 903 West Main Street, Blue Springs, 64015. Good evening, uh, chairman and commissioners. Before you this evening is a request for a reszoning, a general development plan, a preliminary plat for Boulder Springs, which is a proposed single family development located south of Southeast Sunnyside School Road and west of Southeast Adams Dair Parkway. The current property includes one parcel on the approximately 35.6 6 plus or minor acres and is currently zoned agricultural with the county designation. The first request is to reszone the property from agricultural county to SF7 the single family residential district. The subject property cannot be developed under the current zoning district and prior to any development activity a resoning must be completed. The 2014 comprehensive plan included the subject property as a neighborhoods which is defined as areas for residential living arranged in connected patterns of streets and blocks to provide access to civic and neighborhood amenities. The C2 area plan classifies the subject property as detached housing mixed with the smallcale multi-unit housing and the intent of the SF zoning district is defined in section 404.080 0 80 is intended to accommodate and protect moderate density residential development as part of the overall neighborhood development patterns identified in the comprehensive plan.

The second request is for a general development plan that covers the 35.6 plus or minus acre property. The proposed general development plan includes 92 single family homes, a walking trail, and a pocket park. The property is proposed to be developed in one single phase. The applicant is proposing three total access points with one being off of Southeast Adams Dairy Parkway and two being through the adjacent neighborhood of the Keystone Estate which has a direct access to Southwest 7 highway and a southeast doubleA highway. The access on Adams Derry Parkway will have three turn lanes with one being for traffic entering into the neighborhood, one for tra traffic turning left are going northbound onto southeast Adams Dair Parkway and one for the traffic turning right or going southbound on Southeast Adams Parkway. The 10- foot wide multi-use path along Southeast Adams area Parkway will remain and the applicant will be required to install five foot ADA compliant sidewalks on both sides of the proposed streets of the internal development. The proposed land use is detached housing and the proposed density is approximately 2.62 units per acre. Each lot will be approximately 66 feet minimum with a frontage width and then also containing a minimum of 7,521.46 ft lot size. The front setback is set at the 25 foot foot and then the side setback is 8 ft and a rear setback of 15. The conceptual elevations show two-car garages which will meet the offstart off streetet parking requirement. And the conceptual elevations are the houses that include a mix of one and twotory houses with materials containing masonary vinyl siding and decorative elements. Uh the

applicant provided some conceptuals of home elevations that could be into this neighborhood, but because it's a general development plan, they're not held to these elevations. Um, since there is no established minimum livable floor area directly adjacent to the development, the UDC states that the planning commission shall designate one. The applicant is proposing a minimal livable floor area of 1,200 square ft for all proposed lots. The property to the west, Keystone Estates, does not have an established minimum floor area, but the block directly adjacent to the development has an average building area of 1,17 square ft per the Jackson County. The minimum livable floor area will be noted on the final plat. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 10% open space and the applicant is proposing 9.22 22 acres which meets this uh the minimum 10% open space and will consist of park amenities and walking trails. The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan which will be reviewed in greater detail with the administrative site plan design review. And the final request is for the approval of a preliminary plat and the preliminary plat will include 92 lots and four tracks. staff re reviewed the reszoning request under the nine review criteria included in the staff report and finds the request in con in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning and development of the site is appropriate since the development is on a arterial and is relatively close to the intersection at Morland School Road. Approval of the application could encourage development of a vacant property along the parkway and create a

precedence for a site design with the focus of being on pedestrians. Denial of this application would result in the property maintaining a county zoning district which is not permitted by right in the city and can discourage unique and innovative developments. Staff feels that the resoning to the SF7 single family residential district would allow greater density and housing stock and allow for a unique type of development. Based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the reszoning of the site. Staff reviewed the general development plan under the six criterias included in the staff report and feel that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan as a property designated for single family residential development. The proposed general development is conditioned on the approval of the concurrent application for resoning. The general development plan complies comply complies with allipical use development and design standards. Staff finds a general development plan will foster a convenient and walkable neighborhood. Based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the general development plan with the one condition. Staff al also recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the six conditions in the staff report. I would be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also here.

