City Council - Regular Meeting

the best place to work. I love working here. I feel very blessed. I love it here. I look forward to coming to work every day, being a part of this team. Like a family away from home where everyone feels like everybody knows their name. A city that supports you. We see that with our benefits. pension, vacation days, job security, being able to be heard. We feel valued. We feel respected. Lee Summit is a very progressive city. It's growing. It's thriving. We have this drive towards not just doing a job, but doing it with a spirit of excellence. I had the opportunity to continue to grow regardless of 30 plus years doing this kind of work. It's more than just dollars and cents. We're here really to give back. providing a service to better a community

to go out and serve people to be a part of something bigger than yourself.

If I would have known what I know now years ago, I would have been here much sooner. Hello, Lisa. I'm Jordan. Here's your flash briefing for the week of March 23rd. Looking for a career change or just starting out in the workforce? Attend the city's career fair and expo on April 2nd from 1 to 6:00 p.m. at the Gamber Community Center. Attendees can visit hiring departments about job opportunities, complete applications, and interview on site for select positions. Learn more at lspeople.net. The public is invited to an in-person meeting on March 26th from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at city hall to learn more about the Southeast Douglas Street Improvements Project, project plans, and exhibits as well as tentative for rightway acquisition and construction will be available for public inspection. This meeting will be attended by city staff and representatives from the project's design engineer. Find more information on the city's website and city council will meet for a regular session Tuesday night at 6 in council chambers and city hall. Meetings are open to the public or watch live on the city's YouTube channel. If you can't watch, catch the recorded meeting on demand on the YouTube channel, or by subscribing to the council debrief newsletter, which breaks down three to four key agenda items. Subscribe at city of ls.net. Thanks for listening and have a great week.

Every time you turn on a tap, highquality water is ready. But where does it come from? In Lee Summit, water flows from two trusted sources, the Missouri River and its surrounding aquafer. This water is collected and treated in the cities of Independence and Kansas City. In Independence, the Courtney Bend Water Treatment Plant operates 42 water wells. These wells reach 85 to 125 ft underground, drawing water up from the Missouri River aquifer, an underground water source that naturally filters water through layers of soil and rock. The facility filters, cleans, and softens the water before pumping up to 7 and 12 million gallons a day to Lee Summit in Kansas City. The KC water treatment plant draws water from the aquafer and the surface of the Missouri River. It then filters, cleans, and softens the water before pumping up to 25 million gallons per day to Lee Summit. In Lee Summit, water utilities controls the flow of these sources into the local system. Advanced software monitors the entire system, including three pumping stations and eight water storage tanks, which maintain the water's pressure as it moves through 639 miles of water manes, carrying it to your home and the homes of more than 100,000 citizens. Water utility staff collects samples from throughout the system and send them for extensive laboratory testing, ensuring your water is safe, meeting or exceeding state and federal standards. When you turn on a tap, you're accessing a vast system spanning hundreds of miles. Each foot carefully planned and strategically maintained. A system that leverages innovation to harness nature. Turning a vital life source into an ordinary convenience, bringing you safe, reliable, highquality water 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. To learn more about Lee Summit Water, visit lsswater.net.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

member level.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, great presentation, Ryan. Thank you. Um, is there any indicator that shows are we You know how they talk about like gym rats, kids that grew up with their dads that were coaches. Like I was a a city hall rat, but my dad uh Tom Levelvel was uh hired as a parks administrator in 1978 and spent 40 years in public service here in Lee Summit. I would go up on the weekends when he was working and I'd run around and and play and do things and I didn't know what he was doing at the time, but I just knew that was part of uh our weekend routine some days was was to go up and hang out at city hall. Being part of a city from a young age to now in my adult life, you reap so many benefits from that. The people you know, you care more for something that you've been a part of. My wife and I knew we wanted to raise a family. Just trying to find a community that we thought we could raise our children in. That was good to me. And it just felt like the right move as we were deciding on a on a city to come back to. Fortunate to have started a business in 2018. I founded Level Insurance Group and we are a business insurance brokerage. So we help businesses u procure insurance. decided to throw our flag in the ground here in Lee Summit and it's grown. I also have this passion for learning and curiosity and I started a podcast series. So, I really enjoy this opportunity where I sit down with business owners and tell their story and uh get this out to other people in hopes that maybe it betters their life and gives them some inspiration. This is going to be a really exciting time. Obviously, this city for my my blood, my dad's been a part of it for a long time, so I'm really excited. Thank you all.

A lot of people would say I was crazy, right? So why, you know, why do you throw your hand up and subject yourself to um going into city politics? I think um especially as I've gotten older, I I just felt, you know, maybe a civic duty, like a responsibility to say, "Hey, this city's been great to me. Here's a way that I can give back and take some of my skills and put them to work for the people of this city." I wanted to bring a different maybe way of thinking and take some of my business acumen and see areas that it may apply to how we develop and grow this community and just give a different perspective. One of our biggest challenges but also one of our big biggest opportunities is how do we develop and grow this community? We don't want to grow too fast but we want to grow at a pace that helps support you know who and what we are as a community. So, you know, we've got a lot of opportunities, whether that be through development or parks. Um, we've got a lot of land coming on board. So, I just think it's important like it's a challenge, but it's also our greatest opportunity. And so, we just got to be smart how we do that. It's just asking some different questions. Like, I'm just I'm I'm one that I'm not contrarian for contrarian's sake. What I am is someone will tell me something and then I want to get to that position with them by just asking thoughtful questions along the way. And then if I can get there, then I feel like we've answered everything we can to move that forward versus, hey, here's kind of how we've done it. I'm never the this is how we how we do it. This is how we've always done it. This is how we'll continue to do it.

Office council member for district 2. All of my practical experience has put me in this position to serve. And I just raised my hand and said, I want to do that. For which I was elected on April 5th, 2022.

I feel this obligation to carry this legacy that my dad did. my family did and then giving my kids an environment to grow up in that makes them want to come back. My kids have started rec sports through the parks and recreation system and I'm watching them play soccer on this sport field that, you know, my dad helped develop and my dad's sitting there with me, right? I mean, that's just that's the stuff that really matters in life. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, you feel me? Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey.

Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey,

hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, Hey, hey, hey. Hey,

baby. Hey.

baby. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey, Heat.

Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, hey. Hey, baby.

out. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey.

be a doo be. Welcome everyone. Would you please rise for the invitation and stay standing for the pledge of allegiance?

Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us together today. Guide our hearts and minds as we serve this community and help us lead with wisdom, patience, and compassion. remind us to listen well, stay open-minded, and do our best with the information we have. Always striving to make thoughtful decisions for those we represent. We always ask for understanding and grace for our community that they may see the care and effort behind this work. Bless this meeting and everyone here. In your name we pray 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.

Again, welcome everyone. I'm calling to order the city of Lee Summit. Regular sess regular session 67 as amended. Could I get a roll call, please? Council member Rder, present. Council member Levelville here. Council member Funk here. Council member Carlile present. Council member Prior here. Council member Hodes here. Council member Shields here. Mayor Pro Tim Lopez here. Mayor Perry

here. Okay. Okay, first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Could I get a motion, please? I have a motion from council member Carlile to adopt the agenda, seconded by council member Funk. Discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. So sorry. There we go. All votes are in. Please record the vote. It's adopted unanimously. Thank you. Next is the approval of the consent agenda. Have a motion to adopt the consent agenda by Council Member Carile, seconded by Council Member Rider. Discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. The agenda or the U consent agenda is adopted. Thank you. Next, we have council roundt. These are items of general interest, things going on in the community, things of that nature. Council member Shields.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh there's going to be yoga at Green Street uh this Sunday at 9:30. And I haven't seen you guys all there yet with me, but one of these times you're all going to show up. So hopefully it'll be this weekend. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other round table? All right. Seeing none, we're going to go right into business. We got quite a crowd here. So, let's get to it. I'm going to close the regular session and open the public hearing in the in agenda item 4A. This is a special use permit renewal for a mini warehouse facility, Jefferson Street Storage, 5 Southwest Industrial Drive. Matthew Schll is the applicant. Would all those wishing to speak to this matter please rise to be sworn in by the city clerk? Want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, be good. Mr. Sl.

Good evening. Matt Sish, Injuring Solutions, 50 Southeast 30th Street, Lee Summit, Missouri. I'll defer to staff on the presentation tonight, but essentially we have an existing um facility on the northeast corner of Jefferson and Shear that staff had some comments upon our application for special use. The applicant has addressed all those comments and uh I think we're good with everything we have to move forward with. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Pierce Pullium Planner. Um, please enter into the record exhibit A, list of exhibits 1 through 18. Please enter into the record exhibit A 1 through 18.

Y, thank you.

Thank you. So, the applicant is requesting approval for a renewal of a mini warehouse facility at 5 Southwest Industrial Drive for 20 years. There are no proposed changes to the existing site at this time. The property is currently zoned PI and surrounded by PI on all four sides. The adjacent properties consist of a sporting goods store to the north, a steel manufacturer to the west, a machine shop to the east, and a church to the south. The future land map the future land use map designates a property as mixed use which calls for mixed commercial area that can contain industrial uses. The buildings on the site include five mini warehouse facilities and one office/warewarehouse building which gives it gives it a building area of about 29,550 ft. The site is fenced on all sides with existing landscaping around the perimeter and the site has 22 parking stalls. As a part of the SUP renewal process, staff did conduct a inspection of the property and notice several concerns with the site conditions. All these issues have since been resolved. And the neighborhood meeting was held on January 6th and no members of the public attended. The applicant requested a 20-year approval. However, to cover the time that will elapse between the date of the original SUP expiring and city council approval, staff recommends granting approval for 20 years and 36 days. And with the conditions listed here, the applicant meets the goals of the Ignite comprehensive plan in the UDO. If you all have any questions, I am here to answer them.

Thank you. Questions for staff or the applicant? Council member Shields. Thank you, Mayor. Um, you noted that there were a few um issues that staff identified when they inspected the property. Can you just kind of briefly describe what those were? And you said they were all remediated completely. Yes. So, um they had some vehicles parked on gravel. Um missing ADA parking signs. Uh detention the detention base needed to be cleaned out. Uh there were potholes. Um some outside storage and some unpermitted signs. And after we notified about them, they had them all fixed pretty quickly. So,

okay. So, it sounds like the process kind of worked as as intended in this case to make sure everything stayed in compliance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Not seeing any further questions or or uh for either applicant or staff. So, is there anybody here that wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to the application? Please come forward. All right. Thank you. Are there any additional questions from the council? Does the applicant care to make any further comment? No, thank you.

Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, I'm closing the public hearing and reopening the regular session. Is there any council discussion on this application? All right. Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments, council member Hodes, would you please read bill number 26-051? I advance to second reading bill number 26-051, an ordinance granting a special use permit for a mini warehouse facility in district PI on land located at 5 southwest industrial drive for a period of 20 years and 36 days all in accordance with article 6 of the unified development ordinance for the city of Lee Summit, Missouri.

Right. Thank you. We have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-051 by council member Hodgees, seconded by council member Shields. Council discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. That bill moves to second reading unanimously. Thank you for reinvesting in Lee Summit. All right, I'm going to close the regular session again. We're going to open the public hearing in the matter of agenda item 4B. This is a reszoning from RP4 to planned office and preliminary development plan. Moly Acres office building 414 Southeast 3rd Street Roads Real Estate LLC is the applicant. Would all those wishing to speak to this matter please rise to be sworn in by the city clerk?

All right. Does the applicant have a presentation? Oh, the applicant I believe is on Zoom tonight. So you'll see that on the screen. Very good. Good. Mr. Rhodess. Uh, yes. City Council. Mr. Rhodess, you can go ahead with the presentation.

Yes. So, um, Jeff Rhodess with Roads Real Estate, owner of Moly Acres, uh, Le Landing Professional Center. Uh we are currently seeking a reszoning for an additional commercial office building to be located at 414 Southeast 3rd Street. And this building is going to be a duplicate in architectural and size to existing buildings that are there. And with that being said, I'm going to defer to staff to be able to work through the presentation that you have on site.

All right. Thank you, sir. Can we get the presentation from staff? Dear Bright, Senior Planner, I'd like to enter into the record exhibit A, list of exhibits 1 through 21.

Please enter into the record exhibit A 1 through 21. The applicant is requesting approval of a reszoning from RP4 to PO and a preliminary development plan for development of an office building at 414 Southeast 3rd Street. There is one modification being requested and staff analysis will be provided later in the presentation. The area includes a mix of zoning districts and uses, including apartments to the north, single family to the south and east, and office buildings to the west. The proposed land use is compatible with the existing office development, and the intensity aligns with surrounding uses. The future land use map designates the subject property as being within the downtown activity center, which is intended to include a range of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The proposed building will be 2500 square feet and the property will be required to replplat and be compi be combined with the lot to the west so that all po district requirements are met. The applicant is proposing to add four parking stalls to the existing parking lot of the office development for a total of 81 stalls. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 11th and one member of the public attended. The planning commission held a public hearing on February 26th of 2026 and recommended unanimous approval. Since the project was submitted prior to adoption of the new architecture and building design standards, it was reviewed under our previous standards. The applicant is proposing a mix of brick, stone, and acrylic stucco. The building matches the existing office buildings to the west and visually blends into the area. The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to allow the parking lot to encroach 5 feet into the required setback to the north. Staff is supportive of the request because the pavement encroaching into the setback is for cars to back out of parking stalls and does not actually include a parking

stall itself. Also, the residential use to the north has a parking setback of 10 ft from the same property line. Therefore, the proposed encroachment is not expected to negatively impact the residential use or district with the nearest building being approximately 80 ft away. There's also existing vegetation between the parking lots which should have help mitigate any impact. With the conditions of approval shown here, the application meets the requirements of the UDO and the goals of the Ignite comprehensive plan. And I am here for any questions that you all may have.

Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff or the applicant from council. All right. Not seeing any. Is there anybody here tonight wishing to speak for or against this application? Please come forward. Any other questions from council or for staff or applicant? Mr. Roads, do you care to make any further comment? Uh, no further comment at the time.

Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, I'm closing the public hearing and reopening the regular session. Is there any council discussion on this application?

Well, I know that those uh offices over there stay pretty full, so um and it's it's a challenge sometimes to find like smaller office space. So, this is a this is a fills a a need in the in the downtown. People want to be downtown and this is this is in the downtown. So, um I'm going to move on. I'm going to ask uh who's reading this one? Council member Prior, would you please read bill number 26-052?

Yes. Thank you, mayor. I move to advance to a second reading bill number 26-052, an ordinance approving reszoning from district RP4 planned apartment residential to district PO planned office and a preliminary development plan for mole acres office building on approximately 22 acres of land located at 414 Southeast 3rd Street. All in accordance with the provisions of chapter 33 unified development ordinance of the code of ordinances for the city of Lee Summit, Missouri. Thank you. We have a motion to move to second reading. Bill number 26-052 by Council Member Prior, seconded by Council Member Hodes. Discussion. Right. Seeing none, please cast your vote.

All votes are in. Please record the vote. It goes to second reading unanimously. and we'll thank you for investing in Lee Summit. Thank you, city council.

Okay, going to keep keep moving. We've got we're going to close the regular session and open the public hearing on the agenda item 4C. This is a resoning from a to CP2 and preliminary development plan Douglas corporate center approximately 9 acres located at the souththeast corner of northeast Lee Summit Road and Northeast Douglas Street. Dmer Brothers Investments LLC is the applicant. Would all those wishing to speak to this matter please rise to be sworn in by the city clerk. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of be. Good evening. Jeff Barts with Own Engineering on behalf of the applicant Dummer Brothers. Um I'm here to give you kind of a brief introduction of this project. Uh this project is located just north of the intersection of Cobburn and Douglas uh adjacent to both the Discovery Park projects and uh the Lee Summit airport. Uh the current design for this project again this is a resoning and preliminary plan. Um we are proposing five different commercial lots on this property. Uh again the the proposed use for the commercial is to be complimentary to the adjacent approved uh apartment complex to the west. Uh some of the challenges of this site uh there is a stream corridor that cuts across it that has been uh damaged multiple times through different construction of Douglas Road and uh the airport itself. As such, we are requesting a waiver that

was uh approved by the public works department for reducing that setback down to the current natural wetland limits that are existing out there. Uh essentially, stream corridors are intended to preserve the natural vegetation, but there really isn't anything outside of those limits. That's why we're requesting the reduction and staff has agreed. The other issues with this site is there's some old rightway. the old Douglas Street used to go straight through this property um directly to the north and with the realignment uh that has left kind of several pieces and that's part of why this resoning is required is to reszone the rest of this piece. As with the old rightway, another issue was the large water transmission main. This is a large enough main that is very costly and expensive to try to relocate and so our layout essentially leaves it in place not being touched. And the lastly, we're adjacent to the Lee Summit Airport, which has its own height restrictions. And just to make everyone at ease, we are meeting all of those requirements with the the FAA requirements for height and everything like that. Proposed traffic improvements. Uh Douglas Street is wide enough to allow some things to just be restriped to add in turn lanes for the project. And in addition to that, we're proposing new right turn lanes to be constructed on the northbound side into the project. And then also, as warranted, a traffic signal at the intersection on the south side of the project. Hit the wrong button. U following are just some kind of examples of what could be there. Again, this is preliminary. Um each one of these lots will be coming back to the city as part of a final development plan. Um we don't know what the actual use will be at this time. So this is

just kind of an idea to give uh to give you an idea of what any future development or future building would look like in this development. Uh as part of this overall development, they will have design regulations regarding uh the materials uh to keep everything that is in this development uniform looking and kind of a a holistic feel for all five lots in this development. So just running through these very quickly. Lot one is kind of a very small unique lot. This is more intended to be kind of the fast uh drive-through restaurant. No, no se seating area. Um potentially coffee shop or something of that nature. Um lot two is more of a standard restaurant, fast fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. Lot three is more of your strip center uh retail uh potential uh again fast restaurant. Uh lot four is uh slated right now as a sea store. Again, this is something that has come up in our neighborhood meetings of people not exactly liking the idea of a sea store. Again, this is all preliminary. It doesn't necessarily mean it will be a sea store. Just want to clarify that up front. And lastly, a storage self- storage unit is proposed kind of in the back corner where it's lower and more out of sight. Um, I'll defer to staff, but you'll hear that this is actually would require a special use permit and we're not seeking it at this time and we'll are aware that we would need to come back and obtain that.

If you have any questions for me before I defer to staff, we'll do the we'll do the staff presentation and we'll do questions. Thank you. All right. Good evening. Shannon McGuire, planning manager. Please enter into the record exhibit A, list of exhibits 1 through 25. Please enter into the record exhibit A 1 through 25.

All right. Uh, sorry about that. All right. The applicant is seeking approval for a reasonzoning from AG uh to CP2 and approval of a preliminary development plan for a 30,000 uh square foot commercial development on approximately 9.14 acres. Um located there at the southeast corner of Northeast Lee Summit Road and Northeast Douglas Street. Um as the applicant did state, please note that uh lot five is depicted on this as a self- storage. However, they are not prepared to move forward. Um so any um development that lot will need to come forward um to you under a separate application. Again, the subject property is located just north of I470 and northeast Cobburn Road and Northeast Douglas intersections. Um kind of in this general area here. Um so the character of that um development around the intersections is primarily commercial um existing as well as proposed and under construction. Um Northeast Lee Summit Road is primarily categorized by single family large lot. That's kind of up here in this burden color. Um and then the subject development does back up to Lee Summit Municipal Airport. Uh the proposed reszoning is limited to to the AG um area, the AG zoned area here. Um it's only about 3.25 acres. Um the remaining approximately six acres already has that CP2 zoning. Um again, the site overall is three uh is nine acres, a little over nine acres. Um with lots one through five totaling about 30 a little over 30,000 square feet total. Um again, lot five about 12,uh 500 ft of

that development is for illustrated purposes. Oolen is not included in this PDP. So the developer has crafted a set of design standards that will govern the architecture out here um to establish that cohesive um theme throughout the development as a whole. Um but primarily the exteriors will be comprised of brick, stone, ephus, aluminum composite metal sighting as well as some cementitious panels. So, uh the comprehensive plan um identifies this area as commercial and civic um for that future land use category. Uh the commercial land uh use designation includes all kinds of uh retail uses that accommodates full ranges uh the full range of proposed uses that the developer is proposing. Um this will be complimentary to um the discovery park development that is currently under development. So the civic land use is kind of a remnant leftover piece. So when we had to when the city realigned Douglas Street, we had to acquire some property out there. So that's how that civic land use um was designated in that area. The applicant is seeking a modification. That modification is to that 20 foot required setback along the parking lot along Northeast Douglas Street. Um this street um Northeast Douglas Street has an abundance of rideaway um along there. Um so even with the modification requested the uh setback from any kind of drive lane um will still maintain approximately 70 ft from that parking lot setback. So uh to put that in comparison typically other arterials you have about a 35 foot setback between the parking lots. So um for these reasons staff does support that modification. The applicant did host two neighborhood meetings with three members of attending on the August 21st meeting and one member attending on the March 12th meeting. Um some of the concerns that

were voiced at those meetings had to do with the proposed lane uses uh concerns regarding the commercial convenience store um as well as questions about uh changes to the creek traffic and the traffic signal location. So, with the conditions of approval as outlined here and in the staff letter, the application does meet the requirements of the UDO, the Ignite comprehensive plan, and the design and construction manual. And I can answer any questions you may have at this time. Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff or the applicant? Yes, Council Member Shields.

Um, thank you, Mayor. It wasn't mentioned, so I assume the answer is no, but there's no incentive request associated with this project, is there? I am unaware. Um that's would that something that would have to come up at this point in the process if they if they wanted to ask

I will defer to assistant city manager Elim uh Ryan Elim assistant city manager. Um we have had conversations uh about potential uh incentive tools depending upon the final tenant mix that comes in here and the extent of the public infrastructure associated with that. Uh but given that this has not does not have a specific tenant associated with it at this time. Uh the decision was made to carry pick those conversations back up when a specific tenant and the timing of any significant public infrastructure would be a little bit more known. Okay.

And that is in line with our incentive policy um associated with no permit uh being issued. But tonight the the next decision is just zoning and the PDP. Yes, that is correct. Tonight's decision is zoning and preliminary development plan at which point the applicant will be able to further market the property. Okay. Gotcha. And then as far as the PDP goes, um you know, they mentioned a possible self- storage use that would need to come back for special use permit. Is there anything else in here that would require further council consideration before it could move forward? Like you mentioned a a sea store if if this is zoned commercial, can that go in without further consideration?

