Spring Hill City planning commissioners voted 6‑0‑1 on a recommendation to the city council to approve conditional‑use permit CU‑24‑2, which would allow a home‑style assisted‑living ("home plus") facility in an R‑1 residential parcel on South Jefferson Street.

The vote came after a public hearing in which a dozen neighbors urged denial, citing increased traffic, emergency‑vehicle noise and potential impacts on property values. The applicant, who identified herself as Jasmine and said she is a nurse practitioner, told the commission the facility would be licensed by Kansas and would house a small number of residents with an intended capacity of 4–6 (the state license would allow up to 12). Jasmine said the operation will provide 24‑hour nursing supervision (not necessarily an RN at all hours) and background checks for staff and residents.

Why it matters: The commission’s recommendation clears the way for final action by the city council (scheduled for Jan. 23), while the conditional‑use permit would allow a non‑institutional assisted‑living operation in a single‑family neighborhood subject to an annual review by city staff.

City staff described the use and the review process. Staff said the parcel is zoned R‑1 and that state licensing and inspections will be required in addition to the city’s annual CUP review. Staff also said mailed notice went to properties within 200 feet and that the public notice was published in the city’s official newspaper (Miami County), and that a 14‑day protest period will follow the planning commission’s action.

Neighbors raised multiple objections during public comment. Thomas Robinson said, "My concern is safety," and cited children who play in front yards adjacent to the property. Multiple neighbors described not receiving direct notice and said they learned of the proposal from other residents; one speaker said the published notice ran in Miami County and questioned whether Johnson County residents had been properly reached. Amanda Derew told the commission she was not notified and said, "My concern is safety. Also my main concern is how well the facility is going to be kept up." Others said past break‑ins, narrow streets and limited parking heightened their concerns.

The applicant and staff answered technical questions at length. Jasmine said the plan is for light use and a high‑supervision model: "Our plan is to have, like, 4 to 6 residents, not too crowded," and added that transportation for residents would be provided via a hired transportation company. Staff confirmed the parcel is roughly 0.44 acres and noted there are four off‑street parking stalls shown on the plan near the driveway; staff also said the state inspects ADA and life‑safety compliance and that the fire marshal will review alarm/monitoring requirements.

Commission discussion noted the local value of the CUP process. One commissioner who disclosed an emotional interest in the property (saying it had been a family house) said she would abstain from voting; the motion to recommend approval passed 6‑0‑1. The commission emphasized that its recommendation is a fact‑finding step and that the city council will make the final determination.

Next steps: The planning commission record will be transmitted to the city council; any protest petition must be filed with the Spring Hill City Clerk within 14 days of the planning commission hearing. The council is scheduled to consider the application on Jan. 23, when neighbors may again speak.

Ending: Commissioners urged nearby residents to monitor the annual CUP reviews and to report visible maintenance or code issues to city staff if the permit is approved, noting that the annual review is one tool the city uses to ensure compliance with conditions.