Any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none as can hear.

Good evening. Dan Foster with Schlleggo 14920 West 107 Street, Lanexa, Kansas. Here representing Kalara who is the developer for this particular project. Also here is Melissa with Ralph Brett's White Goss Gentile Roads and Vernon with Mccertie Engineers who's the traffic consultant to prepare the traffic study for this project. Um, you can go to the next slide. So, as staff stated, we're here to request a resoning from a to SF7 and approval of a general development plan preliminary plat uh for this subdivision. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. Um, if you go to the next slide real quick that the adjacent land use to us uh in Keystone is also SF7. So, we're matching that particular zoning. I also wanted to make it clear because it wasn't I don't know if it was clear in the staff report or not, but we are only uh doing the north 34 acres of this parcel. So, it's the area highlighted in yellow here. We are not doing we're not involved with anything on the southern 15 acres that will be retained by the ownership and will remain as agg at this point until a future development plan is brought before you guys. So I just wanted to make that clear because the ex the map that was in the staff report had the entire parcel outlined which uh was not really the subject of our request for a reasonzoning. Um if you go to the next slide then so in this plan we're proposing 92 standard single family lots. Uh all the lots meet

the standards in the code in terms of lot width setback lot area all of those things that are uh the normal standards as part of your code. As staff mentioned, access will be from Adams Derry Parkway uh for the access there on the east and then we are connecting to Sandstone and Rockwood Street out of the existing neighborhood to complete the street network here. Uh, one of the things that's somewhat important, I think, in terms of how we laid out the subdivision is that we tried not to have a direct connection from uh, Sandstone or um, Rockwood to Adams Dairy that you actually have to do right and left turns to get there to kind of make sure that the speeds stay down. Uh, in both of those neighborhoods, uh, sidewalks are provided on one side of the street as required by code. Uh the project includes 15% open space uh which is more than the 10% that the code um minimum is. That open space is primarily at the main entrance there on the north side. We have a amenity playground small park area. the southern area that's within our boundary we're leaving as uh somewhat natural with the trail connection future trail through there. We're providing an easement for uh that trail to for the city to construct a trail through there. Uh detention basin will be down there as well and that connects back through into our neighborhood. And then we've also got the green space that's underneath the high power or high tension power lines there. Uh the project also includes a landscape buffer along Adams Derry Parkway that

ranges in width from 30 feet to 80 feet u with 30 feet being u right at that culde-sac there on the north end and the 80t being more right off the entrance. This exceeds the um 40 feet or excuse me the width of 25 feet that's required in the code. So we are exceeding the code there. Um the street and utility infrastructure will be completed in a single phase and if approved tonight and at the council then the construction could start as early as late this year or the first part of next year. So, um, with that, that kind of covers the basics that I'm presenting on the project. I'm going to turn over to Melissa, who's going to provide some additional information on the project.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Melissa Vancram with Rouse Fretz White Goss Law Firm, 4510 Belleview Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri. Um, if you could go ahead and advance to the next slide. Um there has been a traffic impact study and has been um reviewed updated um with a a letter for this particular um application has been reviewed um by the professional city staff as well. It is a holistic review of safety and operations of the access point. Uh this application proposes one uh just a single access point on Adams Dair Parkway. It's been found through the traffic study to be consistent with a number of different access points up and down this area. Um the traffic study found that a traffic signal is not warranted and that the traffic volumes do not warrant um right or lefthand turn lanes at this time. Um, and as Dan mentioned, there's also, um, two connections to the west through the existing development, providing multiple different avenues for connectivity. Um, in addition to the trail that will help connect, um, sidewalks and, um, traffic into the park and to the elementary school and, and that type of thing as well. Um, if you go ahead and advance, um, you can go through these next few slides if you'd like. These are slide views of the property. Um so you can kind of see what it looks like along Adams Derry Parkway. This is from the adjacent neighborhood where the connect connections will happen um on Rockwood and then Sandstone. Um and then again on Adams Dair Parkway. Um so you can see there is some tree buffer um that you know is pre-existing. There will be some of that retained along the Adams Dair Parkway edge um for a buffer. Um there's also a buffer that will be on the west side adjacent to the pre-existing homes as well. Um so you can see just a little bit through those images that you can't see otherwise. Um as both staff and the