It could. Yes. Um so but um an example of something that would uh need to come back for if they propose something that would become a substantial change in the overall plan increased traffic flow um something that has a higher intensity than what they're showing here that would have to come back before you for a new approval through the PDP process. Okay. Um and then as far as the the creek area that's not going to I assume create any environmental issues or drainage issues or anything. the fact that they're kind of right next to that creek area and building not doesn't look like got their buildings actually in it, but some parking areas and things crossing it. Yeah, all storm water issues have been addressed through the design process, so no issues. Right. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Funk. Thank you, Mayor. Um, for the applicant, have you had any discussions with the Discovery Park folks? Yes, we've had multiple. or is there anything specific? Are they on board about a sea store? Uh they were one of the people that uh did not like having a sea store there and um I think that was talked about early on with Discovery Park and some of the uses they were doing. They didn't want to be surrounded by sea stores. So, yep. Um I'm glad you guys are having conversations. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Prior.

Thank you, Mayor. Okay, so maybe this is for Mr. Elim. I don't know but is the in so the incentive is based on who the tenant is. So what if at the time they come before us what if the incentive is not granted then does this thing just not happen or that confuses me. That would be a business decision that they would make at their at that point in time whether that it could economically work for them uh to move forward or not. Uh but the land use would still be in place and they would be able to move forward with the land use as is. Uh so the the any sort of incentive request isn't tied to the to the specific land use of the preliminary development plan associated with it.

Okay. But so they're adding a turn lane and right now there's no incentive for that turn lane. Are they adding a turn lane? Uh there's turn lane improvements and and other public improvements. Uh yes, as well as a traffic signal. Um but that the timing of that traffic signal and the driver of that traffic signal could change depending upon the uses that are going in that area uh as the traffic studies get updated. Okay. Thank you. Right. Thank you, Council Member Rder.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I just want to make sure we're I'm clear that if we uh move this forward with zoning that there is no assumption that there would be a sea store there because I think there's some as as council member Funk mentioned with uh regards to Discovery Park and actually I live over there. So that would be my concern. It's just the sea store. So is that is that is that true? There's just no assumption that it's that's what it's going to be. It's just it is so the current plary development plan does show a sea store there. I think what the applicant was saying is that there specific identified user has not been identified. Okay.

Um so the PDP would approve that type of land use there. Okay, that's what I need to know. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Pim Lopez.

Thanks, Mayor. Uh Mr. Park, I have a question for Mr. Park if he's around. Thank you. I I know Mr. Elim somewhat addressed uh potential traffic um a signal maybe being required or uh turn lanes and things of that sort and I know this site plan does show some something um with the project across the street. We've made in the city, we've made significant improvements to that intersection of Douglas and Coburn, obviously. Um, but as we look at this development plan, have those considerations been made for future traffic generation and traffic flow and egress and ingress and all that?

Yes, Michael Park, director of public works. So, um, into the design of the Coburn Road improvements and the Douglas Street intersection, there was some forecasted traffic growth that would have accounted for some of this, maybe not to the exact, um, development plan that you see before you tonight, but they also did a traffic impact study as it relates to this application, and looked at that intersection, its operations, and, uh, whether or not there would be practical mitigations down, and there were none proposed for the intersection aside from just adjusting signal timings and operations, but no additional turn lanes. And uh when you think about that intersection at Coburn and Douglas, it really has been built out to the extent I don't know that we could add any more turn lanes at that location. Um and and to address some of the other comments up at their site, yes, there's required turn lanes that would need to be built and the timing of the traffic signal that's also recommended is highly contingent on their land uses. So I think what they may anticipate as Discovery Park gets built, they're lining up their approach with the Discovery Park intersection. And if say for example they didn't have a sea store they didn't have some of the high trip generators that are affiliated with this application then the warrant for that traffic signal may disappear or maybe that signal is warranted by other development so that it's a timing issue and and not ready yet but as the application is proposed now with these land uses a traffic signal would be installed. So, so we will consider whatever improvements may be needed based on specific PDP that applications that come in at that site.

The the conditions that staff is recommending with this application do require a traffic signal and require multiple turn lanes to support the development that's in front of you tonight. Okay. So, all right. So, that's been discussed thoroughly. Yes, it has with the applic because traffic is a concern along that corridor. Yes, sir. So, um and the increased traffic. So, all right. Thank you. Thanks, mayor.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff or applicant? Okay, Mr. Magcguire, um you said on the elevations you said that they um had defined material a material pallet. Yeah. Are you saying that they've narrowed our um our codes as far as what we what we approve and they're saying that it needs to be more specific? Correct. Okay. Um but it's still is it is this general enough that they're not going to come asking for immediately for modifications to this?

Correct. It does. It provides them some flexibility to design site specific to um the needs of the user. However, limits that to a cohesive theme across the board so it all um kind of flows. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody here tonight that wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to the application? Please come forward. Are there any additional questions from council? Does the applicant care to make any further comment? Okay. Hearing no further testimony, I'm closing the public hearing and reopening the regular session. Is there any council discussion on this application? Council member Shields.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, since we're just considering the the land use and the PDP, like I'm I'm fine with this application. I wouldn't um venture to make any any commitments on the idea of any incentives that might come up later, but uh in this location right next to the proposed Discovery Park, right next to I470, it seems like a use mix that makes a lot of sense right there that um so it seems acceptable. It looks like honestly every other development in our city and and I'm sure it'll fit in just fine. So, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Funk. Thank you, mayor. Um, I would really like to see some more discussions between this developer and the Discovery Park folks. I think they're they're making a significant investment as well in our community and what they've done up there so far and and if they're opposed to a sea store, I would much rather see those two work it out before we approve a preliminary development plan. So, that's all, mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Prior.

Thank you. So, I am happy to see this not RP4, but I do also feel like um while I'm not necessarily against it, I hope that they are in constant communication with Discovery Park because that's already an approved um I just don't want to see it harm Discovery Park at all. Um even though I didn't vote yes for Discovery Park, I want them to be successful. And so I I do hope that that they are in communication with Discovery Park and respecting um that development also. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Rider.

Thank you, Mayor. Um my objection is the sea store. I think it's a I think it's a it's okay for it to the development to go in there to be a commercial development. That's fine. The way that road it it curves funny going along there. And I can just imagine it's going to be you could imagine how much traffic is going to be in a with a sea store. So, and again, I just don't want it to impact anything with um Discovery Park as well. So, I would rather again, as council member Funk said, I would rather have some more discussions with Discovery Park before we continue going forward with this just because of the sea store. So, thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Levelville. Um well, I mean, I guess I it feels to me that a sea store would be extremely complimentary to hotels and um housing. Is it more about the type of sea store? I guess I'm trying to understand why Discovery Park would be against it or um anyway, I think I think it's a good use. I do know that we have concerns sometimes with the with the operators of of the sea stores or you know like if it's a I'm sure I mean like if it's a Casey's or whatever it might be but it feels to me like that's actually a a good use of the space to be complimentary to that development. Now I can't speak for Discovery Park. I'm just saying like looking at it and how it's laid out and the design elements I feel like it's a a good project right there. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else?

I would say um just you know usually we when we see things like this um change into a resoning like this um there's there's a lot of times um lots within the development that haven't been determined. So they're more conceptual, but then they they do the resoning, but usually they bring a an applicant like a one of their anchors with them. And in this in this case, they haven't um they don't have they're not like saying, well, here's here's one commitment we have and and then, you know, we're going to we're going to see where the market goes with the other commitments. And so that is different and but it's not I mean, it's not unheard of. We we do changes in resoning. So, I I can't use that as a reason uh to vote against it. It just would have been nice to have an idea of one of the one of the um the end users that were going to be in here, but um that's not it's not part of the requirements. So, Council Member Hodes,

thank you. Um I would agree with Council Member Levelville. Um I think that I think we actually need a gas station on that side of town. Um and I think I like what they're bringing the plan. And I think it looks great and it fits the area. And I think it's just a matter of when the next council, whoever that is, um, is voting on this, they need to make sure they vet when it comes to the PDP and vet, okay, who's the tenant, who's because we we've done that in the past where we've looked into, we've deep dived into who the owner of the sea store would be, and we vote based off that. So, I think we give it a shot and see because I think it's a needed thing over in that area. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Shields.

Just to make sure I'm clear that we are voting on the PDP tonight, and if they put a sea store there, they don't have to like once it's zoned for that land use, they don't have to come back and ask again, do they? Uh, correct. As long as there's no substantial change to that sea store, could we go straight to final development plan? Okay. Thank you. But if they ask for incentives, they have to come back. But if they come back, if they want incentives for this whole area, they'll need to come back for that. But but we are approving the PDP. We're approving the land use. So if they want to build something that looks exactly like that plan, they can just it's just an administrative process. Take that from preliminary to final plans. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good clarifications. Thank you.

All right. I'm going to we can keep discussing um soon as we have as soon as we make the first reading here. Um so Council Member Carl, would you please read bill number 26-053? Thank you, mayor. I move bill number 26-053, an ordinance approving reszoning from district AG to district CP2 and a preliminary development plan on approximately 9 acres of land generally located at southeast intersection of northeast Lee Summit Road and Northeast Douglas Street. All in accordance with provisions of chapter 33 of the unified development ordinance of code of ordinances for the city of Lee Summit, Missouri B. Summit Red. Thank you. We have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-053 by Council Member Carlile, seconded by Council Member Hodgeges. Discussion. All right. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. It does pass seven to two. So that will go to second reading. All right. Moving on, we're going to close the reg the uh regular session, open the public hearing in the matter of agenda item 4D. This is a preliminary development plan. View High Sports Complex, Inflatable Soccer Dome, 3301 Northwest Asher Drive, Engineering Solution LLC is the applicant. Would all those wishing to speak to this matter please rise to be sworn in by the city clerk? Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

A lot of people just rose their hands to speak. Mr. Slush.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Matt Slush, Injuring Solutions, 50 Southeast 30th Street, Lee Summit, Missouri. Um, thought we would start maybe with kind of just a history of what we've done and where we are. So, so this is a project at the southeast corner of Chipment and View High that um started as kind of a a napkin sketch as a couple dads that have kids playing soccer wanted to find a place closer to town to do it here. So, that started back in January of 23. There was a PDP that was submitted and approved in April of 25. Following that, the minor plat was recorded to purchase the ground which was done in June. And then following that, as they started to get letters of intent and interest in using the facility, the experience grew. People keep coming. People kept talking about what they were going to do and what this could be. One of the soccer clubs came up with an idea and asked that of the two soccer fields that we had, one indoor, one outdoor, was there a way to seasonally put a dome over top of the outdoor? We called city staff. We started having discussions of what that would be. We don't have one in town. Other towns around the area do have them. them. They're over smaller facilities like pools or tennis courts or pickle ball courts up in the northern part of United States where they have the longer winters. This has been used. There are a number of places that have it, but regionally it hasn't been done yet. So, we started talking through staff and came up with a plan that we thought that this was an accessory use to the approved PDP. So, we started submitting plans and we submitted those in September. We held a neighborhood meeting in October, expressed and heard concerns of the neighbors mainly about the size, mainly about some of the um uses, some of the pieces of it. We tried to respond and then before the planning commission meeting um we presented, we heard the desire, the discussions that the 80oot dome was too tall. So, we made a modification before we brought it to council with you guys and shrunk the

building. We shrunk the size of the field or shrunk the the width of it around the field. came to council and you guys suggested that we needed to go back and have some more conversations with the neighbors and the planning commission. So, we did. We made another modification to the plan. We had another neighborhood meeting. We went back to planning commission. We heard some more commentary and that kind of puts us of where we are today. We're we're back here in front of you with a project that we truly believe in for the community. We truly believe is a good use to an approved plan that makes the project better than it even was. The demand you'll see tonight is expanding beyond what we even believed it would. We thought it would be exciting for the soccer community to have something like this in the community. And we'll show you some stats in a minute of what that means. The benefit of the dome and the reason that we went with the dome is if you remember back to the original plan, the noise was a big issue. The the pickle ball courts, the the noise and the activity of the fields. This dome is a three layer system with an interior, exterior, and insulation panel in between which will make that dome 100% opaque. It'll basically make it like a complete shield. The noise level, there's no documentation I can provide to you, but from the dome supplier, he states that standing outside of it, you won't hear the field noise from the inside. This is a a temporary use. And so our idea was is that from Thanksgiving to spring break essentially when the field would be utilized with the most outdoor lights to the opportunity of the UDO which allows the lights to stay on till past 10:00 or around 10:00 every night. This would limit that use. This would limit the lights. This would limit that noise. And this is again the unique opportunity that we talked about when the overall project came through that this is a regional draw. The dome will be one of a kind. There is nothing like it in the area which is going to promote the soccer facility and the opportunities that the soccer club has within it to

bring in national tournaments and bigger facilities that they could do when they have the outdoor all year round which provides an opportunity for again the project to succeed at a level that they unexpected. community support and benefit is additional hotel nights, the shopping, the dining, the destination we talked about during the original side of it. And the benefit we always said was the field was already there. So this isn't like we're adding another field. We're not adding another use. This is just a complement to the original plan. We're just providing an opportunity during what we considered the most intrusive time of the outdoor field when the lights would be on the most when the noise and the leaves would uh be the least amount to diminish any noise outside if it was open field. Now with the dome that eliminates all of that. Also, again with that dome, this allows another outdoor field in the community that improves the quality of life of these soccer families that are traveling around this country to go play soccer on the weekends, that are traveling across state lines to go practice night after night. As we'll talk about in a minute, you're seeing people that are coming from outside the community already to come to here to Paragon Star to Z Sports to utilize the facilities they have because of the limited amount and numbers that are out there. So why now? Why are we bringing it? It's because this is kind of a now or never with a dome. The dome is impractical to build at a later date. You can't simply add on to the project. It's something that once that outdoor field is constructed because of the construction methods that have to be built to build that dome, essentially that entire area has to get destroyed and rebuilt. So when the anchor tenant came to us and said that outdoor field is great if we could do something that could create a dome it would only increase our opportunities. That's kind of how we got here. It expands this project to levels that as we've talked about in the neighbor or the the developers have talked to is

national type club levels collegiate type club levels are calling saying you now have two full-size soccer fields which puts you at an elevated plane unlike anything we have in this entire region. So, this is what we're talking about on the construction method. The field outside is a turf field. To build the turf field, we would install a 6-in curb around the entire outside of the field, which is what that turf would tie to and connect to basically tight, you know, to make it tight so it stays there. But to put the dome in, it requires a 4 foot wide by 6 ft deep footing to support that dome. And so that's what we're saying as we went in and tried to do it at a later time. The retaining wall that we have to build on the east side of that field would have to be completely mowed down and started over. All of the drainage systems, all of the utilities and all of the items that are out there for the field if we built it now would all have to get reconstructed and built later. And so as we talked through it, this is kind of the chance. This is the reason that we kind of paused on going to final development plan. We were in process of creating construction documents and preparing after they closed on the ground to submit the final development plan and then realize that this opportunity was there which is why we're asking for it now versus developing something or constructing something and coming back at a later time to try to install it. So the updates that we talked about originally we started with an 80 foot tall 84,000 square foot dome. The reason it is is that is a dome that would have gone around the outside of the indoor field and allowed 11 V11 soccer with room on all sides of it. So, it was a much larger dome, but it would allow much more flexibility on interior space. We heard the neighbors concerns, we heard the planning commission concerns. So, prior to coming to you the first time, we made revision one reduction, which reduced the 80ft dome down to 64 ft. And what we did is we shrunk the side of that dome in so that essentially we could still play 11v11.

We just had a little less sidelines. We had a little less on the end lines, but we could still function as 11 v11. That took the area of that field down to 80,000 ft. After we were remanded back to planning commission, had another neighborhood meeting. We've come down to what is the the final kind of ultimate piece of it to to maintain the outdoor field when the dome is not there at 11 v11. We have now set the footing literally on the sidelines and on the end lines. That creates the absolute minimum width and length that we can create on that dome and make it function for the other nine weeks or nine months of the year or 10 months of the year that we're not using with the dome. It allows that field to function as a full size 11 by11 field. What that will do though is it'll allow that dome to come inside to reduce the width. The developer has also gone in and added an additional layer of increasing the thickness of the dome material, increased air handlers, increased heaters, which also allowed us to bring down the height of the dome. And so now the dome is 59 ft 11 ft or 11 in high, which effectively, if you go to code, it's essentially 53 and 1/2 ft high because the dome in the field sits below what Ashers is. So per UDO calculations. So all of that to say essentially our modification request originally was 40 ft. Our initial reduction in that was down to 24 ft or 40% reduction. And our final one now our modification request for the PDP is a 13.57 foot reduction. We're in line with the reductions or the the increases in height that you guys have approved for apartment buildings or you've approved for some of the larger uh commercial buildings in town. we're we're within that range of other complimentary buildings given the fact that you've that you've approved in the area. In addition to that, we've gone through

and identified areas where we believe we can add additional landscaping green buffers that currently obviously when they get installed and they're 6 and 8 ft tall are going to start that progress of creating a buffer in there. We've added additional screening on the easterly side. We've added additional screening on the Asher side and then additionally we've added a screening on that southerntherly side or the north side of the dome. Again, evergreen trees put together to create that vegetated barrier between what would be the driveways or the the the drive lanes, the the residents areas, putting evergreen trees and there are fast growers of a foot or two a year foot or two growth every year. So, initially day one, it doesn't create that entire barrier, but as time goes on and the progress goes with the 5-year special use renewal period, we would be back hopefully with better pictures that would illustrate that that buffer is actually working creating some barriers between the neighbors in addition to the existing vegetated mass that's going to remain on the easterly side of the site between the existing neighbors and the development. So then as we talk back the original time when we started this whole project the location of this field in our opinion is ideal. The the project the site the whole area is zone CP2 commercial zone district. So you guys have a whole bunch of uses that you just saw with the last project and many of them in your UDO that are allowed in that site. A sideyard setback in that zoning area is 10 ft. We're at over 300 ft from the property line. Per code, per your UDO, there is an allowance to build a 40 foot tall building 10 ft off of that property line, but we are 300 ft from that property line at a height within reason of other projects that you've approved. So again, as we've talked with the neighbors, we've had conversations of why this location and why here is we tried to play nice with every neighbor that we had. We had

conversations with the neighbor to the south and have the discussions of where you could place it so that it's equally located to basically everyone in there. There's conversations of should we flip it up to the front side of it and it's just playing to the other neighbors that we've already talked to that have that side of it. So as we've tried to place this building facility we've located in an area where our belief is from view from chippen from the neighbors equally we've set this building out of sight out of mind as best as possible using the site. So now as we start to talk about what we've done from the neighborhood and what we unexpectedly found but kind of believed would be out there is the support. In two weeks as the planning commission, we started asking for neighborhood support or from support from the community. Since basically two weeks ago, 596 letters have been provided to you through online sources, through signatures, through people coming out on the Facebook pages and everywhere else supporting this project, supporting the use of this facility. Additionally, everything in yellow you see on that map are the direct neighbors to this project that have expressed and written down their support for this project. Residents of Edgewood, the direct neighbor to the north, neighbors up on View High and Chipman. In addition to that, since March 10th, the Facebook page has over 100,000 clicks on the website, 1,200 interactions, meaning people made a comment or did a thumbs up or a smiley face. 30,000 viewers have visited the Facebook page. And if we look at the collage of comments and pieces of we pulled out a couple. The one at the top is a resident that lives in Liberty driving three times a week down to Paragon Star stating he comes to Paragon Star Zports. And even though this is in Lee Summit, he not only supports it, he's begging for something like this in the Northland. So you have residents from the area that are going to continue

to come to Lee Summit because of this facility. A local developer that has developed things like Winteret and Arborwalk comments that a 100 yards of separation between the uses is nothing short of a luxurious in the world of land development given the fact that it's already zone CP2 and the setback requirement is 10 ft. There's a lot of people that will be here to speak to this and have these comments that this project will be something that the community can be a big supporter of and will be a big benefit to the area. So, as we start to go through the comments that we've heard from the neighborhood meetings, from the planning commission meetings, from the city council meetings, these are everything that I've written down and the ideas of what I believe are the questions and comments that we've tried to address that and what we've answered. So, the incompatibility with the neighborhood character again to the north of us is a 78,000 square foot planned church. To the west of us is our Vue High sports facility, 164,000 square foot sports facility. To the east of us is the residential. And to the south of us is agricultural land that you'd assume on the VHI corridor is going to continue to develop over time. Conversations about increased traffic and congestion and pedestrian concerns. The field that we're going to utilize was already part of the project. It's already part of the PDP. This dome changes none of the traffic concerns. It changes none of the congestion. It's just simply utilizing the facility in a different method for 16 weeks of the year. The light pollution, amplified noise, increased vehicle noise. The dome decreases all of it. The de the dome is 100% opaque. The dome will reduce all field noise. There's been conversations about the air handlers and the heaters. The air handlers and heaters create 60 dB, which

is less than what the field would have created even in a low time. But by the time you're 300 ft from the property line or to the property line, the decibel levels of those air handler units won't be hurt. Zoning precedent for incremental commercial expansion. Again, this is not a zoning case. This is a modification request and a special use permit. The zoning is already done. It's already a CP2 property. the increased uncertainty for homeowners who rely on the existing zoning. Again, there's no change in zoning. There's no change in land use. This is simply utilizing a field and providing a dome facility outside of it. So, as we start to go to comments and letters of opposition, there's a deed restriction comment. We have a conversation or we have a letter to you in there from the church. There is no conversation or concern on the church's part with the deed restriction. Substantial deviation from the previously approved plan. This is a a accessory use. Staff and I talked through this when we started this process and identified that this is a complimentary use to the already approved plan and is not a deviation of any uh substantial change. Aesthetic impact of the white dome we have offered at many meetings that if the the community wants to come up with any color we would consider it and look at it. We have all talked about it and I think we've even talked on this council on this dis white is the development is the primary color that the dome manufacturer uses across the entire country. But if a color wants to be looked at we're happy to look at it but as we talked with staff I don't think there's any color that makes everybody happy just like as you see everybody's houses are different colors outside. Uh there was a question on the accuracy of the visual representations that we'll show you here in a little bit. you know, those were created by a third party, a professional guy that creates 3D renderings and those pieces of it. They utilized our survey data. They utilized CAD data for all the buildings. So, I would uh defend the every one of those drawings. The night or the the noise and the light pollution. Again, we've

already talked about availability of less impactful alternatives. You know, we've gone through every alternative we can possibly think of, and in our opinion, this is the best solution. This provides a reduction in a lot of the comments we've heard related to noise and impact to the neighbors from a light and noise side of it. The lack of established safeguards and controls. Your UDO has, you know, provisions in there for anything that doesn't happen. And I think this relates more to the idea of your special use request that we're asking for the dome to be up from a very specific time of November 25th to March 25th. And your code has allowances that if those aren't met that they can certainly be um brought to the attention of the city. precedented concerns. Again, height modifications are approved on many projects every year and we're not outside of the realms of that side of it. There's been commentary over and over that this is bigger than a football field. A football field is 360 ft by 160 ft wide. The dome's 350 x 215. So, we are wider, but as you look at the neighborhood, they're going to look at the long side of it. So, 360 ft is a football field. We're actually shorter than that. We're 350 ft. There's been lots of commentary about you can park a 747 in there. I don't really know. I just know this is a large enough facility to handle youth soccer and that's what we're intended to do with that facility. So, as we start to look through pictures of what you'll see, we've taken pictures from many different angles to start to identify. I think as we were here last time, the commentary is we wanted a very clear representation of what it would look like so you guys could visually understand it. This is sitting directly to the east of the site, sitting at grade level like you're standing on the street and you can see the existing vegetation through the trees without any leaves on it. You can start to see the resemblance of a white dome. Remembering if the white dome is not there, what you're going to see is the backdrop of our building because the building would sit right there on that exact same plane. This is what it actually looks like. So that as we talk about representations and what's accurate or not, we believe that we've done a good accurate representation of what exactly it looks

like out there. Now we're another street over to the east. Again, looking back. So again, as you look to the west, you can see the dome. You can see the tips of it. You can see the white again without any leaves as it would currently sit in the winter. This is what it accurately looks like in the field. So again, I think you can see the representation that is fair in in realization of what is there. This is at the corner of Asherst and Edgewood Trail as you look west and you can notice that you don't even see the dome. You don't see barely do you see the building on that far end of it. This is what it looks like out there in reality. This is what it would look like on the east property line looking into the site from the west. So you can see where the dome would sit, where the building would sit and you can see in representation of height what relationship that dome has. It doesn't tower over the building. It's a complimentary mass to what is sitting there. Now that is currently what it looks like out there in the field. Now we're on view high looking back to the east. You can see the building. You can see the dome from this perspective just slightly on that end piece of it. And then as we kind of come down Ashers, you'll start to see it. But again illustrating that the massing of the dome doesn't overweigh the building. It doesn't overweigh any of the commercial use that's already there and already approved on that side of it. So at this time we'll just do a quick visualization that you can just run through and then that will be the end of our presentation. You can ask any questions. So this is just a video representation you can see as it drives through that area. Again, as we go back to the east, a street over, you'll start to see what would be looking at from like a second story type view and then down from what the street view would be. And then you'll go over here to Asherst as you'll head back to the west towards the facility and what

would be a representation of what it would look like as you were driving down Asherhurst headed towards View High to potentially exit the subdivision. We need to get to smoother gas pedals. It's jerking around a little bit, but but you start to see as you get to the property line, you'll see some of the building when you're on Ashers directly to the north of the dome. And now we'll swing out and we'll go up to Chipman so you can get a representation of what it would be like if you were coming southbound on View High Drive. And you'll see that if you were up on Chipman Road sitting up on that end, the Summit Church essentially blocks all of your view of the dome until you get to the point that you're near the signal of Chipman and Vue High. In the future, all of that green spaces area that the church has lined out to potentially be for sale for commuter de commercial development. So at some point in the future, this visualization of the dome is completely blocked by buildings and parking lot of the development of that corridor. And as we get up to the corner of UHigh and Ashers, eventually you'll be able to make a southbound left with the development of this project. So the neighbors will now have a 3/4 turn access of being able to get out of that site. This will be then your final drive as you're heading back down Asherst to the east towards the subdivision driving past the approved building of UHigh Sports and again just illustrating the massing of that dome not being anything out of the dis out of the ordinary from what is there from the approved plan. So with that we'll stand for any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Can I get staff's presentation?

Okay. Before I begin, I did just want to note that staff will be doing one singular presentation for PL 2025241, the special use permit, and PL 2025249, but we will still hold two hearings and staff will enter the exhibits accordingly. Adair brightite, senior planner for PL 2025249. I'd like to enter into the record exhibit A, list of exhibits 1 through 34. Please enter into the record exhibit A 1 through 34.

Looking at the previous approval on this property, the reszoning and the PDP for View High Sports Complex at 3301 Northwest Ashurst Drive was approved in early 2025 and is still valid. The PDP did include the complex itself, its associated parking, and the north south road connecting Northwest Chipman to Northwest Ashurst. At that time, the property was reszoned to CP2, which allows for a recreation facility with one condition pertaining to the location of the front entrance, which is being met. These surrounding land uses include the Summit Church to the north, single family to the south and the east, and parkland to the west across Northwest View High Drive. The future land use map designates the subject property as commercial, and the comprehensive plan does identify a commercial recreation facility as an allowable use under that commercial category. Since the complex and the parking were previously approved, the focus this evening is on the PDP and the SUP request for the inflatable seasonal dome. This project was first heard by planning commission in November of 2025 where it was recommended for denial and concerns heard were related to the size and scale of the structure and its compatibility with the single family neighborhood. It was then heard by city council on December 16th of 2025 and the instruction was to revise the proposal and allow the planning commission to reconsider the application. The proposed inflatable dome would cover the area shown with the yellow hatching and due to the proposed addition of the dome, the applicant would also be extending the fire lane access along the south. The applicant is requesting the SUP be approved for 20 years. However, since this is an unfamiliar structure, staff would recommend a 5-year initial approval period. The applicant has made three revisions

which include reducing the dome height, increasing the landscaping, and moving the installation time frame. The previous installation time frame was about 17 weeks, and this request is still consistent with that previous ask. When it comes to measuring building height, the UDO identifies three different ways listed here as A, B, and C. After additional staff review, it was determined that the most comparable roof type for the dome would be a mansered roof. And since there's not a clear distinction between where the walls end and the roof begins, the entire structure is considered part of that roof. The UDO tells us that to calculate the building height, we start at the highest available ground level, which for this project is the street curb level and measure to the deckline of a mansered roof, which is where it flattens at its highest point. Based on that UDO definition and methodology, the originally proposed structure had a calculated height of 73.65 ft, while the revised proposal results in a calculated height of 53.57 ft. While the height has been reduced, the applicant is still seeking approval of a modification because they're proposing the structure be 13 feet taller than the maximum height allowed within CP2. The previous request, which was 33 feet taller, was not supported by staff since there were limited opportunities to mitigate the visual impact on the adjacent residential properties. Staff did previously identify concerns that the overall height in the form of the dome could appear visually out of place. And while the overall shape of the structure remains the same, the reduced height does lessen its perceived scale. Also, the overall massing is comparable to the Summit Church and the previously approved sports complex. As part of this revised proposal, the applicant has provided 3D renderings from multiple vantage points demonstrating the structures height and visibility. Based on the submitted

materials, staff finds that although the dome will be partially visible, it is not expected to appear substantially taller than the surrounding trees or nearby residential and non-residential structures when viewed from that neighboring subdivision. The additional proposed evergreens will also increase the density of the existing tree mass, which is shown with the green hatching that will remain on site and will help mitigate visual impact further. The applicant held a second neighborhood meeting on February 23rd, 2026, and 11 members of the public attended. The applicant reported that the discussion and questions included traffic, the overall site design, the associated mechanical equipment, the height of the structure, and lighting. Staff has received three letters of opposition, 596 letters of support, and 22 protest petitions. Six of those petitions are within the 185 ft buffer and represent 11.7% of the land area within that buffer. Therefore, the petition does not meet the criteria to be considered a legal protest and does not require additional action by the city council. A verification process is required with protest petitions within the buffer to determine if that 30% threshold has been met. But that verification process does not occur and is not required for petitions outside the buffer or for letters of opposition or support. Oh, the planning commission did hold an additional public hearing on March 12th, 2026 and recommended unanimous unanimous denial of the project. Staff finds that the revised proposal reasonably addresses the concerns identified in the previous submittal and that the requested height modification is compatible subject to the proposed landscaping and site design improvements. The recommended conditions of approval here have been updated in response to the revised plan and are

shown in bolded font. Condition number five under the PDP application was added by the planning commission to certify that the asbuilt height of the dome or to certify the asbuilt height of the dome prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and the recommended condition two under the SUP application has been revised by staff to provide better clarity and I am here for any questions that you all may have.

All right. Thank you. questions for staff or the applicant? Council member Shields. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I think my first set of questions will probably be for staff. Um, so currently this this project without the dome has been approved. So the the building, the parking, the traffic, the soccer field, all of that, everything except for the dome that we're talking about tonight. They already have the right to do all that if they want to. Right. Yes.

Okay. Um, as far as the overall development goes, is is there anything in the conditions of approval that require both the approved building and the soccer field to be constructed? Like can are they allowed to just construct the soccer field if this were approved tonight soccer field and dome or is it one whole thing that they would need to construct the indoor building facility as well? How does how does that kind of relate to each other?

Yeah. So the building permit would cover the entire facility and so as the complex develops that's when the soccer field develops. I'm unsure if they would get a separate building permit for the actual dome structure itself, but we could always add any kind of conditions if you would like to require that the initial structure has a certificate of occupancy prior to the dome getting one.

Okay. I know um there have been concerns on some other unrelated projects in terms of making sure all improvements that were promised are completed and that kind of thing. So, I just want to make sure that we have something in place that would kind of um guarantee that. I think like we'll we'll talk um when we get to the end of the public hearing about actual opinions, but before I would decide opposition or support, I would want to know um is it all going to get built, right?

Um and then um one thing I wanted to say which I should have said at the beginning is just for full disclosure, I have spoken with the developer and I've also received many letters in both support and opposition to the project. but I will make my decisions based on what we hear in the public hearing tonight. So, just want to put that on the record. Um, and then they talked about the kind of the light and sound limiting factors and how that may be an extra benefit during the winter months. It was something I hadn't really thought about before. So, during the winter when it gets dark earlier and you don't have as much vegetation on the trees, so it'd be easier to see all those lights and and there'd be less buffer to the sound. So is that something that staff kind of agrees with that assessment that during those that particular range of months when they would be operating this dome, it's even more important to have that kind of mitigation in terms of the light and and noise to protect the neighboring properties.

Yeah, the structure would help shield any of that light that may be seen during the winter months. And then same with the noise. Okay. Whereas like in the summer when it doesn't get dark till 9, you wouldn't necessarily need that early. Yeah. For an earlier game. Okay. Um, and then as far as those months of operation, so it's it's basically the end of November until what was it? Yeah, it's November 25th. Okay. So, what what is the enforcement um mechanism for that? How does how does that work with the SUP?

Yes. So, that would follow our standard SUP conditions of approval process. Um, we have discussed kind of as this is beginning and kind of doing some notification letters as we approach that deadline. Um, just to kind of help remind the developer as we get started, hey, this needs to come down soon. Um, but overall, if the conditions of the SU are not being met, then we do have our revocation process outlined in the UDO that we could follow. Okay. So, so if for example they just we got to the end of March and they left it up and it's April and it's May, we could come back and revisit and revoke the special use permits. They couldn't use that dome at all going forward if they weren't following the requirements. Okay.

Um and then I think my last question is probably more for the applicant. Um so you know when this was presented to us originally, it didn't have this dome concept. Um, I understand from your presentation kind of how you see this as a benefit to the community and again I've I've heard a lot of support from local families that would love to have the indoor space. I guess the question I have that I'd like you to kind of walk through is why this wasn't in the original application and and what it is that triggered this like it because it seems like from when you came to us last time it sounded like it might not even though you have approval to run the facility in the without the dome as it is structured right now that it might not be feasible financially to make that happen. Can you can you just kind of explain like why how you found out? Like what was the what happened? Was it something that you knew before that would be an issue or is it something that came up in your due diligence after you had gone through the original approval? Like what what happened there?

Sure. Can you hear me? Okay. Mhm. All right. I appreciate the question. Um when we first had the idea for this name for the record, please

Justin BB 3D Builders. So when we first had the idea for this project, we knew there was demand for the indoor fields, but we greatly underestimated the amount of demand there was for these fields. So shortly after announcing the project, we were approached by a soccer club and we leased the entirety of the indoor field for the winter for 10 years to a singular club and we've continued to have interest from not just soccer clubs but from other sports as well seeking indoor turf which we continue to tell them we don't have them. So, uh, as you alluded to, um, we originally had a smaller lender that was going to syndicate the loan. And so, throughout that process, there was some underwriting creep as they continue to approach different lenders. And so, as we evaluated what our potential alternatives were, uh, this seemed like the win-win, right? We have the clubs asking us for additional space. We have the community saying they would like to have additional space and that would have solved the, you know, challenge that we were faced with at the time, but I guess I'll pause there.

Okay. So, it sounds like you you had what you thought was a a workable concept. As you got deeper into it, you found both that there was demand, but also um that as the lenders dug more into it, they wanted to see more kind of Yeah. So specifically on the lender side was related to the length the term of the contracts that we had. Um and we felt that this was the best option to present forward. We feel like it's the most viable. It's the best for the overall project. It's the best for our tenants. It's what they're asking for and it's in the best interest of the community. So that's why we chose to bring this forward as the solution for that.

Okay. And if this dome were not approved, is this a project that could go forward with the prior I mean I know that from the city standpoint, yes, you could build it, but you as the developer, can you make this project happen without the stone?

Yeah, I can understand why you would want clarity on that. But what I would say is that for any development that's at this point in the process, we're still in preliminary phase, we're still in the leasing phase, we're still in the financing phase. To speak with certainty about the final outcome of the project um is difficult because there are so many variables that still have to be overcome aside from financing. So I can't sit here with certainty and say that regardless of the outcome of this vote, it's going to get built either way today. We certainly are endeavoring to do so and I think the events over the last week have shown our resolve to see this project through to the end. And along with that, when I was here in front of the council last time, I told you I would continue to work to identify other alternatives to make sure that we did find a way to bring this project forward. And we have spoken with other lenders. We've identified a larger financial institution that has um um more favorable, more flexibility with their underwriting terms and they've expressed interest in the project. They have issued a letter of intent on the project. But what I would say is that with any project at this point that's going to be subject to full underwriting approval and to loan committee approval. And so we continue to believe that the approval of this dome is in the best interest of the project overall and in the best interest of our tenants in the community.

Okay. Um and then just I guess this probably for staff. So this would be a five-year SUP. So we would have they would have the ability to operate for five years assuming they're complying with all the terms and then it would come back to council to see if we wanted if the council wanted to continue it longer. Yes. that would give us the chance to re-evaluate how again how the landscaping is growing, kind of how the neighborhood relationship is going. Um, and just generally if there's any maintenance issues that need to be addressed. Okay. And it'd be 5 years from the date that the dome starts operating like from the would it be for like from today or from when they got a CO? It would be from approval. Okay. Okay. Uh, those are all my questions for now. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Funk. Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Mayor, if I could um provide a little more clarity and clarification to council member Shield's question. Um Shannon McGuire, planning manager. Um so with regards to the timing of the dome construction versus the principal structure construction, since the dome is considered an accessory structure, um it would not allow to operate without a primary use first. And that primary use is going to be that uh the principal structure. If you wanted to take a belt, it's a set bender approach um to provide a little more um comfortability. Um a condition could be added um that would require um you know the the timing um constraint um but uh with it being an accessory wouldn't wouldn't be allowed to be operated without a primary. Okay. Thank you.

Saying without the primary being the first building. Correct. Okay. Helpful. Thank you. Thank you. So go ahead. Council member Funk. Is this Can we talk about the SUP or do we need to wait till the next application? We can enter into the record the SUP. Uh we can enter into the record the public hearing, the second public hearing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Be easier to cover it all now and then enter all of this information into into the next public hearing. Yes. Okay. Do you want to do that and then we can talk about the Just go ahead next.

Okay. So on this Mr. Sish, do have you identified a third party to certify the height when this dome goes up. So it it'll be a surveyor land surveyor is what we've identified. And I mean, yeah, if it's not our company, then we can certainly find another land surveyor that will come out and dirt and do that and provide a certified height elevation of the facility. So what's the time? I I know we talked about this before. What's the length of time it takes to construct this the dome itself? Yeah.

Yeah. So once the dome foundation and pieces are in the ground, essentially it takes a week to put up and a week to pull down. And so the reasons of kind of the shifting of time frames is we're trying to identify with the soccer club, they typically take a a break around Thanksgiving, which is what we picked the start, and then they typically take a break around spring break. And so that's kind of how we picked it. So that week time frame in there should be the time that the club doesn't need the field and we can take it up and put it down. Okay. Thank you.

I think a question for the applicant would be on on the SUV if there were some conditions. I mean this project was approved almost a year ago. Nothing's happened. Um you asked for a very robust incentive package um on this project. And I want to make sure again, for the record, I've had conversations with the applicant. I've had conversations with people that are for and against the project. Um that won't sway my decision in any way, but I I want to make sure that everybody that is here understands that this project was approved to be built a year ago. and we've taken a lot of lot of phone calls on this one. Um, but for the SUP, I would ask the applicant if we had some conditions in there that if this was approved that you would start construction in 120 days using local contractors. The dome would not be allowed to be erected until the building received a certificate of occupancy. I mean, I think I'm asking you these questions. If you want to come up and agree to them, great. So I some stipulations that I would like to see I want to ask the questions on the record and then the council can discuss it. Um if we were to approve this you would start construction within a 90 to 120 days. So the only comment I would say to that is we have to get construction plan and final development plan approval which generally are going to take in that range. And so

okay I think if if I don't I don't know the exact time frame on that side of it how we do it. I mean they're certainly ready to move forward. We so as you look through the schedule we had started the process of putting final development plan and construction plans until the soccer club came forward and expressed this idea. So I think time frame I think that the contractors here and we could talk through schedules of how it would go. I think that's probably aggressive to the time frame of getting city approval, getting bids, awarding bids, and getting that contract. But I think we could certainly find a time frame, okay, that is reasonable to side.

What about the dome cannot be constructed until the building receives a certificate of occupancy? So I think the the question would be is if we're referencing the dome cannot be erected as far as the dome physically itself, but I can still install the foundations, utilities, and pieces of it.

Yes. then I think that there's no problem of erecting it after the fact of the the building being completely built and occupancy being awarded to the main structure because as Mr. Magcguire stated the primary structure will be built has to be operational because essentially all of the functions that serve the dome come from the main primary structure. So I think that's fine as long as we can build all of the um footings, utilities and pieces for it. Yep. And then um when the dome will this be the same dome every time when it's taken down? Is it something that

Yeah. So it's the same dome. So they purchase the dome itself. It is stored offsite and brought back and the dome crew will come and erect and put up the dome. So the permanent facility stuff will be there will be the mechanical equipment and some of the pads and pieces and obviously all the foundation. But outside of that, the dome itself will be stored off site and brought back because we wouldn't end up getting some 20-year-old looking dome showing up the second time.

You would not. Nope. It it would be that that same dome every time and then as Mrs. Bright commented, we are asking for a 20-year SU completely understand with the new use at 5-year and we are acceptable to 5-year because it's kind of a prove it point and the developer is more than willing to prove to you that they will erect it and take it down on schedule. They will maintain the quality and and color of it. What whatever aesthetics are there, it will be maintained with this incentive package that is there. Would they uh agree to local contractors only?

I think that'll be a tricky one to say with the with the contractor, general contractor that's here of identifying only sourced local just from the availability of local. We'd have to identify I think what that probably limits would be. I mean there's always stipulations that can be in the incentives. I just don't know that we can source it to say solely because again if we start to talk about time frame I would rather have the general contractor allowed to identify quality contractors he knows to get the project done constructed and in a quality manner in a timely manner versus put something that I I don't know a good way to tell you of the availability of everybody else to do it because it's going to take a large number of people to do it. So certainly there will be locally sourced.

I would agree with that. But we are locally sourcing a very nice incentive package. No, I understand. I'm just saying I don't know what the availability on that side of it. Like I said, we can have the contractor comment on what the availability would be on that side. But I think certainly some percentage of it say that. We'll have Kevin ask a question.

Hi. Uh my name is Kevin Ule. I'm with Myer Brothers Building Cont uh Companies. Um we are a local contractor. Uh I live in Lee Summit. Uh I live in Lakewood. And the biggest question to that is define local like Kansas City metro or Lee Summit specific. That's where it's going to that's where it gets to it's kind of hard to answer that question specifically. And I think the the simple part is is we could say local general would be local in the metro area.

Yeah. So everybody So we had to we have the 80% drawings. We put it out to bid just so we can get an idea of what the cost is. Majority of the contractors are local um to the metro area. The steel is local. The foundry is in the state of Missouri. Uh the biggest one that's not local is a dome. There's only two dome manufacturers that are used almost globally. That's understandable. But outside of that, everybody else that we've used is local to the metro area. Okay. Uh that's all I got for now, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Hodes.

Thank you. So for the applicant, so I have a question in regard to the STP and your financing. So I know originally the STP was requested for 20 years and then it was dropped down to five. So is your lender okay with it being 5 years and then um especially like you know you have to come back to us in 5 years. Say that council says nope, we don't want it anymore. So will your financing still be okay then? Like are there precautions in place in case that were to happen? Hopefully not, but right if it did.

Yeah. So, so they're aware of the request of staff to go to 5 years. Um financing side of it, everything is fine with it. Our belief and opinion is is that we will prove to you that the dome functions the way that we believe it would, should and it will be what Lee Summit will be proud of. So there is no concern on it switching to five years. So if that's the request of staff and the council, we are fine. Okay. So, if if it were denied at that 5-year point, you guys would still be okay on your plan is what you're saying. I think that we would be hardpressed like any developer or project would in the sense of not understanding why. But at that point, I would feel like it would be the development's

uh issue of not getting something done correctly because in my belief, if we stand in front of whatever council or mayor that it is in 5 years have proven that the project is functioning as stated and in doing no harm to the neighborhood, they would have a hard time not approving it. So, I think that that is a risk that they're willing to take from that standpoint of it's we believe we will prove to you that this is going to work. Okay. And then my next question, so if if some complaints do arise, what's the process for addressing them and who's accountable for that?

Right. So both developers, one lives in the neighborhood, both live local in Lee Summit, both are available and both will be on site to that side of it. So the development team, ownership group will be available to any of the neighbors and be very accessible to anything if there's any comments or concerns or problems with that side of it. And then as we've talked to the neighborhood, we've talked about one of their biggest concerns is traffic from our project going through the neighborhood. We've committed putting wayfinding signs and other pieces of it and continuing that if traffic uh designers and engineers and city staff's opinion that people won't go through the neighborhood is inaccurate, we will assist in trying to figure out a way to detour that because that's not our intent. So I think that's one of the biggest concerns that we've expressed a continuation of help to the neighborhood that we will figure out to make sure it doesn't happen. that the developers will be available um on any other side of it.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you.