engineer have have um indicated it is completely consistent with the future um land use policy of neighborhood. Um it's also consistent with the area plan neighborhood which is for detached and smallcale mixed properties. Um both of them are very much uh focused on smallcale uh residential um including multiple different density types of housing and um including the same kind of connectivity to neighborhood services and civic uses that um we've talked about here. It also furthers the intent of the proposed zoning district by providing um those same types of development patterns for residential development connected to the types of uses that um individuals are looking for when when living in these neighborhoods. If you could go ahead and and advance there. Um the criteria for approval is it's also completely consistent with the adjacent zoning by encouraging um unique pedestrian um oriented site design. I don't know that you can see too well on the map provided, but if you zoom out, you will see SF7 is the majority of the surrounding property as well. Um it's not just um the one immediately adjacent, but it's um the property on three sides. There's some other zoning across on the other sides of Adam Parkway, including Agg and a larger uh single family zoning, but everything in the immediate vicinity is zoned consistent with this uh request here. The lot sizes u meet or exceed all of the requirements um including the 66 foot square footage. um that's designed to allow a third garage if someone were to want one, but it is, you know, ultimately exceeds the requirements of this particular zoning district. And no deviations or variances, no modifications are requested with this application. The storm water has been

mitigated through the um proposed uh development as well. And you can go ahead and advance if you'd like. Um, and as I mentioned, the traffic is is expected to have minimal impact to the surrounding traffic network. Um, the application is in compliance with all respect of the city plans, policies, and the United Development Code. There will be more detailed plans that will be provided to staff um per the conditions of approval to approve as the plan and development moves forward. But we appreciate staff's recommendation of approval. Uh we agree with all proposed conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval of this application. We are available to answer any questions that you may have this evening. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant before we hear from the audience? You mentioned something about thirdcar garages. Could you reiterate that? just that the the lot width, that lot frontage has been designed at 66 um square feet of frontage because it would potentially allow for a third car garage. But anything like that would have to be approved through the process as well. But it just provides for that option when individuals um you know when when there's actually lots sold and individual um lots being built.

All right. Thank you. Is there any 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 this project?

Name and address, please, sir. Thank you.

Certainly. My name is Andy Edgar. I'm the HOA president for the Pine subdivision representing 53 households. Um I guess I am up here. I live at 2114 Southeast Hammlock Road and I guess I am speaking on a basis of neutrality with respect to their request. But my concern is to implore upon you all to look at the traffic that is currently on Adams Dairy Parkway as well as the traffic that is going to be added to it coupled with the traffic that is being added further south on Adams Dair past Morland School Road. Um, if you haven't been down there or you don't live in the area, when we turn left into our neighborhood coming from South High School route from the north to the south, you take your life into your own hands. Uh, we like to call it Adams Dair uh, Speedway. Uh, so we do have a lot of problems there when you have eight months where school's in session. And granted, I'm only talking about select periods of time here, but when you do have the cars that are going to be turning right into the new subdivision, we're turning left into ours, you know, you're going to have cars that are going to be zigzagging in and out of traffic. It's just ine inevitable. And with distracted driving the way it is right now, I'm concerned about that for the people that are in our neighborhood as well as those that are in the Parkway East subdivision. um when you get up to Shamrock and you start throwing that traffic into there, it it's almost impossible to get across that street at Adams Derry at points in time. So, you know, I I I hate to say it, but um when I did listen to the last speaker talk about doesn't warrant turn lanes at this time, guess who's going to get stuck with that somewhere down the