Okay, not seeing any more questions from council. I got quite a list of people that have turned something in to speak, but that doesn't mean you can't speak. Um, so I can go with the list I have here and then um from there um we can I'll just after I get through this list then I'll ask who else would like to speak and then you can come forward at that time. Um so we'll start with with uh Kate Campbell as far as the public speaking part. And I just ask everybody to be respectful and uh stay on topic. This is a public hearing for um a special use permit and a preliminary development plan that allows for a dome.

Yes. Good evening, mayor and city council members. Uh my name is Kate Campbell and I come to you as a lifelong resident of Lee Summit and a soccer player. Um, in fact, I am dressed like this because I came from soccer practice this evening for my 10-year-old son. Um, I've lived here my whole life and I've seen the city grow. Uh, in fact, the last time I was at a city council meeting was when my father was developing or requesting support for developing Price Chopper in Lakewood and uh the opposition for that was strong and I can tell you that probably everybody is okay with that Price Chopper being there now. Good thankfully. Uh, but I've watched this city grow um from 29,000 residents in the 80s to over 106,000. Uh, that's a 250% population and housing stock in just four decades. We've become one of Missou's largest and most desirable cities. And we've done that by investing in things that families want to stay, she shop, eat, and raise their kids right here within the city limits. Um, back in my day, the only place we had to play indoor soccer was a horrible place called the Soccer Dome off Front Street where we actually had to walk through a bar to get to the field. Uh, few years later, Sports City came and man was that life-changing for the local soccer community. Having a good safe place with big fields, uh, seating for parents to actually watch games. It was a huge change in an opportunity for soccer players of my age at the time. Um, View High Sports is basically the 21st century sports city. With your approval tonight, our kids can have something truly worldclass, a state-of-the-art facility featuring, I mean, you've heard all of the amenities, but 7,500 foot square foot or square foot athletic training and rehab center, of course, the FIFA fields. we could bring

competitive soccer here. Um, as a soccer mom of two, a 10 and 13year-old, I have actually said out loud in the last couple months, "Sorry babe, I can't drive you to Kansas for competitive soccer while your brother is playing here in Lee Summit. I'm robbing my children of an opportunity of growing in their soccer career just because I can't drive them to Kansas three times a week." Um, the quality youth sports complexes like this don't hurt property uh values. They raise them by making neighborhoods more attractive to young families who want convenient active opportunities for their kids. If this 5-year trial period, special use permit for the season dome, seasonal dome isn't approved tonight. As you've heard, the investors are unsure that we'll even be able to go through with the project. Uh, that would mean we're losing it all. the indoor fields, the training center, the family entertainment, the jobs that it's bringing, the chance to give our kids a future far brighter than anything we had back in the 80s. So, council members, this is our moment. We need you to help us choose opportunity for our next generation. I, along with all the other soccer moms, support this 5-year special use permit and preliminary development plan tonight and can't wait to show the world that Lee Summit knows how to invest in our kids' future. Thank you. Oh, Thomas.

Hope you guys hear me. Okay, hold on a second. We'll get you a microphone. Oh,

thank you. I'll uh be brief. My name is Bo Thomas. I'm a Lee Summit resident, a business owner, husband, father of two uh boys involved in you sports. I'm here tonight to in support of the seasonal dome at View High Sports and Entertainment. Uh from both a parent and a business perspective, this is a very practical solution and the real need. Uh the dome itself only improves this this this um project. Um and it continues to grow. Uh so so does the demand for the quality of accessible space especially during times of the year the outdoor just uh outdoor play just isn't realistic. Uh what this project does allows families to stay here in Lee Summit. It keeps our time here. It keeps our kids here. It keeps our dollars we are already spending on sports, food, and activities in our own community instead of going elsewhere. Uh I'll be honest, this matters to me on a personal level. My family and I spend our a lot of our weekends traveling to Kansas for sports. Um, and at some point you start asking why. Uh, we are leaving Missouri. We're leaving Lee Summit to find opportunities that could easily exist right here at home. This projects help helps fix that problem. But more importantly, that the economics in this time at this time it gives back to families. When things are local, it means less time in the car, more time at home, more time together, more balanced life during the week. a better quality of life for families like mine. I also think it's important to recognize many of the people who support this aren't here in the room tonight because they're probably at soccer practice driving their kids to the games. They're doing exactly what this project's meant to support. Right now, families like mine are leaving Missouri every weekend to find these opportunities. This is the last This is our chance to keep our families here, our time, our dollars right here in Lee Summit. I respectfully ask you to approve this special permit. Thank you. All right, thank you.

Okay, next is Doug. H A I can't see. Is it harp? Maybe. Hey, is that correct? Yeah.

Hey, Doug. Hey, please. Thank you, mayor, council members for following for allowing me to then the residents the opportunity to speak. My name is Doug Hay. I lived at 540 Northwest Edgewood Trail directly and behind the dome stadium. All right. Um, I appreciate the chance to share my perspective. respectfully asked the city to reconsider the placement and type of dome being proposed. While we have accepted the sports complex itself has already been approved, the dome represents a significant additional impact. As currently planned, it would set direct directly behind my home. The size and scale of the structure, visibility from roughly four uh months each year would sub substantially affect our view, our privacy, and our quality of life. My family chose this neighborhood for its seclusion, open space, and natural settings. Over the past four years, the character has already changed significantly. Placing a dome of this magnitude immediately behind homes place an unfair burden on a small group of residents for the benefit enjoyed by the broad broader community. In addition to the visual impact, I ask the council to consider consider the real world effects this will have on nearby homeowners. increased noise from sports activities, lighting that spills into the backyards and homes, added traffic, parking congestion during events, and the disruption of wildlife that residents see daily. I'm also concerned about the property values, whether homeowners who are most impacted are being asked to absorb

long-term losses without meaningful mitigation. Finally, I want to address the issue of height. The proposed dome appears to exceed the city's 40-foot height restriction. I respectfully ask why an exception is being considered and whether approving it sets a precedence that weakens the protection of neighborhoods and future development. I'm not asking the city to abandon the project. I'm asking for fairness, thoughtful placement, and consideration of alternatives that better balance community benefit with neighborhood impact. Thank you for your time listening to me.

Thank you. Rick Mitchell. Uh, Mr. Mayor, council, men and women, thanks for having me. I appreciate the time here. Uh, unlike some of the people who have talked, uh, I'm a transient, okay? I moved here about 12 years ago. Uh, quick story, my background because I think it gives a little bit of of cred to what I'm about to say. Uh, I've traveled the world a lot, multiple places. I've served as an aviator for 27 years of my life, both in the military and the in the commercial world. So, what does that really mean to you? I see a lot of cities. I see a lot of places, the the good, bad, and the ugly around the world from every region you can imagine. There's a reason we live here in Lee Summit, though. And there's a reason that what she said, the the population here has skyrocketed. It's because it's a phenomenal community. And a lot of that is due to you and and some of you have grown up here and some of you have moved here. But it's a great place to live and be at. Back to this dome though. Why am I fully in support of this dome? Because this is what makes this city great. All right. I've got kids, three little kids. One of them here was here earlier, had to go home, go to school tomorrow. But the reality is these kids are the future and we love being here to support them. But in a macro sense, it's about the community. And there's no way that this is not an econ economic benefit, you know, keeps lemon the forefront of development and and in in the macro sense of what benefits are that this doesn't do that. I don't see any way, shape or form why this can't be approved. And I think that it unequivocally should be should be passed. Uh just to make sure I get everything said what I thought I would say, but I usually go off the cuff like I just did. Um, economic sovereignty. People have talked about it. Keep your money here. Don't go over there and spend it. Makes a lot of sense to me. You've heard enough of

that. I think this is calculated growth. All right. Uh, aesthetics, any changes in the world, there's an aesthetic change. I'm also a land owner of 80 open acres. I love it. But I also understand that as as population grows because people want to live there, I have to accept the fact that sometimes there's a greater good that's going to happen. All right? And there's usually a value that's paid uh to that. Um, and lastly, I want to talk about stagnation versus innovation. Communities that die don't innovate. They don't change. They don't they don't grow. They don't develop futures. So, um, I'm asking you all to choose innovation versus stagnation. We're not really asking a lot based off the outstanding briefings we've heard tonight. Um, and I really just can't find any reason why we shouldn't push this through. So, I humbly ask that as a transit, but 12-year resident at this point, but likely lifelong resident, that we go ahead and push this thing through and see it to the end. Thanks for your time. All right. Thank you, Miss Giddings. Hi, Debbie Giddings. Um, first I started researching this clear back in March, a year ago for this council session. um if I'm not mistaken and he could say noier I think Mr. Schlitz developed the church or was involved with the church in some way. Therefore, he knew the covenants and deeds of the church and right now he has come back with a dome literally one inch below what the covenants call for from that church. Sure, the church wrote you. They're getting a parking lot out of it. Also, how are the kids going to run back and forth across the street? I'd be I' had young kids, they'll do it. Um,

his main reason for coming here, he said he wanted to have indoor FIFA tournaments. That was the first time with the 80oot dome. Okay. He shrunk it. Could still have 80 foot. could could still have 11 by11 and now he's saying he can't have 11 by1 11 soccer. So which is it? Is he willing to sacrifice all those tournament dollars for 11 by11 just for the dome? And why wasn't this dome presented at the very beginning? I don't buy the fact that they just found out about it. I think it was a a strategic move to make you and the planning commission make a decision that will be on record. I don't know how many of those letters that they got were actually signed by the persons who wrote them because they were not all notorized. Um, the lighting also, there's going to be lighting in the dome, but there'll also be lighting outside because you'll have to have a safe way to walk to the dome, unless it's all going to come from the building. And if that's so, it's going to be shining towards the dome and you'll have outside plus you'll have all the lighting that's going to come through the dome structure itself. So, decreasing lighting, I don't think that's going to happen. Um, I guess my last comment is going to be I hate for an inflatable dome to be this council's last public hearing decision for the record. Thank you.

Thank you. Lawrence Olas.

Yeah.

My name is Lawrence Close. 509 Northwest Edgewood Trail Lease Summit. I'm urging you to deny this application. The planning commission has unanimously denied it twice. Why? The height, scale, and type of construction of this massive structure is not compatible with surrounding properties, particularly residential. This picture that I have up is St. Luke's Hospital. You all are familiar with it. the uh dash line at 40 feet. That's the approved zoning uh uh for the area. Uh you can see what a home is a little bit lower. 60 ft is the the the higher line and that's the size of the dome. So you can see it is uh substantial. It's 50% over the zoning limit. Uh so it's an extreme and considering that's such a massive scale as a soccer field it is material. The second picture is actually a smaller dome from the manufacturer's website. The foot is smaller by about 10,000 square feet. So this is what you will see. Imagine our homes or your home just beyond the tree line at the top of the picture where the arrow is. The visual impact is obvious. It dominates the landscape. It cannot be changed. And keep in mind there's no leaves on those trees. They're bare. They have showed you renderings designed to show you what you don't see. But renderings often do not convey real

world scale and domination of a structure and can understate the visual impact. We rely on enforcement of zoning code to provide orderly intended and predictable development next to residential property to protect neighborhood character, values, and quality of life. In short, to protect from developer access. This property was reszoned just a year ago to allow the sports complex as presented which includes indoor and outdoor regulation soccer field soccer will be played. They don't want a change in zoning. They just don't want to comply with the current zoning and they're asking you for an exception. To me, it's the same thing. This enormous add-on request is a blatant example of project creep where developers hope add-ons can be pushed through. This one is immense. And they've stated in prior planning commissions and at neighborhood uh meetings, the project without the dome is financially successful by their projections. This is an add-on. Uh it's kind of why not? We've got what we want. Why not ask for more? Average citizens of small property owners rely on you to ensure restrictions are consistently enforced and not promptly waved to the benefit of excess developers excess and detriment of residents.

Mr. Claus, thank you. Yes, our time's up, sir. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Seal Beach. I need to use this again. Is it back on? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let me Yeah. My name is CL Beach. I live at the 520 Northwest Edgewood Trail in the uh Edgewood edition. And what I would like to present is some of the information on the characteristics comparison. We've talked a lot about the size of the dome and just a table I gave you all in your handout. As you can see, the width of it is about 35% greater than a football field. And if you do consider the end zones, it's about the same length as a football field. However, it's also about a four and a half story building, which we've talked about. Square footage would be about, you know, 30% greater. If you again if you consider the end zones of a football field, it's 30% taller than the existing building they will be building and about equivalent to two two-story homes. And we mentioned a 747. Well, 747 is 196 by 232 and the tail would stick out about 4 feet, but you could probably park it in there. And for these numbers are hard to refer, I know. And but it's also larger than the Lee Summit City Hall. And I know it's hard to get a perspective. And this building we're in right now is a wonderful complex. This is Lee Summit City Hall. the building we're studying in. You can see it's 315 ft long. The dome's 350 ft. 175 ft wide. The dome's 215. Height is about 36 ft. The dome is again about 50% higher than this. If we look at the garage structure, 125x 230, it's 215x 350. So, you can see the dome is larger than the complex that takes up nearly a city block of this neighborhood of this

downtown. Another reference we can look at is the structure outside that has the the glass covering. The peak there, the peak there is about 40 ft. This is 60. It's about another 50% higher. So if you look at that, you'd have to look up another 50% higher than that or adding another story to the Lee Summit City Hall. That's a rendering of the parking garage. It would The parking garage is in gray. The other, as you can see, is in the shady color. parking garage would fit right inside the dome to give an idea of the complexity of how what size the the dome is. Additionally, a little bit about Edgewood subdivid subdivision. I may have to move this around a little bit. This is a picture of Edgewood. You can see there where the the soccer field would set. This is trees that will not exist anymore. What I have circled here, Edgewood has 54 homes. We're not 2,000 homes like Lakewood or somewhere else. We have 54 homes. We have two exits to our neighborhood. One on Ashurst, the other takes us back to Chipman. The circled in red is about 75% of the homes which have to go past this intersection of Ashurst and Edgewood, which one of the renderings that they did show, you'd see the dome every time you entered or exited your neighborhood. This dome is up 120 days a year and you went to work one day a week or five days a week and out on the weekend one time, you'd be seeing the dome about 240 to 50 times as you saw it every day coming in and out of your neighborhood. So although you may live over here on the far side of the neighborhood, you may not see it daily, but it affects the entire neighborhood where we live. And I've been there 18 years and in Lee Summit for 40 years. So I've seen it grow also. And I'm a soccer. My daughters played soccer all the way through high school and we ran around the country everywhere and playing soccer. So some points to consider.

I'll give you 30 seconds, sir. But

thank you very much. Again, points to consider. Again, this is larger than city hall by those proportions. The majority of the neighborhood would be going through there. Will this set a precedent for Lee Summit having 60 foot domes in your neighborhood? And also ask yourself, would I vote for this as a welcome sign to the entrance to my neighborhood a third of the year? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay, Scott Edgar. Okay. Uh Scott Edgar, 512 Northwest Edgewood. Been a civil engineer for 41 years. I've done hundreds of site plans. This is just not a good fit for this particular location. The developer basically showed you talked about the church to the east, forgot about the south, forgot about I mean church to the church would be to the north, forgot about the south, forgot about the east. Anyway, uh the structure why is I wanted to look at zoning zoning regulations a minute. So why do you have structure zoning height limits on structures? So that one structure does not dominate the landscape like a 1.72 acre marshmallow blocking sunset views for the entire winter. Uh ordinance 118 has already been referred to and it's went from a to CP2 just like the issue that came up just before us. Uh the CP2 maximum zoning is 40 feet, not 80 feet, not 60 feet, not 54 feet. But any good

uh any good gambler will ask you for 80 if he wants 50 to begin with. So the negotiation is ask for high and get medium. And they feel like you feel like they you feel like you've won, but you really haven't. But anyway, so looking at the zoning rigs, uh what are what's CP2? There's so what are they for? Therefore, compatibility such as commercial residential uh height restrictions ensure that new buildings maintain the aesthetic and functional characteristics of the zigated area, environmental infrastructure planning. So there is actually your CP regulation right there. And then here's the rest of it, but I don't have time because my clock's ticking. I want to respect that. Okay, so these are different zoning uh areas in the city of Lee Summit and there's heights. So 40t, 45, 50, 40. There's only one 75 for that's higher than that that they would allow this for planned commercial, I think. So everything else is basically 40 or 50 or less for a few specific things. Uh considerations of a special use permit. So what what do you do for a special use permit consideration? What are you looking at? You're looking at character of the neighborhood compatibility with adjacent property uses and zoning. You're looking at extent with the proposed use will negatively impact the aesthetics of the property. to the extent of the proposed use will injure appropriate use of or detrimentally affect neighboring property. This is from your regulations. This is your regulations. Impact of noise, pollution or environmental harm, potential negative impact to property owners. Okay, I hear you. Conformance. So, conformance with the UDO and the current

city policies. That's also part of why you would approve or disapprove. Recommendation of professional staff. We agree with planning commission's denial twice of this prop of this thing and we have I'll cut it off and thank you very much. Thank you,

Janet Allen, I believe. I'm sorry if I messed that up. First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. The residents of Edward subdivision support youth sports. We support investment in our kids. What we do not support is placing a large high impact atypical structure a few hundred feet from residential backyards without appropriate consideration for the people who live there. The proposed inflatable dome is not a minor addition. It represents a clear case of project creep and commercial intensification less than one year after approval of the original 17 acre sports complex. When the city approved the sports complex, it did so based on specific scope, scale, and impact. Residents, staff, and decision makers evaluated traffic, noise, lighting, and visual impact under that defined plan. That approval created an expectation of what would be built and more importantly what would not. Now before the original project has even been constructed, the developer is seeking to significally significantly expand the intensity of use by adding a nearly 60 foot tall inflatable dome. This fundamentally changes the character of the project in several key ways. A dome allows for yearround use of an outdoor field, which is extended hours of operation, increasing traffic, noise, and activity well beyond what was originally planned. This shift this shifts the project from

a seasonal outdoor recreational soccer field to a more intensive continuous commercial operation without undergoing the level of scrutiny typically required for that level of use. A structure of this size and scale introduces a new visual intrusion and mechanical noise that was not part of the original plan. The residents of our subdivision do not have the financial means to produce independent renderings. Therefore, we ask that the images shown here tonight by the de developer be understood that they are conceptual depictions, not necessarily an accurate representation of what will ultimately be seen from vantage various vantage points in the neighborhood. Approving this now effectively allows the developer to incrementally expand the project beyond what was originally approved without a full re-evaluation of comm cumulative impacts. This sets a concerning precedent for future amendments. This is exactly why special use permits are not meant to be open-ended or continuously expanded after approval. If the developer intended to include a large-scale dome for seasonal use within 310 feet or 120th of a mile of residential properties, it should have been discussed and evaluated. Uh the priority should be to complete the pro the complex as planned and allow residents of the Edgewood subdivision time to adjust to the changes that it will bring to our neighborhood. Maintaining the property with maintaining the project within its originally approved scope will demonstrate that 3D builders are committed to acting in good faith with the surrounding neighborhood following completion of this project. The majority of Edgewood subdivision residents oppose expanding the original

plan for the View High Sports Complex to include a 59 ft 11in inflatable dome. I urge you to vote no on this project. Thank you for listening to our Thank you. Okay, that's the list of uh that I had in my hand. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Please come forward. I'll go I'll let you go next. These two fellas will go and then we can go from there.

Pardon me. I'm old. I have to take off my glasses to read. Uh Brad Allen, I'm part of Edgewood subdivision. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I stand before you not simply in opposition to a temporary 60-oot inflatable dome, but in defense of responsible planning, community trust, and the standards this city has a duty to uphold. At the heart of this proposal is a serious concern that cannot be overlooked. The developers failure failure to engage meaningfully with the residents of Edgewood subdivision. The mayor gave clear direction in December of last year. He stated, "You have to reach out to them. You have to work with them." He emphasized that the developer needed to engage res residents directly, address concerns about the project's design and impact, and make a genuine effort to ensure the community felt heard and accommodated. He also made clear that if those efforts were not done, the project should not be brought back before this council. That was not a suggestion. It reflected the real impact this project will have on people's daily lives. What we've seen instead is a complete disregard of this directive by the mayor. A public hearing where every concern is disregarded or dismissed is not what that instruction was. This pattern should concern the council. A developer unwilling to engage in good faith before approval raises serious concerns about how they will operate afterward. If they're not acting as a good neighbor now, there's little reason to expect they will do so in the future. Trust is built through transparency, responsiveness, and respect. When a developer ignores those principles, especially after being directed by the city leadership to uphold them, it raises serious concerns about how this project will be managed going forward. Equally concerning are the qualifications of the engineer responsible for evaluating one of the project's most critical impacts, acoustics. Sound is not a minor detail in a structure of this nature. It directly affects the daily lives, health, and well-being of nearby residents. Yet, the individual tasked with assessing this

impact does not appear to have the specialized credentials or demonstrated expertise in acoustical engineering that such a responsibility demands. This is not a technicality. It is a matter of due diligence. When decisions have the potential to disrupt entire neighborhoods, the analysis behind those decisions must be conducted by properly qualified professionals. Anything less puts a city at risk of approving a project based on incomplete or unreliable information. This council is not just evaluating a temporary structure. You're deciding whether expert analysis is truly expert and whether community voices genuinely matter in the decisions that affect them. Right now, those standards have not been met. I urge you to pause, require proper acoustical evaluation by a credentialed expert, require the developer to engage in good faith with the neighborhood, and demonstrate real efforts to resolve concerns. Anything less set, that's a precedence that this council should not accept. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Andrew Ellson, 504 Northwest Timber Ridge Trail. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I don't know how many times I'm going to need to speak in front of you on this project, but I do know how many times you've seen me up here. Tonight is not about whether kids and families deserve places to play. That decision was already made. And importantly, the developer has stated on record at the planning commission under oath that they can move forward on the under the already approved plan. The developers presented hundreds of signatures tonight from people who want this. Lots of speakers. But zoning is not a popularity contest. You're not here to tally a popular vote. You're here to uphold the unified development ordinance. This vote is about one thing, the addition of a dome. And that dome fundamentally changes the relationship to our neighborhood. A 60oot inflatable structure is not a step up. It's a cliff. a cliff that will sit exactly 100 yards, just one football field without endzones from our neighbors backyards. No amount of landscaping changes that. Article 8 requires buffering to protect adjacent neighborhoods. But let's be realistic. There's no combination of trees, fencing, setbacks, or anything meaningful that screens a 60oot dome at that distance. If it cannot be effectively buffered, it's not compatible. That's not opinion. That's the standard you're required to apply. And importantly, nothing meaningful has changed since the last time this came before you. Yes, the height was reduced from 66 to 59 1/2 ft, but a structure of that scale doesn't become compatible just because it's 6 ft shorter. The planning commission recognized that then, they recognize it now. They recommended denial both times. You recognize that last time this was before you when it was set back to the planning commission. The applicant was told to work with the neighborhood. Instead, opposition has only grown. So, the question before you tonight is simple. If it didn't meet UDO standards then and

nothing meaningful has changed, why would it meet them now? We respectfully ask that you deny this request. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anybody else please come forward? Yep.

Hi, I'm Marcus Ryder, resident of Leaf Summit. Um, just wanted to talk a few minutes. Like our first speaker, like many of us in here, we've got children. I spend two to four days in Kansas. Spend every other weekend at the Blue Hawk facility or the Kansas City, Kansas homefield facilities, pumping resources into those communities. But honestly, what I wanted to talk about today was I wanted to advocate. We're lucky we have the means to take our kids to those locations in the winter time, especially, but not all families have that. A lot of families sit at home, their kids sit at home on the weekends during the winter time. they don't have the resources to do that. And when I look at this project, um I'm in the construction industry and what I've learned from my time there is no project makes everybody happy, right? Does this project serve the community? I think it does. It might not serve the subdivision nearby, but the overall community, the kids in this community, I I think it's nothing but great for that. So, I'm in full support of it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Teresa Volenwiter, 5201 Northeast Maybrook Road. Uh Matthew Schliss talked about the evergreen trees. There's probably one evergreen or maybe two that are native to Missouri. One of those is cedar. um it doesn't grow quite as fast as like a uh green giant arborite. Those are not native to Missouri, but I have planted many of them and I know how fast they grow. It's about 1.47 ft per year. If you want those to reach 45 feet and help those folks in the neighborhood uh not see that, it would take 31 years. They'll all be gone. Uh who will police monitor that dome and make sure it's taken down? Will that chore be placed on the neighbors, the residents? With the baseball field around me, it was me. I was the one. How many times, Council Member Lopez, did I text you and say they're in uniforms and they're out there playing and nothing was ever done. It's still happening. Will the neighbors, the residents, if they are the ones monitoring, be chided by others for doing it? She's the hall monitor. She's the police. She has to take time and date stamped videos and pictures and she'll have to

be the one to go to court to testify against it. So those residents will be the ones that have to do that. They may not know that yet, but I do. It should not be Matthew Schlush or his company to choose a pro professional land surveyor to measure whether or not that meets what they say it's going to meet. I can speak from experience on that. It should be someone that does not count on their bread and butter from Jackson County. You'll have to hire a professional land surveyor from outside Jackson County to do that so those residents can have faith in that measurement. Wow. Uh Blake Wood, uh local resident. I'll be a little kinder. Thanks for having me and for having us. Um I'm a former resident and I see a lot of my friends that I lived in the neighborhood at Edgewood. I now live in Winteret and I own the property at 107 View High. Um, we were here 10 years ago and all of my friends and myself were here for a church that was going to be the devil. It was going to be the worst thing. The structure was too big. Everything that you're hearing about this right now was everything the church was going to be. While we lived there, that neighbor, the church was amazing. It turned out they were the best neighbor we could have had. Um, I would like to say that these guys over here on the right and every all of the families in Lee Summit, we're not going to be this terrible group that's coming over there to to to wreak havoc on the neighborhood that I once lived in. And I understand that they love their privacy and why they do over

in Edgewood. It's amazing. But we're looking forward and not backwards anymore. And we're trying to push this forward where we're going to have the ability to have kids in our families and many, many years after these residents are gone, there's going to still be the ability for other kids to move forward and look forward. And I think that's what we need to look into rather than just their lives right now in this 5 to 10 year period because that church was so bad, but now it's okay. This is going to be so bad. Let's remember this isn't going to be a 365 day dome that's going to be there. it's going to be 90 days or maybe less, whatever the exact m uh, you know, time frame was. So, I just wanted to say we're trying to look forward. We're looking forward to having good times and getting to know the community and all of these other Edgewood people that are are great people, but understand that there's good opportunities out there. So, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi. Um, my name is Jessica Ham. Uh, my husband Danny and I live at 536 Northwest Edgeward Trail. Uh, we live right next to um what is going to be the water basin or the retention pond. And our house is arguably um the most affected by what will probably be loss of trees and pretty open to the backyard. So currently there's no trees or there's no leaves on the trees and you can see straight through those trees and almost to the cars that are coming in right off of uh directly. That's how far visib visibility goes. Um the renderings that the development company put up show right now what the dome will look like with trees there, but um that's only the 3D renderings. When you look at the 2D renderings, it looks like all of those trees are being removed or taken out. Um, we have four children. We have a daughter that's a junior at Lee Summit High School. We have two boys that are eighth and seventh grade at Pleasant Lee. And we have a kindergartener at Cedar Creek. Um, this is something that is under our understanding, as uh, Councilman Funk reiterated earlier, has already been approved. So, nobody's driving to Kansas for soccer anymore because this has been approved. It's not removing anybody's ability um for their kids to enjoy soccer in Lee Summit. We have 10 FIFA regulated soccer fields a mile down the road at Paragon Star. I work in Lanexa, Kansas. Three of my colleagues drive to Paragon Star every weekend for Kansas soccer on the Missouri side. So, all of those issues have already been addressed and will continue to be addressed. We're not asking for soccer families to drive to Kansas. We're asking for not there not to be a dome when we step out on our back porch. Um the back of our house is like many other Lee Summit homes, lots

of very large windows and uh we're quite devastated by this project in general, but especially once we heard that this dome was going up. Um there is there's going to be a lot of traffic through the neighborhood which concerns us with the age of our kids and what's going on. And though we appreciate the developer um and his invitation that he that they're available to speak with us and to communicate with us, we have found the developer that lives in our neighborhood to be quite hostile towards the neighbors, the families, and even some of the neighbors children. And so our experience has not been um open conversation and kindness that we're receiving. We feel that we're being uh stronger and bullied by the neighbor developer that lives in our community currently. Um we are asking that you guys uh say no to this dome. Um and as has been testified by the developer, that isn't affecting the project in any way going forward. So again, I think that we don't have to worry about soccer being removed out of Missouri. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Uh my name is Nate Kempna, resident of Lee Summit. I live in Winteret. I just wanted to remind you guys that this is just a a 14 or 15 week bubble for the uh for the dome. Um and I've seen a lot of media that Lee Summon is trying to position itself as the soccer city ahead of the World Cup. And I'd like for you guys to remember that the $50,000 or whatever for the events at at at uh across the street. So, as a soccer dad that does drive to Kansas a lot, I would like for you guys to put your money where your mouth is and and show the state and show the world that Lee Summit is a soccer city. Thank you.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Brad Weathers. Thank you for giving me the time today. I'd be remiss on listening as others are presenting. I come today without any prepared remarks, but I just wanted to really speak from the heart. And I have a confession. I'm not from Lee Summit. I'm not from Missouri. I'm from Kansas. And so I bring that up because I moved here about 20 years ago and I have seen the city expand exponentially, but everything. And again, I'm just speaking from the heart here. No prepared remarks, but I would advocate for this project to go forward. This is something that is greatly needed. I myself have drove my kids back and forth across the state lines all over the country and the indoor facility to me is a gamecher. So again, I'd just be remiss if I didn't say I'm a proponent of it and thank you for your time. Thank you.

I don't know what I'm doing up here. Uh Justin Co Pepper. um a resident of uh Lee Summit in Greenwood um with two daughters in uh in competitive sports here in Missouri. Uh I'm not here to convince the members of the neighborhood to support adding a dome to this project. I'm just here to uh encourage you all to uh vote for this variance. a requirement to engage the neighborhood uh does not require that the neighborhood approve of the project. Um I'm sure you all see that many times uh when improving development projects uh in the city. Not everybody agrees with them. Uh so let's not hold back an amazing opportunity uh because the push back from one neighborhood. Uh I'll give you a story. This past weekend uh we took two trips to Overland Park uh for soccer games. Uh we spent several hundred dollars uh in um in Overland Park. After the game uh on Saturday, we ate at a local restaurant over there and then we spent money at HomeGoods in Overland Park. If our games were here, we would have spent money at the HomeGoods that is uh just down the street in our community. Uh but because we were over there, it just made sense for us to stay there and spend money there. Uh during that during the period that this dome uh would be up, uh my family would have made at least 60 trips to Overland Park and would have spent thousands of dollars patronizing their businesses and not ours. Uh given that soccer has become a year-round sport, uh this dome would allow fewer cancellations and would allow our uh our

kids and youth the opportunity to continue uh growing their soccer skills. Um currently right now we are going to Homefield in THA. Uh we also go to Prestige in Overland Park to do our indoor soccer training. I think this is a great opportunity to uh allow our kids to train on this side of the state line. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening. My name is Casey Brownsburgger. I'm also a Lee Summit resident. Um, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak. I'm here to strongly support the Valley View Sports Entertainment Complex and the proposal to build a temporary soccer dome within over the fields during the winter months. And I also want to share that I'm not just speaking for myself tonight. I'm representing many voices who support this project but couldn't be here because their kids are at soccer practice. Um, many of them, like you heard, we cross state lines. It's so much. It just speaks volumes about the need that we have that we need right here. Right now, families like mine are driving to Kansas three, four, five plus times a week just so our kids can practice and play. And I know we have Paragon here, which has been astronomical. It has really changed life and convenience. So, thank you so much for that. Um, but in the winter, it's even more frequent that we have to travel state line because there are very, very few facilities over here. Um, when we go, we're not just taking our kids, we're taking our time, our energy, and like you hear, money across lines. That business could be here, and it should stay right here. We have a fabulous city. This project is more about it's it is more about more than just sports. It's about investing in our community, a facility that is that keeps kids active, engaged, and connected. It gives them a place to grow and stay healthy and be a part of something positive, especially during the long winter months when options are very limited. It also puts Lee Summit on the map. It in just a big in a huge way. We are part of Kansas City, a nationally recognized soccer community. What an incredible opportunity to lean into that identity and lead on the M Missouri side. This is a chance for us to be forward thinking, to meet the needs of our families, and to build something we've been lacking for years. I understand there's a concern um from the

neighbors and those concerns do matter, but I also think it's fair to ask if not this, then what? What would go in that space instead? What it would it brings the same value to families to to kids in our local economy? You worry about depreciating your home value. Well, I'm here to say I would love to buy your house and be closer and convenient. Um, another thing, the lights are worse. um the lights would be worse than if there was not a dome there. The dome shields the light and the light traffic. So, it's a good thing to have a dome. For many of us, this isn't just a convenience. It's something we've been wishing for. I can honestly say there have been times I've considered moving to Kansas simply because of the access to facilities and opportunities for our kids. That shouldn't be the case. Now we finally have an opportunity to create something right here. A space that serves our families, supports our athletes, and stren strengthens our community. This is a blessing. It's a smart investment, and it's a chance for Lee Summit to continue to lead. Thanks for your help.

Thank you. All right. She's next, though.

Oh, okay. You sure? Hello, my name is Nicholas Allen. I live at 507 Northwest Timber Trail. I would like to say that many people who are supporting this complex have had kids that are are like soccer or play soccer. I'm worried that this council meeting is leading more towards people who like soccer than talking about the actual dome inflicting visual harm on this neighborhood. Um, I encourage you to please vote no to this dome. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

That was worth waiting for. Cheryl Failey, 605 Northwest Timber Ridge Trail. I spoke the last time you guys we got together for this meeting about this situation and I remember that several of you said I'm glad that's not in my backyard. Think about that. It's going to be in my backyard or actually my front yard. I also wanted to say that uh there are several questions I've got that I have not received answers to. Um, where's the fan going that's going to inflate this thing? They don't know how many trees are actually going to be taken down. They don't know how tall are the lights going to be. And there will be lights outside because you've got a parking lot. They don't know. I think it's a very good thing to know these things before you plan on doing them because if you don't have that in place now, what are they going to do? whatever they want to do. And a smart businessman, they're going to do whatever's the cheapest, and that's the way things go. I'm sorry, but that's how business works. And I'm okay with that. But we want to make sure that it's done correctly. And we don't want this giant blister in our backyard that we have to look at every day for only 3 months maybe, but it's three months that it is very visible. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bridget Langel. I live at 613 Timberwwich Trail in Edgewood. Um, I am a mom of two soccer kids. My daughter played national soccer, drove all over Kansas, all over the country for her. Putting a dome on this one soccer field is not going to make or break people coming to Lee Summit. Or if I was a developer, I'd be building an indoor facility after hearing all of the support you would get from this community for an indoor soccer building. But this one dome is going to impact us. And it's ugly. It's ugly. I went to the dome in Roland Park. It's ugly. That dome will look ugly and it's in our neighborhood. Please don't think that by not putting the dome on this complex, which I'm excited for this complex. I support this complex. I think it's great for a Lee Summit, but putting a dome over is not going to break us being a forwardlooking community for the sports world of soccer. It's not um it's not going to break. This is going to be a successful facility. This dome will impact us negatively in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Who else? Good evening. I'm Kevin Roberts. I live at uh 612 Northwest Cliffside Court in Edgewood. And I'm here tonight to um ask you all please to listen to the planning commission and deny this uh addition of a dome. One of the things that has popped out tonight during the discussions is a developer has actually contradicted himself um tonight in his discussion. He mentioned that the dome that's being proposed is 100% opaque. No light will come out of it. But in the presentation he presented on screen actually shows that there will be skylights that will help mediate the snow that will be uh going onto the top of the roof. So I wonder which it is. Uh if he's telling you one thing but showing something else, what truly is it? There's many many things that we need to u think about. But one of the things that's most important is listening to the planning commission. They're there for a reason. They have unanimously declined this twice and it's extremely important that we adhere to uh our planning commission's advice as we move forward as a city. I'm prodevelopment. I'm pro sports. I love everything about u bringing new money to Lee Summit. As Bridget just mentioned, this one dome is not going to make or break the city. Um, if we want to do a a dome somewhere, it should not be next to a residential neighborhood, especially a very nice secluded neighborhood that we have currently, as one of my neighbors just mentioned, their backyard looks upon this. Many of them do, and it's going to be an eyesore for them. And good luck trying to sell that home in the future. It's going to destroy their property value and the resale value. The one lady, if she wants to buy it, I'm sure she they would be welcome to have her come in and give them an offer. Um, I want to make sure to mention that um,

we are not anti-development as a neighborhood. Um, but we do have concerns. Uh, we are pro- planning and the concerns of the, uh, planning committee were those concerns that we want to make sure are there. And we are, uh, very pro- Lee Summit as well. The approving request despite those concerns um risk weakening confidence in the development process undo I'm sorry upholding the planning commission's recommendation reinforces that Lee Summit welcomes development but expects it to be done with standards that protect both residents and long-term quality of life. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? All right. Okay. Uh then I'll go back to council and ask did I get in? I think I got in. I started this but I was holding start. If you want to speak, please be ready next when he when this gentleman gets done.

So Curtis Walls, um council, thank you for being here. Thank you for listening to everybody. uh you do not have an easy job and we all get that. As far as the dome goes, I look at all the renderings that they spent a ton of money on. And if I'm looking out my back window, which I may be buying one of these houses to do, I see clouds and a dome, but the dome mixes in with the clouds. It's not unappealing. If I also look out my back window, I think about myself who sits outside of my home almost every night. But the times that I don't do that are the four months that we're talking about this being up because it's cold in Missouri and we're not going to be out there for the visually unappealing as they say, which in my opinion it's not visually unappealing. So, we're talking about 44 to 50 people. When you also heard there's 106,000 people and you have signatures, one of mine which is verified if you'd like to see, they come from over 600 people so far in support of the dome for the short term that it's going to be up. Your planning committee, as they said, has actually come back and stated that they're in they're in lie of it now. They said, "Hey, if you do these things, Council Member Funk, you asked that they would bring jobs to our community, and they said yes." And they said they've already voted to do that. So, if you look at those items, that's a big piece. Um, yeah. Do I spend time taking my kids to Kansas? Absolutely. Am I getting ready to take my daughter to Round Rock, Texas to play soccer? Yes. that level of tournament that we're going to would actually be coming to Lee Summit, but we have to go to Austin, Texas to play that. And the dome allows these things to happen during the winter. Um, I tried to stay quiet during their part, but they're not doing it for mine. So, um, again, quality of life for local soccer families, guys. It's

quality of life during the winter for local families. Um, one thing that I noted here is we went back to the very beginning and I thought that this was interesting. Uh, and I really loved how you said it, Mayor Baird, you said if it's good for Lee Summit and one of the things that you voted for, then it's good for everybody. This is good for Lee Summit. It's good for families and it's good for the dollars, as Justin said, the thousands of dollars that I spend every winter taking my kids out of our community. I don't want to do that. I'd like them to eat at my table from local restaurants here in Lee Summit. So, as a couple people have said, I implore you, I just simply ask vote yes for the dome. It's a temporary structure. It's not negative for our community. If their home values go down, I'll put in a bid. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak? Okay. Okay. Then I'm going to go back to council and ask from council. Are there any additional questions from the council? Council member Prior. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I heard someone mention why a dome versus a permanent structure or a building around this. Could you guys address that?

Yeah. So, so part of the appeal of the original project to have an outdoor field and an indoor field and then the purpose of the dome was it closed in that period of time for the 17 weeks that weather gets a little more uncontrollable. As we stated in the previous time we were in front of you, the soccer clubs are still going to use that outdoor field wood if the dome is not there for everything 32 degrees and above. And so what that dome does is it starts to create certainty of having two fields to use during that time when the weather is worse. But the idea is that they want the opportunity to have an outdoor field and an indoor field at the same facility for training for different operations or different games, different pieces of it.

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. BB. You want to come up? I just wanted to add one thing to what he said and that's the cost for indoor turf space versus outdoor turf space is about a 900% difference. So the soccer clubs want to be outside as much as they can because it is expensive to be inside. But they're willing to pay that for the predictability of having the climate control. But they want to have both because it in order to keep cost down for their members and for the families, they have to be outside as much as they can. But for the benefit of the youth and the development, they need to be able to practice year round in order to stay competitive with the other organizations and other municipalities that have these amenities available.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Shields. Thank you, mayor. Um, I think this has sort of been alluded to, but I wanted to kind of clarify. Um, so as approved, the neighborhood, if they looked at, they would see the soccer building because there would be a permanent year- round structure. Um, and the dome would kind of block that. But I guess I'm just trying to get a feel for like we saw a bunch of renderings of what the dome would look like, but if the dome wasn't there, they would they would still be looking at the building. Is that right? How how what's the difference in visual impact? Do you have anything that shows that? I know the building's it's a little bit shorter, right?

I believe the applicant has that. Okay. I just kind of want to get a feel for like I hear that objection and like what's the difference between what's currently approved and what is being proposed tonight. Find you the right one in here. Excuse me.

So, visually speaking, that would be we take the trees out of that side of it, but that would be the dome. That's the building. Okay. So, it's that's the difference in comparison. It's taller, but it's still you're going to be looking at a Yeah. Generally, it's it's about 10 ft taller, but you're still lengthwise, it's the same length. You know, you know, massing wise, it's generally the same massing. The dome in this picture is, you know, 100 ft closer than what the building is. So, that's a little bit of the representation on that side, but yeah, generally speaking, it's similar. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Appreciate it. That's all I had, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Prior.

Sorry, I did think of another question. Somebody had mentioned you guys were removing some of the trees that were used in the 3D renderings as a buffer. Are they getting removed or are they remaining?

No, they're remaining. And I think what they're alluding to is the question was asked at one of the neighborhood meetings. Now I've got my pieces of what the question was specifically how many trees were going to be removed. And my statement was is I can't specifically say this tree and that tree yet. We've provided a representation that is this hatched area in here based on the grading and the plan of what would and wouldn't be removed. No additional trees are being removed or what the plan is. But the question that was asked at the neighborhood meeting was exactly how many trees from the mass are gone. And I said, I can't exactly give you that, but I can certainly show you the representation of area that will remain. And then the areas where we did have it narrowing up, we added additional landscaping back in to regrow that any of that vegetation that would have been lost. But there's a massing of trees that's out kind of through the vegetated detention basin in that area that would be removed. But we're going to leave as many of those existing natural vegetation on the south side of the site and the east side of the site as possible. And this representation is a conservative uh estimate of what will be left.

Thank you. And are you guys using the evergreens that you're putting in? Are they going to be small ones? Do you know about what size those are going to be? So, we are going to do our best. So, so your code requires that they're 6 to 8 feet in height. There is a limitation on transplanting larger trees and the surviv survivability of those trees. We've uh committed that we will find the fastest, most durable tree that we can get in there and the largest tree that we can get in there from a safe standpoint to keep everything alive and keep it going. And then the same way as something starts to not live or doesn't thrive, then we will be replacing and making sure that that vegetative barrier is created as as illustrated.

And then this actually wasn't brought up, but is that a retention pond or detention pond? Detention, so it'll go dry. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um, that's all that I have for right now. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member V. Thank you, Mayor Matt. Don't run off real quick. I know you touched on it earlier, but there were several comments from the residents about noise pollution and lights. Can you just touch on that? The only noise when this dome is up is going to be I think you've said 60 dB from

Right. So, so the dome will operate utilizing air handling units. And those are commercial air handling units the same as you have on city hall or any commercial building. Those are restricted by code to 60 dB by the manufacturer. So those will be present on site. They will run to air uh to supply the air to the dome. But because of the distance from the property line, that calculated decibel level is negligible by the time you get to the property line. Likely not even heard from the neighbors um from that side. And then the light pollution conversation. We've had this discussion with the neighbors as well. There will be parking lot light that's approved as part of the parking lot side of it. But what we're saying we will reduce light is the 60 foot tall field lights that would be illuminated on every day that the field is getting utilized that can operate per UDO code till 10:00 at night every night would be reduced. They would be all insulated inside of the dome.

And the dome does have a skylight but all light inside the dome is directional downward. So there won't be any light illuminating outward out of the skylight. The skylight is being installed at a cost to the developer to allow for additional heat to get into the dome. That during the winter months when snow loads can be higher, it actually allows heat to get into the dome to heat the exterior of the dome to allow to drift off or remove that snow load off the top. But it will not illuminate. It is 100% opaque. So, will the lights that run the field in the summer months when there's no dome, will they then be covered by the dome or will there be additional light inside the dome?