road? It's going to be you all. And I'm certainly not up here to implore you to immediately add turn lanes. That's not the point. But I would ask that some consideration be given to facilitating our ability to turn, warning other drivers about, you know, cars turning in different directions as opposed to seeing people zigzag because at some point are we going to wait until somebody gets rearended very seriously before we take action upon that. So, um, the demographics of the neighborhoods when you look at this proposed subdivision, you look at the Parkway East and West, the demographics are for the younger families with more kids. And so, this increased traffic is going to present some hazards there. I'm just asking that at some point you all start looking proactively forward as opposed to waiting until after everything is developed to actually take any action upon that. So, you know, as I said, we're really not saying anything negative about this subdivision, but we do wi wish that you would look at that and we will be, you know, working on that a little bit more for next week's meeting as well. The last thing is is on the uh I I I almost understood that the um trail that was going to be put in this subdivision is going to be paid by the city as opposed to the developer. That's kind of unique. I'm wondering why that would be the case. Um maybe I misunderstood that. But to me, at the general information, it was presented that we were going to have a nice little walking trail back there. Are are we paying for it, the city, or should the developer bear that cost? I would ask that to be, you know, considered there. Uh, beyond that, um, I appreciate your time for taking the time to listen to me. Thank you.

Thank you. Your question is notated for staff. Um, and I'm sure they'll look into that. As for um the traffic, it has increased over time and we have some senior staff here and city councilmen. Uh, I would implore them to to take a look at the increase in traffic over the recent years and see if anything change is warranted. It's just you look at it from South High School where they turn on to um Turner Road or whatever that is right south of the high school there and it just starts bumper car from that point all the way to Morland. So, you know, that's what I'm asking for is for people to look at that. Thank you. Sooner than later. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this project? All right. See none. Uh the public comments section of this public hearing is over. Staff, do you have any comments or thoughts about uh what you've heard so far?

Yeah, I can take the uh trail. Um and uh I believe the applicant has their traffic engineer here and the city's um representative from Cochran Engineering um can speak to our traffic impact study as well. But in general, developers are required to do a traffic impact study to determine if public improvements are required and one of those is a warrant analysis for installation of stop signs or traffic signals. Um based upon the anticipated development up and down Adams Parkway and within within a given distance as well as the anticipated traffic coming from this development, uh the development does not meet the warrants um from the manual uniform traffic control device manual that would suggest that a traffic or that would require a traffic signal to be installed at this intersection at this time. um if a signal is required at some point in the future uh for this intersection in particular um that the city would be on the hook for paying for that. Uh but a traffic stud or a traffic signal could be warranted at another intersection somewhere down on Adams Dairy Parkway that may uh result in a traffic signal not being required for this intersection. So at this time based upon the development that is happening and is projected to happen and has been approved uh there is no signal that's warranted at this time. Uh as far as the trail connection uh this was forwarded or routed to our parks department as is standard practice with all of our uh developments. Um the parks permit said that they do identify the area as a vital trail connection from Keystone Park to Adams Parkway uh from the west to the east. Um and they just requested that over

somewhere within the stream corridor to have a public easement for the use of a public public trail connection that will be installed by the parks department. Um so they do not have the need for a trail connection now, but the developer will be providing an easement within that um stream corridor area so that the the parks department could come back in and install a trail when uh it's deemed appropriate or when that connection from Keystone Park to Adams Parkway um is needed. So, the applicant is giving uh the city an easement in order to put a future trail in there, but they're not being required to construct that trail.

So, the trail is not a part of this de this plan. This development plan for this developer will be putting the trail in the trail itself is not part of it. Uh but an easement for a future trail is Can you show us where it might go? I know it's hypothetical because it's not planned. Will it

Right. The easement is right here. This is the the creek and stream. I don't know which way the city will do the trail, but it will be within this area. And I don't know if they'll just link on to here to what the developer is building or which way we will go. I don't I have not seen any plans. Mike, have you seen So, the developer is building a trail around a walking path. Yes, they're building the one that you see here that's around their detention pond to the south.

Dan, can you speak to the trail location?