Yeah, there'll be additional lights inside the dome. So, the field lights are your standard polemounted field lights that will remain, will not be turned on when the dome is erected because there would be no use to have it on. It would just be illuminating the dome inside the dome. Then they simply hang um LED lights from the the dome facility itself downward. So it's directional light to the field only. But you the the decibb that you're thinking are no different than maybe if they were playing outdoors.

It's way less. So as we calculated a playing like of a soccer game is around 90 dB. So as you know the Chief Stad gets 144 dB. We're not expecting that many people or parents out there screaming, yelling, but a standard game of of soccer with having 20, 30, 40 people out there playing is expected to get to 90 dB. So, the air handling units is already less than what a normal outdoor field operation would be. I live next door to Legacy Park and I love the sound of the games and cheering and rooting. So, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Levelville. Um what does the So you had to reduce the um size of the dome. Um are you still able to get spectators in there? Yeah. So

seating or Yeah. So what we've done and I kind of had some illustrations on this side of it. The original intent was to maintain 11v1 room for spectators on the exterior, room for the coaches and all of the equipment and all the pieces of it. Revision one reduced it to where we were getting very close to the edges. So you could still bring your chair, you could sit on the sideline, but you were toes on the sideline in the action.

Yeah. Revision two, what it has done is we are going to not be able to during the months that the dome is there play an 11v1 inside of there, but we can still play 9v9. We can do split squads in there. You can do many, many things inside the field. But we've literally limited it now to where when the winter months or the summer months are there, the footing is going to be on the sidelines and the end lines, which allows for nine months of the year, the field to operate full 11v1 exactly like we needed to. But at a cost to the developer is that now the field during the winter months, the inside dome is going to get restricted out of 11 v11 and 9v9 would be the the most we could do, which is acceptable because it still provides an opportunity to train, still have tournaments. It just eliminates that upper level 11 B11 side.

And then when the dome's down, what does what does the structure look like? I mean, is there are there footings that are sticking out or is it pretty much like Yeah, so the the structure is set such that the field uh the footing is below the field and then the turf will be applied over top of the footing. But it was imperative to make sure that that system didn't get in the field of play because it stays put. But it certainly would be scary to have that happening on a field of play where a kid could run over top of it. So it's on the sidelines outside of it. So if you go out there in the summertime, the footings will be completely covered with turf. You wouldn't see them, but they sit there ready for the next season to come when the dome be erected. And then um is that field lit uh during the off or the summer months or the

Yeah. So the field has uh pole lights that will be illuminated for all games. And that's what we were saying the benefit of the winter months when the field lights would have been utilized the most. The dome will eliminate those field light use to nothing. Okay. Thanks, mayor. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Does the applicant care to make any further comments?

I might make a couple if I could. Um, one comment was brought up about property values. Um, and so we went and found a local realtor, Robman in town, who has done many, many sales. Um he provided a letter that should be in your packet as well as on the screen basically alluding to the fact that the field the intentions the belief that the property values are going to change significantly or in any way based on a field have not been proven out. And so again, this is a a realer in town that has done many many projects, many many different home sales um throughout the community did not have a concern um with the location of the field, with the location of that project. Uh on that side, the one thing I think that's in there, uh you heard commentary that as the mayor was directed to us was to go back to the neighbors to work with them and work with planning commission. You heard from the neighbors that that is not what happened. You heard from the neighbors that uh we disregarded it. I believe is what you said. In 21 years of working in this city, I believe that every one of you have heard from developers and people who have worked with me specifically. Every time we've ever done a project, we've had neighborhood meetings where we've gone out of our way to have communication and discussions. We were not able to reach a resolution that satisfied the neighbors because the resolution the neighbors wanted was remove the dome. But as you see in the in the process of modifications that we've done, we've modified this dome three times. We've lost value to the developer of what could be utilized inside of that dome at expense to the developer. We've reduced the height of that dome by increasing cost to it. Conversation then came up that the zoning regulations, the special use permit regulations and pieces aren't adhered to. Your staff now recommends the project be approved. We have worked

with them. We've have worked with the developer. We have worked with the city. We've continued to come forward and try to find a project that meets everyone's desires. The problem is is with the neighborhood, the conversations are more related to traffic or noise or lights. And when we explain to them that we think we've reduced them or they're not going to impact them, it's not a conversation that they want to have or that they believe what we've said. I I don't have an answer to say what it is, but I think that my reputation stands on its own that in front of your body and with other developers you've spoken with. I go out of my way to work with developers. I've worked with these community. I've tried my best and we've done many, many meetings. The pastor of the church is here and he can contend to the same idea. He sat in every one of those meetings and listened as we tried to work through the process and figure out what was there. We did our best that we could and we've come back with a project that we think helps the community. It helps this project. Yes. Could this project go forward without the dome as you originally approved it? Sure. But we believe the dome creates an opportunity for this project to succeed beyond what anybody could have believed. We believe this project is something that can put Lee Summon on a map. Does this one dome change that people stop coming going to Kansas to play soccer? No. But the dome does give the opportunity to have regional tournaments. Collegiate tournaments have been calling these guys saying, "Can we bring this to your facility with two dome or with two fields?" And they said, "Well, we don't know yet." You know, so as we start to talk about how this project moves forward, it's our opinion the dome takes it to a new level that we didn't expect. So there's been a lot of insinuations that we held this back and didn't. Again, on my reputation on that side of it, we had not thought about this in any way. When the soccer club came to us and said, "Hey, what do you think?" We looked at it and we evaluated it. We called staff. Staff thought, "That seems like an interesting use. It's unusual. It's new. I get it. It's something that isn't in this specific community. It is in the nation. It is

places that is working unbelievably well and we believe it'll work here." And then I guess just lastly, the point is is this is a special use permit for 5 years. And as Commissioner Hodgees asked or council member Hodgees asked, what happens if we believe enough, the developer believes enough to put the funding together to put this project in the ground and in 5 years stand in front of whatever council and whatever mayor here and say we believe we're right. We will continue to work with the neighbors. We will continue to have conversations with them if they want to have them. We'll work together on that side. the commentary of the neighbors and one of the developers who lives there not getting along. That's a difficult situation I don't want to join into. But you have a neighbor who lives in a development where there's a number of the neighbors that don't want the project. So certainly that could happen. But I believe we can stand here 5 years from now and have a renewal and whatever commission and our, you know, council is here and the mayor that is here, I believe they'll think that you did a right job to get something in the community. So, with that, I think I've answered all the questions I wrote down, unless you guys have anything else on there that you want to ask.

Okay. Thank you. No public comment is over.

Okay. I'm going to move on then. I'm going to um close this public hearing and open the regular session. Is there any council discussion on this application? Council member Shields.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I guess first I want to say thank you to everybody who um came tonight engaged in the process in any way. Um, I've gotten more communication on this project, both positive and negative, um, than I think I've gotten on almost anything on my time in council. And, um, honestly, I've never seen this level of positive comments on any project. Um, mostly if people like a project, they're just like, "Oh, that's nice." And then they don't say anything. They don't show up at public meetings. They don't send me emails. They just they're busy. They're taking their kids to soccer practice and they don't bother to to reach out. So, it's um it's been an interesting experience to have that level of community support um for our project. And you know, the last time this came before us, something that that I said um was that, you know, we've been trying really hard to position oursel as a youth sports destination. Um between what we do out at Legacy, between what we've approved at Paragon Star, the new fieldhouse, um we're doing a lot to cultivate that. Um, I still have some skepticism about the long-term viability of that sector, but it is something that we have chosen as a city to invest in. And given that we're doing that, I I don't want to throw up unnecessary roadblocks to success. Um, I look at a project like this where we've already approved the use. We've already said that we are good with soccer fields. We're good with the parking. We're good with the traffic. We're good with the noise. We've already weighed all those benefits and said that the benefit to the community for all of that for this facility outweighs the harm. And so now

it's just a question of whether we allow this modification for the dome. And I've I've heard the frustration of like why didn't this come to us before is one thing. um when the original package but I do think it's a normal part of a development process that there are changes there are challenges there are opportunities and I would rather see someone come with with iterative changes and try to make a project better than just say well we got approval and that's it we build this or we build nothing and I respect that they're not asking for more incentives that they've hit some kind of maybe some challenges. It's hard to tell honestly if it's all challenges or all opportunities, but they're not coming and asking for a bigger incentive. They're just asking for a variance uh to allow a little bit of extra height and five years to prove themselves. And I think that's a a reasonable request to me. Um, I appreciate that this has come back after it seems like they've the develop developer team has listened to the concerns that were presented at planning commission, at council, and by the neighbors and done their best to address them. I understand that they're not making the neighbors 100% happy, at least not all of the neighbors. There were a few in support, but they've tried to mitigate the height. They've added additional screening. they've done everything they can to address those issues. Um, I appreciated the points about the fact that especially during the months when you would need lights out there the longest because it's dark earlier and when you have the least amount of leaves on the trees, so you're getting more noise and more light that it's actually going to reduce the light pollution and the noise pollution to those neighboring houses. And

I think that makes a lot of sense. Um, and then I think about kind of How I look at these projects is that we're always b we're always balancing the benefit to the broader community against maybe some localized challenges. And I just look at this and I see a lot of benefits to the community. Um we've talked again and again and again on this about we need more family-friendly activities and this is one more incremental step in that direction. Um, I've heard from a ton of families who are tired of driving all over the place and would rather live, work, play in Lee Summit. Um, and I think it would benefit them. I think it would benefit our economy when those dollars aren't going to Kansas every weekend. They're staying here. Um, but yeah, first and foremost, it benefits those families that have less time in the car, more time with their kids, and you know, grandparents that don't have to stand outside in 32°ree weather because that's warm enough to play, but it is not warm enough to stand outside for two hours. So, I would support this. I understand that there's been a lot of discussion that there's a lot of feelings on both sides, but I just think that the benefit to the larger community outweighs some of the localized um cost and I do think that the developers worked hard to mitigate those localized issues. So, I would be in support. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Council Member Hodes.

Thank you. Um, I don't want to repeat too much of what Council Member Shield said, but I agree with a lot of what she said. Um, and I too, thank you for everybody that came and spoke for and against. Um, this has to be the biggest crowd that we've ever seen, and I love to see it. Um, because it shows community engagement, and we don't get that a lot. So, thank you for taking the time to stay and speak. Um, you know, I I will admit I was I was 5050 on this coming into this. I there was there was a lot of pros and cons, but after hearing more and just kind of digging a little deeper, you know, it just I would agree with the statement that council member Shield said, you know, where the the community benefit, it it does outweigh the negative and and I do feel for the for the um the neighborhood. However, when I think of okay, to one of this the commenters points, you do have to think, okay, if not that, then what? I mean, you know, we get lots of complaints about people complaining about the apartments. I mean, there could be if if not the soccer, you could be looking at apartments instead of this and you could be and not to say that's what it could be. It could be a gas station, it could be offices, it could be a a number of things. That's just the reality. Um, but then I think about the community impact it has and it's pretty broad. Um, you know, I mean, I've said it from the very beginning of this project, um, on a personal note that, you know, we were we were a soccer family. All three kids were in competitive soccer and we were to we also were going to Kansas and, you know, we even made the decision to pull from um, competitive because we go we're having to move and go to Miam, Kansas all the time. and the time that takes away from family dinners, homework for the kids, um it it just it didn't make sense. So, we had to alter that part of our life to say it's not worth it, but at what impact? Um, so I I I feel like

I feel like it it's worth doing this like like Council Member Shield said, you know, we we always claim we want more family activities, more things that are centered around community-minded and I think this is it. Um, soccer's huge for this city and I feel like it's probably going to be for a long time and I mean we see how much it's busting at the seams at Legacy. Uh, you can hardly get in the parking lot. So, I do feel like, you know, for the fact that it it's about kids and families and we want to support that as a council and I feel like as just a community in general, I'm in support of this and I do appreciate the fact that I do feel like the the developers did work with the neighborhood. Um, you know, they went down twice. I I understand it's not it's not getting rid of the dome, but compromise from their side does show a lot. Um so I am in support of this. So thank you, mayor.

Thank you, Mayor Tim Lopez. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Um I appreciate the comment that was made by one of the presenters, uh acknowledging how we have the tough decision. We have the tough job up here. Um, and that's what you all elect us to do is to make these tough decisions. And this particular project, this specific project was a unanimous approval. Last time when they first came into us was pretty was close.

Oh, okay. One majority. Majority. Um the point is that I think the the uh the benefits and the positive aspects of what this brings to our community, I think there is a consensus that what what's the best solution here for our families and and our children. And I think there's the economic part of it as well. I get that. Um but just sticking to families like many of us up here, many of us have the mayor and I have older kids. Um, but we were we were involved just like some of the other colleagues up here taking our kids and like many of you driving our kids all over the place and we always said we wish we had a facility like this. We always said that we dreamed of it, dreamt of it and we have that opportunity now and I it's already been repeated. I don't want to repeat everything that's been said already. Uh, I agree with most of the comments that have already been said. Thank you guys. It's it's the people, the residents, the people that are pro and against it. You all you all have made really good cases and we respect every one of your opinions. I want to make sure you all know that. And no matter what, one group is going to leave unhappy and the other one's going to leave pleased. And that's but that's why you all have us up here and you vote for us to to make these decisions. At the end of the day, any decision that we make that I make will be on what's in the best interest of our community, our entire community, even though it's they're very tough and difficult decisions. And at the end of the day, our council said we are committed, I think council member Shields stated that that that point, made that point. We are committed to providing as many recreational and youth, in this case sports activities, keeping them here in Lee Summit. We have an opportunity in this corridor of uh with what the project that's just north of here of this location. This location you have the golf course and this just continues to follow that theme and that

pattern that of what what even people that were here before us on on the DAS kind of thought through and as they planned, you know, for this part of the city to be some kind of a recreational and sports type of of an area. And so at the end of the day, the things that that do give me a little comfort level as far as a developer as as much as they've tried to work with the the neighborhood, I know it's not been rosy and positive and 100% to your satisfaction neighborhood, but they've tried and to me that that's really important. And if we make this decision to move forward with the dome and the special use permit, the things that I think would give you guys should give you some comfort that in five years, in 5 years, if this is not working and they're not they're not fulfilling the the obligations that they said they would, then the future council can reconsider this. And that that's that's that's a fact. So, and also this this dome, the fact that it's seasonal, I think it's something that again, some of you that live along adjacent to this property, you may have to look at this for several months a year, but it's not the full year. And I think they made enough modifications that gives me a comfort level to make sure that we we want to make sure this project proceeds and and approving the dome with it. So, thank you, mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Carlile. Thank you, mayor. Um, I also want to thank everybody for coming out, whether you were for or against this development. It's nice to see people come out and have their voices heard. And as one of my colleagues said, we really don't get that a lot. So, I appreciate you all coming out. Um, as far as this project in front of us today, I I've been a no on this project from the very beginning, and there was nothing in this hearing today that changed my mind to yes. So, I will not be supporting this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Funk.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, the only thing I will repeat is thank you everybody for engaging. This is this is incredible. This is awesome. This is what the process is all about. Um, my colleagues pretty much summed it up on on the majority of everything I wanted to say. Um, you know, I live on the east side of town in Legacy. I love Legacy Park. I love hearing the kids play. Um, everybody mentioned leaving and going to Kansas. My wife and I built a house seven years ago in our community to enjoy community and enjoy our swimming pool in the summer. But we actually get the pool to oursel all summer because we're empty nesters and all the parents leave with their kids and go to Kansas to play soccer. So we got a big pool to oursel all summer. Um I I think the only thing that I would put in to my colleagues is to make sure there is a little bit of discussion on the SUP that there are stipulations and we're certain of occupancy permits before the dome is built that there is a timely manner that I understand construction and things like that that this project we're not sitting here a year from now and nothing's happened. That that's my biggest concern. We've waited a year. Um, and here we are again. But I would be in support of this to move it forward. I would just like to see a few stipulations on the SU. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Prior.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I don't really have a lot to add. I just This was a very It's a very tough vote. Um, there's passionate voices on both sides that have made great points. Um, I think I try to look at every vote on is that something that I would want in my backyard. Is that would the noise bother me? And ultimately, I live in downtown and I live in between Lee Summit High School and Lee Summit North. And I hear the the sports going on all the time. And it's actually one of my favorite sounds. Every Friday night we hear football at both Lee Summit North and Lee Summit High School. So, I don't know. Um, and you know, we we have a lot of higher structures in um in downtown, and I don't know that I don't know that it would truly bother me to have it in my backyard. Um, I I'm not completely decided how I want to vote yet, but it is a hard vote and I want everyone to know that I heard I heard all of you guys and I truly respect all of the opinions that I heard tonight. Um, but thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Levelville.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so obviously in my district, my soon to be shortlived district, um, drive by View High, um, or down View High. Um, you know, it's this is I mean, and my kids play competitive soccer. In fact, I see one of her teammates out here tonight. Um, and like this isn't going to stop us from going to Kansas, that's for sure. I mean, there's there's two fields here. It will definitely help during the winter months, but like the I mean, we're still driving to Kansas. But that being said, um, I do think that this this kind of corridor has always been envisioned to be something bigger. And at one time, you know, it was the bell of the ball. There was a lot of traffic that came through View High. It was slated for a lot of commercial development. And really, it has stalled out over time. um I think of uses um that could go here. And while at the time when it first came before us, we thought it's it's odd, but it it could potentially be something that unlocks more opportunity and activity on that side um of the city. What I but but I'm also like I mean I don't think people realize too like the difficulty with with development and what we're charged with doing up here is also you know we want quality operators. We want quality buildings. We have very you know strict UDO and and development ordinances and things like that. And so we do pay attention to that stuff. And the idea of putting a dome here was something completely out of um of what we would ever even imagine, right? I mean, if this dome was down, you know, I mean, shoot, down further north, it no, I I don't think we have the opposition. It does butt up against neighborhood. And I would just say that for those that are in support of this, it is definitely a benefit to your kids and your activity, but it's also to be

mindful of the people that live there because we see it all the time. I mean, um, whether it's an apartment or something else that's going in there like I mean, nobody likes anything to go in by them. I mean, it's just it's just how it is. Um, but what I like I like the 5-year SUP. Developer is going to prove it. Um, I like the fact that it's three months a year. That is I mean, not to discount the neighbors there, but um, I think the impact will be minimal during Drury cold winter nights, and I don't think that impact will will be that significant. So, um, and I like the idea that, you know, that that dome doesn't go unless the the building is is fully um, completed and certificate occupancy and those things. So, you know, I'll be in support of it. Um, it's always a tough decision to do this stuff. Um, somebody's always unhappy when you go through this, but um, you know, I hope it's successful. I think it'll be a good thing for the city and and and our community and and the kids and and sports activities. So, thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Rider.

Thank you, Mayor. So, as my colleagues have mentioned, this is very hard. Was very, very hard. my heartstrings were going one back and forth and back and forth and I heard this side and this side and and it and it it's very difficult but of course we're tasked with making the best decision that we can for the whole city of Lee Summit. Um I am going to support it because um we were very for the most part except for one I guess were very excited when the project came to town um that this was going to you know um set us apart from um the other surrounding cities in the fact that it was going to bring business um it was going to bring uh family recreation um a lot of things that I thought were going to be positive for Lee Summit. So, I'm not going to talk forever, but I'm just going to say that um again, we got a lot of people that spoke out to us and more than anything, I appreciate that. It It's good to hear from our residents and know what they're thinking and um I'm just glad that you guys hung around and and and spoke. It was very important and and I appreciate it. So, thanks, Mayor.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Um, my kids did travel in a lot in sports. So, went from Florida to California every year. Um, playing baseball and softball and other sports as well. But those are the ones that we had to travel. We had to find good weather, you know, go to places with nicer weather, and we couldn't play in the winter. And when we did play inside, it was horrible. But that sport's different than soccer. Um I this everything about this um application are the things that I typically support just like I did the you know, I've already I've already voted for this when we approved the um the building. Um I was excited about this. These are the kinds of things I like to bring to Lee Summit. Economic benefits, quality of life was mentioned many times uh throughout the evening. Quality of life um with regard to, you know, not having to I remember going to 135th and Antioch and being there all weekend long and and I'd much rather be uh in our in my community uh doing that or having people travel to our community. So, these are all the things that I support. I I'm not real happy about um being put in this situation tonight to vote on this given the the community members um that aren't in support for the reasons that um it's in your backyard. Um and that really isn't what I wanted. Uh, I wanted to see something worked out because a lot of times when we push back as council on a developer to work with the neighborhood or the community, um, we see we see positive movement. And so in this

situation, the positive movement isn't winning very many neighbors, you know, neighbor people over, but um, the positive movement went down. It's a lower dome. You you can see the couple of revisions on the screen right now still. So, revisions went down, smaller, you know, things got smaller. Um, I think that there are things that were questioned tonight and I I do want to support the engineer that said I'm, you know, we've done our best. Uh, I have to kind of trust that and that's really hard because I hear I can see a lot of unhappiness on the neighbors faces with regard to that didn't and wasn't happening. Um, so there's there's certainly a difference of opinion there and I'm not sure what to think of that. Um, I can see generally there's uh support on the council to approve this. I can also see I've not seen this kind of advocacy from a community for a project. And I I'm a little confused because there wasn't this much advocacy when we approved the biggest incentive we've ever given to a developer. Um, so like it's really strange that it's it's and I do think that much of this is organic. I I understand that some of it is is is simply getting asked to show support, but people are showing up in support. So, um I guess what I would have to say is I'll take this one more step and it's a leap of faith because um I would like to see this go forward. I would like to see the positive benefits that we're talking about tonight. And it it has challenged this council because we've questioned what in the world's going on? Why are we dealing with this

again when we've already approved it? Um, so with that said, you're going to get a yes out of me, but this is this is one of the toughest yeses I've I've had to do. So, with that said, I'm going to ask who's whose reading is this? Council member Levelville, would you please read bill number 26-054? I move to advance second reading bill number 26-054, an ordinance approving a preliminary development plan for View High Sports Complex on land located at 3301 Northwest Asher Drive. All in accordance with the provisions of chapter 33, unified development ordinance of the code of ordinances for the city of Lee Summit, Missouri.

Thank you. A motion to move to second reading bill number 26-054 by Council Member Level, seconded by Council Member Hodes. discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. It does pass 8 to one. Goes to second reading.

We're going to have to We have quite a few public Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We need to do the next public hearing and then we'll take a break before public speakers. We're we're just going to enter into the record. But it might I do have to go through the I do have to go through all the steps though. All right. So, I'm going to close the regular the regular session again. Open the public hearing in the ma in the matter of agenda item 4E. Special use permit. Buhigh sports complex inflatable inflatable soccer dome 3301 Northwest Ashurst Drive. Engineering Solutions LLC is applicant. Would all those wishing to speak to this matter please rise to be sworn in by the city clerk.

He's going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I'll be Mr. Sl. Yep. Matt Sish injuring solutions 50 Southeast 30th Street Lent, Missouri. All comments from the previous just forward up and we're here if you have any questions. Thank you. Miss Bright, would you enter into the record the enter in officially, please? Yeah. So, I'd like to enter into the record exhibit A, list of exhibits 1 through 30. Please enter into the record exhibit A 1 through 30. And also enter enter into the record all of the evidence and testimony from the previous public hearing. And please enter into the record the previous testimony in the public hearing. Thank you. Do you have anything else, Mr. Miss Bright? Okay.

I do not. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Is there anyone who wishes to speaker speak from the audience? Any additional questions from council? Does the applicant care to make any further comment? Nothing. Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, I'm closing the public hearing and reopening the regular session. Is there any council discussion? Council member Funk.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to make sure um that we can have discussion on the adding of the one I I understand the construction timeline and things like that

they're true and they're making progress that we're

Oh, can you speak into your microphone, sir? that we're in that there's a timeline here. If it's 90 to 120 days for the permit that we get that in the SU that in 120 days they need to be in for permit. The other thing that I would like to discuss is to ensure from staff that we have um and everybody all my colleagues are in agreement that there's no dome until there is a certificate of occupancy for the building. Um, I could take what was said in the public hearing um with local contractors. I have faith they'll do their best um and that we ensure the dome is like new every time it's erected. It's not looking like it's been stored in the back of a trailer somewhere. So, I would leave it up to my colleagues if they have any comments on that.

I'll put it on the floor. Yep. Thank you for discussion. Thank you. We'll start with Council Member Shields. Thanks, Mayor. Um, as far as no operating the dome before they have a secret of occupancy on the main building, that's fine with me. It sounds like the with it being an accessory use, they can't do that anyway. So, if there's some additional belt and suspenders provision that we can put in for that, I I have no issue with that. Um, as far as the timing goes from the public hearing, my understanding is that the timing on the SCP starts now with approval or whenever the final approval is. So is that am I Yes, it's from the date of approval.

Okay. So So there is a a clock like I I feel like they do have a motivation to get it done because if they don't build it for two years and their special use permit's going to expire three years after that, right? So I I think I mean if there was something reasonable we could put in that'd be okay, I guess. But like I feel like they've kind of already as long since the clock is starting now as opposed to when they finish the the dome, I sort of feel like they've already got the time pressure. So, I don't know what um but open to hearing what others think.

Um let's bring Mr. Denny, let's get you in this on this one. This one 120 days is on the floor. It seems a little fast like But what are we really doing if we do that? because I don't want this to come back to council in 6 months because they haven't um begun right or finished. Yeah. I mean, I just I feel like we're setting ourselves up for a problem. But I understand what council member Funk wants and he wants accountability. I get that and I'm for that.

Yep. I would concur with uh the applicant in their testimony, right? they they've got to bring in their their final construction plans and get through all of our reviews, final development plans and things like that. And that does take some time. Um I don't know where they're at in that process. So I personally am not comfortable putting a a timeline to that, not knowing where they're at in the process. Um it does trigger, right? If they don't if they don't meet that, then what happens? Um so 120 days from my perspective might be a little aggressive. I mean, all all um what the two-year time frame that's typical that's PDP PDPs have a two-year time frame. So, there is a time frame,

but one year out that that's that's a two-year time frame to to submit a final development plan. Once a final development plan is applied for and submitted, then that that locks you in. And that hasn't been applied for. No, no, not yet. Okay. So, they have they have another year to apply. Yes. Their previously approved PDP is still valid through April of 2027. Mhm. And then this one would be valid two years from the date of approval or I guess the one that was just approved. Well, the clock the clock is running. So, did we just start the clock again? Just

the new PDP that was just approved was for the dome itself. So that clock has started for the dome there.

Um that'd be two years from two years. Two years for the PDP for the dome, right? But for the original development that was a year ago, they have one year to submit. They have basically is that right? Year to submit plans. Yes. Okay. Anything else with the incentives like are those ticking or how how does that work to you want to answer Mr. Dunny? Well, I I know that the chapter one the tools have been approved but the implementation of those tools are yet to uh be triggered. And if if Ryan's turning around, I hit the mark. Yeah.

Okay. So, the question is still on the floor. Do you want to shorten the timeline? They've got a year to to basically I guess it is what mayor I would I would take away the timeline. I I think you said what I wanted to say is just we're doing our part. We need to see them do their part. Mhm. Yeah. We've we've gone out on a limb here tonight. Um and we we want this to be a successful development. So, um, we just we need to we we need to see some progress. So, I think that's where we're at. Okay. Where where are we? Council member Levelville. Yes. Go ahead.

Sorry. Okay. Um, I think I closed it and we were Did I close the public hearing? Yeah, we're just Yeah, we're just discussing. We're just discussing. So, um, one thing that'll help, um, is to get an update like, so I'm guessing there's not going to be another application. So, therefore, uh, communicating with staff, Mr. Schllist and and applicants, uh, Mr. BB and Wheatley, if if you can get the council updates and get the new council members up to date because we will be transitioning, that'll be an important piece, uh, going forward. Mr. Elim. Go ahead.

Uh yeah, Ryan Elum, assistant city manager. Uh there will be ordinances that will need to occur uh in order to implement the incentive package associated with this project. So there will be additional council actions that will be a natural place for updates on the project. Those would be good times to give updates. Okay. All right. Council member Shields, would you read bill number 26-055? Thank you, mayor. I move for second reading bill number 26-055 an ordinance granting a special use permit for an inflatable dome in district CP2 plan community commercial on land located at 3301 northwest Asher strive for a period of 5 years all in accordance with article 6 the defined development ordinance of the city of Lee Summit Missouri

thank you have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-055 by council member shield seconded by council member Hodes discussion seeing none please cast your vote All votes are in. Please record the vote. Passes 8 to one. And we do have quite a few public commenters, so I'm going to take a break at this point. We will recess for just a bit.

Ever wondered how the city budget works? The total 2026 budget is over $380 million, which includes funding for daily operations, capital improvements, debt service, internal service, and enterprise operations. For example, the general fund is the foundation for the city's day-to-day services and investments like road maintenance, public safety, and fire protection. The general fund is supported by property taxes, sales taxes generated by local businesses, franchise taxes, and other sources like licenses, permits, and fees. For every dollar citizens pay in property tax, the city receives 18. This means the city receives $845 a year in property taxes for a median single family house. These taxes provide public safety, park maintenance, infrastructure, and the best services to keep Lee Summit going and improving. One of the community's top priorities is infrastructure investment, which is reflected in the capital improvement plan. $13 million of the 2026 budget is invested into the capital improvement plan. The 2026 capital improvement budget includes investments like the 291 and 50 highway interchange, third street warden and pursel intersection and prior road. The budget process includes guidance from the city council, citizen input, and critical success factors from the city's ignite strategic plan. To learn more about the city's budget, visit cityofls.net back/budget. When the person called on the phone, she said that uh that there was a dinosaur walking down her road. Of course, we had to go out check that out. We get out there and it was a big African tortoise, probably 60 lb, walking down the road. When they walk, they really stand up tall. So, I could see why she thought it was a dinosaur. I'm Rodney Wagner. I'm the manager of Leisum Animal Control. So, as you can see, we get all sorts of animals here.

You have some guinea pigs off to the side. All the windows up here are animals that are adoptable right now. Every one of these dogs is ready to go and ready for adoption. And the same thing with our cats over here. A lot of cool cats in here now. So, so this is our 3acre lot we have out back and this is where we do all the walking of dogs exercise. We also have a sideyard off to the side over there so we can let them run loose. They can run together and we have what's called playgroups. Kind of like having a bunch of kids. Here's our our vet room. We have a vet comes out twice a week. This is our sally port where we bring the animals into. This is one of our animal control trucks and we can hold up to six animals. We have a lift on the other side to put big animals in. We actually have temperature gauges in here and in the truck to tell us how hot it is. Once it gets to a certain temperature, we bring all the animals back here immediately. So, this actually has traps in it, but we do a lot of wildlife trapping. I mean, a lot. So, bats, pot belly pigs, horses, cows, emus, a lot of reptiles. We had a a citizen one time that had over 200 reptiles in his basement. Cayman's and alligators in here that are four or five feet long. You can't keep those. And people do and they're surprised when they can't keep them. I'm like, really? You're surprised you can't have an alligator in your house?

Savannah.

Our main goal here is public safety and also the safety of the animals. And we have very dedicated people back there. And they definitely stay here for the love of the animals, which also includes getting them adopted out. We'll have about uh 4,000 impounded animals a year. Probably about close to 2,000 are dogs and cats. The cats and dogs when they get impounded here, they go on a 5-day hold. And then after the 5 days, if the owner doesn't show up, then we can put them up for adoption. Adopt an animal here is actually really simple. You just come in, look what forever animal you're looking for, find the right pick. you have you go to the adoption room up there and see if you get along with them. You spend as much time as you want to in there. From that point on, it's just a matter of uh making sure they're spay or neutered and all their vaccinations up to par and they're good to go. We have a very high adoption rate because we try everything in our power to get animals adopted out. We have America Humane Society that we do a lot of adoptions through and then we also have other groups. We have some people that literally will just look all over the country for somewhere for a dog to go. And we've sent dogs up into South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington State. So, it's actually it it's a huge united effort to get all these animals home.

Tarzan, lots of energy. Hazel's got a weird meow. Bailbell, she wants nothing to do with the other cats. She'll kind of get her grumpy face going. And the good thing about the people here is that they get all their friends to get animals, too. All of us have probably the limit of all the animals that we can have at home. You know, they are huge animal lovers. If it was up to the people here, we'd have 15 cats running around in here.

We had a citizen one time out there and he was bathing his two uh 9 foot long boa constrictors in the front yard. Apparently, I was I was garnering some some attention and so we went out there and had to talk to him about that. Why do I do this job? Oh, dude. I love this job. I grew up on a farm and taking care of that many animals, you can't help but like animals. This is just like fancy farming. you know, you're just bringing animals in here, taking care of them, and and find them homes and uh yeah, absolutely animal lover.

This is the best place to work. I love working here. I feel very blessed. I love it here. I look forward to coming to work every day, being a part of this team. Like a family away from home where everyone feels like everybody knows their name. A city that supports you. We see that with our benefits. A pension, vacation days, job security, being able to be heard. We feel valued. We feel respected. Lee Summit is a very progressive city. It's growing. It's thriving. We have this drive towards not just doing a job, but doing it with a spirit of excellence. I had the opportunity to continue to grow regardless of 30 plus years doing this kind of work. It's more than just dollars and cents. We're here really to give back.

Providing a service to better a community to go out and serve people

to be a part of something bigger than yourself. If I would have known what I know now, years ago, I would have been here much sooner. Traditionally, we think as police officers those responding to law enforcement needs within the community, but honestly, we are there to serve our citizens. And our citizens do go into crisis. They do have mental health crises and we're being called to those scenes on a regular basis. In order to help serve those citizens better, we did initiate the crisis intervention team program. These are officers that are specially trained to deescalate crisis situations. Recently, we've brought co-responders onto the scene, licensed qualified mental health professionals housed within our police department, and they respond with those officers directly to those scenes where a crisis is occurring, so they can interact with that citizen and get them the help they need right there on that scene. The co-responders are either a bachelor or master level in a behavioral health related field. They wear plain clothes. They don't carry weapons or anything like that. I have a police radio that I listen to all day. Listen for, you know, those key words, mental health, behavioral health, crisis.

There's a lot of officers that just call for me. I have my own radio number. I also have the ability to self-dispatch to them and say 982 is in route. Officers in route 914. So, typically I arrive after they've made it safe. I'll make contact and get kind of the rundown and then I just kind of jump right in like, "Hey, you know, my name's Alison. I'm a mental health professional. I'm here to help you. I'm not here to take you to jail or arrest you."

Sometimes all a person needs is a voice, someone neutral, someone outside that you know can listen. I do a lot of safety planning, including family, their support network, who's close to you. So, can some if they're home alone, who can come over and hang out with you today? Can we lock away your sharps? Can we put up your meds? Do you need meds? Can we get you over to the urgent care to get you assessed for your medications? Some of them also are like, "Oh, I'm so glad you came. This made me feel so much better." Our main goal as co-responders is to one get people connected to the services that they need and also divert from emergency rooms and jails

and they almost get a different view of the police responding. That lets me know you care and the officers care. Please, please, how can I help you? My husband had

in 2020 we had 722 mental health related calls for service. 2022 by that time, 1479. These mental health related calls for service are increasing. How we're responding to that is increasing the number of crisis intervention team officers we have available as well as the number of co-responders we have available to respond on these calls. So, what I think is important for the community to know about the co-responder program is that we're here. We exist. All you have to do when you call 911 is ask for us. You know, say, "Hey, I want a co-responder to respond to this this crisis." And we'll go. I was really struggling about 8 years ago. My personal journey with mental health and I met some amazing social workers and amazing programs that have helped me get to where I am today. I really couldn't see myself doing anything else. We want to help and that's that's what we love to do.

So I had a client we got a call. She had some suicidal ideations and she really felt that she had nobody and you know and getting to know her story and getting to know who comes around and sees you. Well then we found a support person and they responded immediately and we made a plan. I called back and checked on her in an hour and then I checked on her in 2 hours. We were able to get her into additional services to where she talks to someone every week or more. I just took a person that really just thought they had nobody and nobody would show up for them and show them you do. And you'll be amazed who is in your corner if you just simply say, "I need a little help.

You can make the difference in somebody else's life. If you're trying to get in the fire and EMS service, Lee Summit is probably the top name. On a daily basis, we are tasked with bringing this meeting back to order just in time for public comments. Looks like we have nine public comments tonight. We will start with Justin Kolker.

Hi, Justin Kolkmire, 704 Southwest 33rd Street, Lee Summit, Missouri. Um, speaking about the development at Legacy Ridge at the corner of Ward and Hook Street, um, there's going to be a development there. I understand that. Um, we love the field behind our house. I live just south of that area, so I back up to the field and the water tower. Um, my request is, I think, a simple one. Um, part of the proposal is that the detention basins be turned over to the developer and ultimately the HOA. Um, so I know that with all the development going in, the detention basins will have to be modified. the berm that detain retains water prevents it from flowing into my neighborhood will have to be modified. Um but that after all the modifications are complete it'll be turned over to the developer rather than the city maintaining ownership. Um I think this is not a very good plan because if there's any modifications that need to be done after that um as have happened in the past. So the detention basins were built they had to be modified then they've had to be modified again specifically for my property. Um, I submitted a public comment. It's the Kulkmmy email in the um, Legacy Ridge uh, public comment section. Um, so they're going to need to be modified again. If that happens, I have no recourse. I can't come to the city for help. I'll have to go to another uh, development's HOA to get that done. Um, I don't see how uh, that's feasible. Um, I understand for a new development in isolation, having the developer build a detention basin where the runoff goes into that is great. That's fine. But when there's another development, another neighborhood that's impacted by that, I think the city should maintain ownership of that detention basin and help protect our property.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do we ever do that, Mr. Dunning? Do does the city ever make modifications or do we turn is is this situation ownership? Yeah. Detention basins for for neighborhoods?

No, the city typically does not. Uh my familiarity with those basins is the city worked with um actually property reserve uh to address some storm water mitigation matters down there and that's how the city currently owns those. But as development occurs, the city uh you know, we we don't put those in. We do require them to be put in uh to manage storm water. Um my I'll just share with mayor um you know, my initial thoughts is that's part of that storm water utility environment that we're looking at to make sure that these private basins are being kept up to speed. So, all right. Got some thoughts around that space.

Okay. might be um if you want to speak in a minute, you can whenever I call people. Um but I've got an order right now I've got to go by. But yeah. All right, let's go to Lois Nolan. We might have we might have burned some bridges tonight with some citizens by the length of the meeting. So hopefully she'll come back. Rob Hennon. Oh, you're out. That would be all right. Well, there we go.

I really wasn't here to talk about the detention system, but with respect to the city not taking over detention areas, they actually do take care of the detention area in Summit Ridge, Meadows of Summit Ridge. Got a 5 acre one right behind my house and you guys do take care of it. A lot of that is to appease because it was set up to take care of water before it gets down to Rainree and becomes a problem there. So, they really pushed that even more than we did. Bill Kenny put it in. You guys took care of it. But what I'm really here about is this new addition that you're putting north of us, this legacy ridge. You're approving it for mixed use, but they're taking mixed use to the extent of mixed use. The only thing we've been able to talk them out of is putting an apartment building in up there. And that really wasn't part of the real plan. It was just kind of a contingency. And I think it was just there to deal with us because they're going north of our neighborhood where we have 60 to 65 foot lots. They're putting in some 60 to 62 foot lots going north of it until they hit that legacy rich road. When you go left on that road, they're going to put in 50 foot lots in another pot. And then you go right above the school property and they're going to put in 40 foot lots. This is a huge variance. And this is not like any other house in Lee Summit. I don't I've never seen houses that are 40 foot lot wide and 60 to 80 foot long. It just doesn't look right. These are all going to look the same. There's going to be no space. A trash day is just going to be trash can after trash can after trash can. There's 73 houses in this 40 foot lot or 40 foot variance. Put in houses that are similar size to ours. This this is ridiculous. They're also going to put in

do realize you're a little late on this one, right? I realize that it and there's been a tremendous amount of community engagement on this one. Yeah. And they have not communicated back to us very well. Every time they come to the I've been watching this one pretty closely. They listen to it. Yeah. And then they just don't do anything.

And I happen to be out of town when it went through the zoning commission and or whatever they call that. But it still doesn't make it right. This is not the right kind of house for that area. No other houses around that area are like those. That is very, very small lots. There's not going to be trees when there's lots. There's not going to be enough room for them. I mean, this is going to be car after car after car on the road. So, I just as a member of the board now, I need to voice my opinion on it. You guys may think that mixed use and having all different types of people in the neighborhood's fine. I don't think that neighborhood and HOE is going to get along with each other, let alone be able to communicate with us very well. So, I'm very much against it and I just wanted to be heard. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have DJ Good.

Oh, I don't see DJ Good. Chip Floyd. Those Hershey bars up there, that's me. Promise kept. So, our little game of hide the public face, unfortunately, has now metastasized into something a little bit worse than it was. I speak tonight about legislation apparently passed on or before March the 10th of this year, now referred to as the Dunning Hodgeges Something Act. This law apparently regulates how private citizens use public resources and public domain material. Last meeting discussing the use of a logo and city resources for campaigns. Council Hodgeges talking to manager Dunning went from don't we have something out there to we have that to I know we have that then asked about repercussions to the something she knows we have. Manager Dunning confirmed it stated that those rules and ethics are codified. He went on to mention such ordinance violations and municipal offenses should be seen in court. That entire evolution took 47 seconds. I assume he's referring to the Dunning Hodgeges something act. Something is out there and it is codified and such violations will be seen in court. You see, as as sitting council members and city administrators, when you insinuate, suggest or affirm something that does have repercussions. I am now in open and willful violation of the Dunning Hodgeges Something Act. You'll know why in a few seconds. I intend to continually violate it with civic or forethought for the next 742 days. I'm using a lectern in a building speaking into a microphone carried by an AV system all owned by the city. And by

city, I mean me. I own it and so do you. The mayor now bared soon Raider or Lopez is the chief enforcement officer of the city and has the responsibility and obligation to enforce law. City attorney is here as a witness and there are capable officers in this room. Therefore, I demand that I be held accountable for this criminal behavior. I must be detained, cited, arrested if needed, charged, and prosecuted in the service of the Dunning Hodgeges something act. Here's what guarantees my conviction. I now declare verbally for 2028 District 4. I will use public resources and public domain in my campaign. But 30 seconds. Wait a minute. Maybe there's no violation at all. Maybe there's no violation at all. And all this seventh grade nonsense is a result of spiteful and petty behavior by public servants at the public's expense. The very intent of transparency has been subverted and with it the public trust and that's the violation. Floyd 28. All right. Thank you, Mr. Al Alshawish. So, don't worry about the logo on the front of my shirt. You know, the viewers at home won't be able to see it. The audience behind me won't be able to see it. They will see the message on the back, though. You know, these last several months have been very revealing to me. You know, when when things are going wrong in any situation, you want to be able to give the individuals involved the benefit of the doubt. But

then when you stack mistake after mistake and misstep after misstep, a very clear picture begins to form. That picture is that our city leaders are unable to defend their actions, their strategy, and their policies. And that there's nothing they fear more than real information getting out to the residents for them to analyze on their own. And because you're unable to defend your positions, you turn to soft censorship, scheming to change public record formats in the hope that it minimizes reach on social media, lobbying admins on Facebook, pressuring them not to approve certain information being shared on their page, and redacting emails concerning how certain policies are being made and justified. When city leadership's ideas can't survive basic scrutiny, the only option they have is to censor and attempt to minimize reach of viewpoints that challenge them. But I'll tell you the biggest mistake I think you've made. You've chosen to be omissive and withhold information from the residents. Sure, you can say most of the information is transparent and available somewhere, but you make no e effort to get that information to the residents. And you refuse to speak honestly about things that are going on in the city. And this has created such an information vacuum that just one individual giving three minute speeches has garnered more attention and more credibility than an entire PR team paid for with our tax dollars. The takeaway for you should be clear. Residents don't want um elected officials who act as cheerleaders for everything that the city is doing. They want real information and they want for the mayor and council to represent the people's interest over their own professional and political ones. Thank you.

Heather Crane.