Yeah, so our our understanding, sorry, was that the white trail that you see through there was the city trail. Um, so it doesn't really make sense for there to be a trail for us on one side and the city to have a trail on the other side. So our intent was that that white line that you see there on the north side of the creek would be the trail connection. And that makes the most sense. If you look at the topography right below where it says Blue Branch Creek, for example, on the other one on the left hand side, you can see the contours there are really, really close together. that would make it hard. It's steep, which would make it hard for a trail. So, we're thinking that it would be better to be on the north side. So, I think that's something that we need to further clarify, I guess, with the staff in terms of this easement and trail and locking it down as to where it needs to be located and, you know, what how it gets built and that kind of thing. So,

yeah, staff will work with the developer as we get more towards the final development plan as to um where a connection that they would be required to build to the trail. Uh on the far western side, there's a north south trail connecting from Sandstone Drive down to the trail. Um that will be the responsibility of the developer, but the location of the east to west trail that meanders through the the creek area uh will not be built with this phase. Again, the parks department just asked for an easement um because trying to figure out where the exact location of that would go right now is just not something the city um feels is necessary at this time.

Um I'm still mildly confused about the situation. Let me see. There's not going to be two trails, correct? Okay. So, the developer is just going to be providing a an easement through this area of the trail or through this area of their property. Okay.

And then um and up through here. The city will be constructing that trail. Um, this east, west, north or on the west side, this north south trail is essentially part of the sidewalk system of the development and will be installed by the developer and will stub out at this location or close there too. Um, should this get approved tonight or recommended for approval and then approved by the city council. Um, there's a number of extra documents that would follow. uh the PD final plan, the civil site infrastructure drawings which would take into account a lot more uh detail and then the final plat at which time uh the easement location would be better identified. Um potential location for the trail may be better identified, but again the parks department right now just wanted to see the trail get an easement for future construction uh by the developer. So, we'll have multiple opportunities of this project coming back through in which we'll be able to delve dig that delve deeper into this.

Yeah. To to pinpoint where a future trail may be located. But again, the developer is not building any of the east west trail. Okay. Any other discussion up here?

I have a question for the for the engineer from the questions that the HOA representative asked you. Do you do you have any concerns about what they said? Because a lot of times we I think we need to listen more to the representatives from these communities, what they have to say because they live there and they know what the traffic situation looks like. Do you have any concerns about what the gentleman said and how would you address that? We can if if you have specific questions about it, we certainly have a traffic engineer representative from the traffic engineer here that can speak to it. Um, but generally speaking, the the concerns that have been raised or with existing traffic on Adams Dair Parkway and what's considered with the actual application is the the actual um impact of the development itself. And so while we understand that there may be some existing concerns about safety that warrant um some types of consideration in terms of how that's managed um whether it be with the high school students speeding down and zooming in and out of cars or otherwise um you know we certainly support that um but it's not generally part of a zoning consideration for an individual application. Uh, any other questions up here? Seeing none and hearing none, uh, staff, you're good. You don't have anything else? All right. I will close the public hearing. And at this time, I would entertain a motion for the reasoning portion.

Chair. Yes. I would move to recommend approval for the reszoning RZ6-25-9614 Boulder Springs. So, have a motion in a second. Uh, could we get a roll call, please, Tracy? Yes, of course. Commissioner Humphrey. I Commissioner Smith I. Commissioner Sanderson I. Commissioner Kraov I. Commissioner Graham. I. Commissioner How I. Commissioner Ingresol. I. Chairperson Henning.

I. That motion carried and will be heard by the city council at their meeting on Monday, August 4th. At this time, I would entertain a motion for the general development plan portion of this project. Chair. Yes, I would move for approval of the general development plan GDP-6-25-9615 with the one staff condition. So moved. Have a motion and a second. Another roll call, please. Tracy, Commissioner Smith, I. Commissioner Sanderson, I. Commissioner Kraov, I. Commissioner Graham, I. Commissioner How, I. Commissioner Ingresol, I. Commissioner Pumprey,

I. Chairperson Henning I and that motion carried and I presume it was with the one staff condition that was in the staff report and the third portion is I would ask for a motion for the preliminary plat that contains six six staff conditions chair I'll go ahead and close it out with a all right motion to approve the preliminary plat PP-6-25-9616 for Boulder Springs with the stiff stiff with the fix staff conditions. So move I have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed?

That motion carries with six staff conditions. That's it for the main meat and potatoes of our business of our meeting. Is there any other business anybody would like to discuss? All right. I would entertain a motion to journ. move and a second. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? This meeting is ajourned. Thank you very much for attending or watching.