Good evening. My name's Heather Crane. Um, I don't typically speak on city politics, but this election has compelled me to step forward to address comments made at the council meeting two weeks ago. First, I attended the chamber mayoral candidate forum where I heard Mr. Lopez emphasized a desire to stick with the current city plan and highlights his years of experience. However, what stood out to me is Miss Rder's willingness to listen. She hears the residents and she's willing to question whether the current plan, particularly around apartments and multi-residential housing, should be revisited to preserve the hometown character that so many of us value. Over the past several weeks, Miss Raiders has faced repeated personal attacks, attempts to intimidate, bully, and discredit her for the way she has chosen to campaign. That is concerning and frankly disappointing. At a recent council meeting, I also witnessed a speaker who is affiliated with her opponent's campaign publicly and repeatedly call Miss Rder a liar. That claim does not reflect what I have seen. What I have seen is a candidate who listens to her constituents and is willing to adjust her position, such as on the issues of a single trash hauler because she values taxpayer choice and wants to avoid creating a monopoly in Lee Summit. And for that, we thank you. I also heard concerns raised about crime. So, I took time to review the data myself on the city of Lee Summit's uh website. From 2020 to 2024, calls for service have increased significantly. While there may be some recent improvement, the long-term trend raises valid questions. As our city grows, are we ensuring that our fire and police force, their compensation, and mental health services are keeping pace? These public servants are our friends and neighbors, and these are reasonable concerns, and they deserve thoughtful discussion, not dismissal. I also want to speak to our schools. As a 23-year veteran teacher, I can tell you these concerns are real. Class sizes have grown from 18 to 20 students to nearly 30. We are seeing more students with 504s and individual education plans while support staff has not kept up. And the data reflects this. According to the

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's website, in 2016, 10 years ago, approximately 75% of our students in our district were proficient or advanced in English language arts. Over a little less than 10 years, that number has dropped to 52%. This is not a small change. That is a significant decline, and it should concern all of us. These are the kinds of issues Miss Rder is raising. development, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and education. These are not talking points. They are real concerns affecting real people in our community. Councilwoman Rder, I want to personally thank you. Your concerns are valid. Your willingness to listen matters, and your commitment to preserving what makes Lee Summit special while planning responsibly for the future does not go unnoticed. Keep taking the high road, Miss Rder. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andrew. I'm here tonight, Andrew Ellson. Uh I'm here tonight to address a specific technical failure in our city's communication system. The fact that resident emails are being silently diverted into your spam and junk folders. This is a fundamental breakdown in how city hall connects with community. Recently, while working through various city issues, I discovered this problem firsthand across two separate email accounts. I sent a single email to multiple members of this body. One of you received it in your inbox, while another found it in their junk folder. Additionally, from a different address, I sent an email to the city manager that he could not locate at all. It was only after I sent a follow-up reply to my original message that the thread finally surfaced. This proves the problem isn't tied to one specific sender, but is a broader failure in how the city receives our input. We all know this council places a heavy preference on email communication. You regularly ask us to write in. You use those emails to gauge where the community stands on important issues. But if the digital front door to city hall is an inadvertently filtering out your constituents, it creates a serious disconnect in our local processes. Decisions are being made based on incomplete picture of public sentiment. I know that aggressive email filtering is a reality of modern IT and I understand it takes time to implement a permanent systemwide solution to ensure that resident emails are whitelisted. But until the IT department can resolve this routing issue, I have a simple ask. Check your check your spam because my emails are being missed. Check it on a regular basis. This is a pretty big flaw in how this works and I have empirical evidence that this is happening. It's pretty sad. It is. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Miss Colin White.

There we go. There's Is that what you put in? No. Did you put your thumb drive in? Yeah.

Okay. Teresa Volenwiter, 5201 Northeast Mabbrook Road. Thanks, John. Watch out behind you. We got a lot of stuff going on. I don't want to get paint up there is the white. That's the property line. I don't know if you saw it up there now. It's the parked under her car. Um there's a painted line. Oh, that public works did

when when I was asking you about it, she was I want you to I don't we can't hear that very well. Um, but what uh Griffin is telling Dumit is that the public works department painted the property line. We'll listen to that again. Thanks, John. Watch out behind you. We got a lot We got a lot of stuff going on. I don't want to go. Paint up there is the white. That's the property line. I don't know parked under her car. Um there's a painted line. Oh, when when I was asking you about it, she was

She was saying, "I got a survey done. You guys are wrong." I'm like, "It doesn't matter what you think when they tell you you're under arrest." I was asking you about it. She was there now. It's parked under her car. U there's a painted line. Oh, that public did. When when I was asking you about it, she was she was saying, "I got a survey done." You guys are wrong. I'm like, "It doesn't matter what you think."

Okay. That's the line he's talking about right there. So, somebody from public works, somebody from public works is locating and then marking a property line. That is being said by one police officer to another. Two other police officers, Kulie and Bean, said they used the city of Lee Summit maps. That's JIS, JIS maps. And those two officers based the arrest of a person on that. And when a person mentions a survey, a police officer doomit laughs about it. It's that survey. I do not think I'm the only one this is happening to cuz public works did this before on my property and trespassed when they did it. So, I think public works is being used and I've asked Michael Park and he has said they do not have any licensed professional lands surveyors on staff. Somebody needs to check into this. This is wrong. unlicensed people marking property lines, establishing property lines, locating

property lines, and then putting marks down whether it's paint or tape or laz or what wood stakes. That's illegal. All right, understood. Thank you, Miss Miller. Yes. What do you need, Miss Giddings? No, in a second. I will.

I need you to know that sometimes there's an order and I do choose it for a reason.

So, come on forward, please. Debbie Giddings, I'm just going to touch on a few things. First of all, PRI is going to have a development to the north and a development to the south. You all have been presented the zoning that they want, the type of development they want on the north side. However, you've started peacemealing the south side. You've already approved a PRI property on the south side if I'm not mistaken. I may be wrong. The other thing I would like to uh point out is with this concept plan north of uh the north side looking at the plan it doesn't look like there's any right away for expansion of the highway being saved by the developer. That's a point. Um the LC presentation tomorrow at 400 pm is for the north side and then they're going to do a policy review. interested citizens, come down to city hall. The minutes for the last two meetings or one meeting of the city council and the planning have not been put on the website. It's hard to dig through all the video to try to figure out what it was a point that you were wanting to make. I finally found where I was talking last week where the sewer rates went up. It was at the public hearing on March 18th of last year. you just found out about it was just found out by the public last council meeting. Um there is an ordinance that you're going to be reading tonight to approve $94,000 for engineering just started on the more than expensive part of the the north Douglas to Chipman. What happened what's

happened going to happen on the the south side? Um, I thought I had a map of the trees, but I'm not sure that that's the correct thing. I'll be asking for help on that. Um, there's going to be a hearing on or a thing on the charter commission, uh, assigning an alternate. I read online that alternate that you're going to be assigning cannot even vote on anything. So, would you really want to be going to the meetings and then not being able to just say stuff? You could, but you can't vote on any of the decisions that would be made. I just want to point out those things because as you continue to dig deeper and deeper on the city's web pages of the various committees and the various uh ordinances and replats and all of the stuff that you have to dig through to understand a project such as the dome clear back a year ago unless you've been coming to these meetings on a every day every week type situation or you're wanting to sit through tons and tons of videos. Thank you for listening and see some of you I guess next month, but maybe not after that. So, thank you very much. Okay, we're going to go to presentations. Agenda item 6A, presentation, Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport Economic Impact Study. Mr. Anderson. Oh, Mr. Park.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I know it's late and I promise we'll be brief. There's a lot of detail in your packets regarding the uh Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport economic impact statement. It's a a study of the economic output of our airport that you've really been asking for uh I know over the last couple years and Mr. Anderson will be doing that presentation. But before we get there, I want to also acknowledge that uh what you're going to hear is not just by happen chance, right? So it's been very intentional and it's been uh very much so through actions that this body has taken over the last eight years uh and working towards the airport growth. So we have the Ignite strategic plan, you have the comprehensive plan, you have the airport master plan, all of these plans, the airport business plan that have set the direction and growth for the airport. And so it's following that growth, the investments in the airport, the renaming of our airport, the new marketing. It's the standards and design uh or the the guidelines and the regulations that are later on your agenda. There's an ordinance keeping those current. there's a lot of actions and activity that really make our airport a success and I want you to realize that and and this isn't the end of it. We we continue to implement these plans and some of our next steps if these ordinances are passed uh would be to issue an RFP to solicit really the best of the best to continue that growth out of the airport and that continued uh business plan and airport master plan and and so I did want to acknowledge those previous actions and as well as the next steps that we'll be taking and really to thank you for your support in getting us to this point. So it's really a good story to celebrate and with that Mr. Anderson.

Thank you.

Thank you Michael. Um I was challenged to do this very quickly. So I want to try to do just that. Um in your packet you have the very complete full document. Um I am going to try to give you a very high level um overview a quick rundown of uh just what's going on with the economic impact study. Um some of you may ask why an economic impact study and I think as an elected body you probably know but maybe for our audience we get a lot of questions. Why does the city of Lee Summit have an airport? What's the value of the airport? how much money do you really make make selling fuel uh renting hanger space? And that's really not what an airport's about. Um if you think about the city leadership back in 1977 when we purchased the airport, the vision was, you know, an airport, a municipal airport is an economic driver for the local community. It's an economic driver for the Kansas City region. It's really an economic driver for the state. Um but how much, you know, what's how can we kind of quantify that? Um, but I did want to point out that the airport is not a runway and hangers for local pilots. You know, it is part of the national plan of integrated airports. Um, we are supported by the FAA. If you think about the interstate highway system going across the country, airports do the same thing. Um, we're kind of your state highway and maybe the uh the international airports are the interstate, you know, but we pull traffic out of, you know, downtown pulls traffic out of out of Kansas City International. We pull traffic out of downtown where we all work together to make the air system work and Lee Summit is an integral part of that. Um, we have businesses that are here because of the airport. Um, we have businesses that have been created because of the airport. And later on, you're going to see some of our flight numbers and you're going to see that twothirds roughly of our traffic at the airport, it's not local pilots, but it's it's transient. It's the itinerant traffic.

So, when we talk about impacts, there's really three types of economic impact. The direct impact, the indirect impact, and the induced impact. And I'm going to talk about which one each one of those and what they are. Start with direct impacts. And there's really two two prongs to the direct impacts. There's the money that's spent on the airfield. So if you think about a lot about what we do, we sell fuel. We rent hanger space. We lease ground. Um but there's also businesses at the airport that maintain aircraft, replace avionics. Those are businesses on the field. That's the direct on on airport impacts. But the other prong of the direct impacts are the visitors. The visitors that come in and spend money in our community. They spend money on hotels, um, in restaurants, in retail shops. So that's the direct impact. The indirect impact are all those the supply chain and everything that's necessary to support that direct spending. So we have businesses at the airport, we have vendors, we have wholesalers, we have um freight delivery, we have all the things necessary to support that work. Uh on the visitor side, we have hotel staff, restaurant staff, real, you know, retail staff, the people that support that. That's all that indirect impacts. And then the induced impacts are all the respending of the of the wages and the salaries and the money that's generated throughout the community. We take those impacts then and we try to normalize them a little bit and bring it down to jobs, payroll, and total economic output. And the nice thing about putting it in terms of jobs, that's kind of normalized with the average salary, you know, for the state at the time. So when we look at, you know, if I just said, hey, in 2012, we were doing $9.2 million worth statewide economic impact, you know, compared to

the 58 million we're doing now, what does that really mean? because obviously 9.2 million in 2012 means more now. But if I look at that and with respect to jobs, you can you can compare that apples to apples. So you'll see a lot of job numbers as well as uh economic output numbers. Just some of the uh businesses we have on the field. Summit Arrow, as you know, like Michael mentioned, our rebranding, that's our city FBO. That's our selling our fuel, renting our hanger space. All the rest you see are private um companies on the field. And I wanted to highlight just two of those really quickly to because I don't think people see this and really realize the impact. U Midwest Avionics in 2017 an employee of Garmin who's over in Kansas started a business at our airport part-time uh doing avionics on aircraft. In 2019, he quit his job at Garmin, started his business full-time, and currently today has 12 full-time staff and is doing $3 million of annual work at the airport. That's just one business uh success. Another one, Summit Flight Academy, started just three years ago with four instructors and one aircraft. Um today, they have eight aircraft and 11 flight instructors. Um one and a half million in annual revenue. And that's that's just two of the businesses and two of the success stories. When we looked at the the statewide impact, the direct air impact on the uh at the airport and that economic input. What we wanted to do is we we didn't want to try to recreate that wheel from a statewide perspective. That would have been a heck of an undertaking. In 2012, MDOT did a statewide economic impact study of general aviation airports. Lee Summit was part of that. So what we did and what we agreed would be a good uh business practice was to utilize the multiplier effects from the indirect and

induced economic impact and apply that to the same metrics that they used in 2012 to the me the same metrics adjusted in 2024. Um now you may ask how fair is that? How accurate is that? And I think my response to that would be I think we're being conservative because if you think of the spending opportunity today compared to the spending opportunity in 2012, I think there's a lot more spending opportunity today. So I think going with the 2012 numbers, I think is on the conservative side. If we looked at the 2012 numbers, um 63 jobs, $9.2 million worth of u economic impact statewide. We adjust for our annual operating revenue. the gallons of Jet Au uh fuels sold. Um, and we equate that today, we're looking at 206 jobs and 47.4 million annually statewide. But that's 2024. What happened in 2025? We opened up Hangar 2. So, we took Hangar 2 and said, let's just look at that as a project. Let's look at Hangar 2. Let's look at the east side infrastructure and what's going on with that. And if you look at that, an annual operating revenue of $900,000, um those two projects alone contributed an additional 46 jobs and 10.6 million to the statewide economic output. Um for a total of 58.3 million worth of economic output on the on the airport on the direct uh spending side. So, let's take a quick look at the visitors. These are I'm not going to get into the numbers too much, but the total number at the bottom is as a total ops. In 2024, um we were running 56,000 operations. That's takeoff and landings. Um if you

look at 2025, we're already pushing 65,000. So, just in one year's time, you know, we've gained another 10,000. Um this is all related to what Mr. Park was talking about the foresight in the growth and the planning and the rebranding and the renaming of the airport. All that stuff contributes to this continued growth. But what I wanted to point out is you know the GA itinerant that's that's traffic that does not reside here is not based here. It's typically about 2/3 is itinerant. So when we look at the traffic um the visitors we use two primary sources of data. the placer and implant. Placer is that software that it tracks phones. It knows, okay, the phone resides in this area because it sits for six hours at this spot. So, it knows where that passenger is coming from. It tracks where they go. You can actually get down and and look at where did they eat specifically, what restaurant, where did they shop, where did they sleep, what kind of money are they spending. That's what the Placer data does. The implan data is the nationally recognized um data for determining that that multiplier effect for the indirect and induced spending and that's that's done and at a county bycounty basis. So it's very specific uh county bycounty basis. When we looked at the Placer data for the our visitors, what we found was the vast majority stay in Jackson County, Missouri, or they run down the I470 corridor in the Johnson County, Kansas. So, for the purpose of this study, we focused on those two counties, Jackson County, Missouri, Johnson County, Kansas. Um, focused on three visitor types. One, people within 15 within 15 miles. Those

people live here. They're flying in and out and their spending patterns are not changing because they're flying locally. Their economic impact is included in the statewide uh number. We have the outbound locals. That's people between 15 and 50 miles. So that's people in the surrounding area that are coming to our airport to fly in and out. Their spending patterns are changing. They're buying lunch or dinner here and they're spending some money in addition to the what's at the airport. And we average out 15,500 uh outbound visitors at $60 a trip. And then the inbound visitors, those are the folks that are beyond 50 miles that are flying in. Um they're spending patterns or they're spending a little bit more money. They're grabbing a hotel, they're eating at restaurants, maybe they're doing some local shopping. And we're we see about 10,000 uh inbound visitors with an average of $369 a trip. Um so if you look at that well the total direct impact for our visitors 3.3 million that's the direct um if you apply the multiplier effects for the indirect impacts and the induced impacts it pushes that to $5.3 million um on an annual basis in local spending. So all in all you know what does this mean? the Lee Summit or the Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport, you know, contributes 252 jobs statewide, 11.9 million in payroll, 58.3 million in total economic output, and locally uh 41 jobs, 1.9 million in payroll, and 5.3 million in local um economic output. So that's a highle quick rundown of what's in the in the economic impact study and with that I will be happy to answer any questions. I also do have online uh the

authors of the report. So if you guys want to get into the weeds um I may have to defer to uh to the economic experts. So any qu hopefully I got that in time. So that was good. It's good. Mr. Bushek, you taking notes on this stuff. Okay. It's economic development oneonone. It is. We talk a lot about multiplier effect, you know, um indirect jobs, supply side jobs, and more. So, this is um

I'm just going to keep those numbers up there because they're good to see. Yeah, it's it's it's really nice to see it quantified because sometimes we're just making estimates when we're looking at whether or not to give an approval on an application uh based on what we hope the multiplier effect will be. So, this is nice to see this quantified using Placer data. I mean, that's that's getting into the specifics. So, questions uh from council or comments? I think we should use this uh going forward, Mr. Anderson, like um timing wise um like later on for for control tower, you know, when we start talking about the control tower and just talking about

just how much of an impact that will have as well. Um absolutely. you know, when we because we didn't really have this type of data when we approved hangar 2. We just knew that approving Hangar 2. Yeah. We knew intuitively that it was going to bring economic value, but we didn't know what. It's like you say, it's nice to be able to quantify that. Yeah. Okay. One of the things I will just say very briefly that I think is missing from here is I don't know what companies have come to Lee Summit because of the airport. And I will say that been working a lot with Joe or talking more with Joe Perry and the economic uh development council to try to find a way that we can try to quantify some of that information as well.

Well, all that land across the highway, PRI, land reserve, whatever. Um I mean that proximity near the airport, it's got to there's got to be a rate of return there too eventually. Um and if we could track that, that would be really beneficial. That's the next piece that I really want to get nailed down. Y That'd be really beneficial. Yeah. Okay. And even Discovery Park is going to have, you know, corporate type offices there. Um, just the fact we're going to have a couple high-end hotels there is, um, pilots are already talking about it. There's just I'm sure they are. Yeah, I'm sure they are. That's good. Okay.

This is a excellent report. Uh, thanks to our consultant as well, uh, for being here. Um, sorry we don't have a bunch of dialogue or discussion for you, but this is great information. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. U next on the agenda would be um agenda item seven. It's a resolution. So, Miss Balor Curry, would you please read resolution number 2603? Resolution number 26-03, a resolution appointing an alternate member to the 2026 charter review commission for the city of Lee Summit, Missouri.

Okay, we have a motion to adopt this resolution by Council Member Shield, seconded by Council Member Hodes. Discussion. Well, I just think it was uh took really good initiative that we chose to do this and it's really great that we have someone that's willing to serve in this role with regard to being an alternate council member. Yes. May a comment from earlier related to the alternate. Yes, please.

Um just to clarify any confusion, I I heard one of the public commenters mention the facts that the alternate cannot vote. they can attend the meetings but cannot vote. That is correct but only during the time that the individual is actually an alternate when the vacancy is actually created and we know that a vacancy will be created in this district. Um that person becomes a full member of the commission automatically without any further action and will have all the rights and responsibilities including voting. So there won't be uh there the the time for which this person will be an alternate and not vote is going to be one meeting uh the the April meeting uh and then by the May meeting that person will be a full member of the commission and we'll be able to vote fully.

All right, understood. Thank you sir. Council member Rder. Uh mayor, thanks. That was my that was I wanted to make sure that was explained. So thank Mr. head for doing that on that question. All right. Not seeing any further discussion, please cast your vote. All votes are in, please record the vote. The resolution is adopted unanimously. Texas proposed ordinances forward forwarded from committee. Council member Prior, would you please read bill number 26-056? Uh, mayor, council member Prior has

Yes. Council member Shields, would you please? Sure. Um, I move for second reading bill number 26-056, an ordinance authorizing the execution of a work order in accordance with the city's on call construction services agreement contract 20240571 with TC Fuller Construction LLC for the expansion of the water utility service center parking lot in the amount of $12,242 and authorizing the city manager to execute all necessary documents. Thank you. Have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-056 by council member Shield. Seconded by council member Hodes. Discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes remain. Please record the vote. That goes to second reading unanimously. Council member Shields, would you please?

Thank you. I now move for adoption of bill number 26-056, an ordinance authorizing the execution of a work order in accordance with the city's on call construction services agreement contract 20240571 with TC Fuller Construction LLC for the expansion of the water utility service center parking lot in the amount of $12,2423 and authorizing the new manager to execute all necessary documents.

Thank you. Have a motion to adopt bill number 26-056 by Council Member Shield. Seconded by Council Member Carlile. Discussion, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please score the vote. It's unanimous. It's adopted. Thank you. Council member Hodgees, would you please read bill number 26-057? I move to second reading bill number 26-057, an ordinance authorizing the execution of a ground lease agreement by and between the city of Lee Summit and TM Aviation LLC for a period of 30 years with options for two additional 10-year terms for the development of a hanger located at the Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement for the same.

Thank you. Have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-057 by council member Hodgees. Seconded by council member Carlile discussion seeing none please cast your vote all votes in. Please court the vote does go to second reading unanimously. Council member Hodes would you please? I move for the adoption of bill number 26-057. and an ordinance authorizing the execution of a ground lease agreement by and between the city of Lee Summit and TM Aviation LLC for a period of 30 years with options for two additional 10-year terms for the development of a hanger located at the Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement for the same.

Thank you. A motion to adopt bill number 26-057 by Council Member Hodgees, seconded by Council Member Carlile. Discussion, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please report the vote. It's adopted unanimously. Thank you. Council member Rder, would you please read bill number 26-058?

Thank you, Mayor. I move to for second reading bill number 2658, an ordinance approving modification number three to an agreement for professional engineering services for Douglas Road improvements second street to Chipman RFQ number 22- 2022-061 between the city of Lee Summit Missouri and Kimley Horn for an increase of $93,730 with an amended amount of 1,442 48 and authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement for the same. Thank you. Have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-058 by Council Member Rder, seconded by Council Member Shields. Discussion being none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please the vote. It goes to second reading unanimously. Council member Rder, would you please? I move for adoption bill number 26058, an ordinance approving modification number three to an agreement for professional engineering services for Douglas Road improvement second street to Chipman Road RFQ number 2022-061 between the city of Lee Summit, Missouri and the Kimley Horn for an increase of $93,730 with an amended amount of $1,44248 and authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement for the same.

Thank you. We have a motion to adopt bill number 26-058 by council member Rder, seconded by council member Carlile. Discussion, please cast your vote. The bill is adopted unanimously. Thank you. Please record it. Council member Prior or uh I think I got this one too, mayor. Yeah, I know. I just have losing your name right now. Council member Shields, would you please read bill number 26-059? And they've been passing me theirs, so I'll have a few more here. Okay. Uh I move for second reading bill number 26-059 an ordinance enacting a new section of the code of ordinances titled section 17-240 cratom products and dangerous chemical inhalance definitions and new section 17-241 prohibition on sale or distribution of cratom products and dangerous chemical inhalance.

Thank you. A motion to move to second reading bill number 26-059 by council member Shield seconded by council member Hodes. Discussion. Yes, council member prior.

Thank you. Um, I just want to make sure that this is allratom and 70, not just over the age. So, it reads weird. It kind of reads like it's over the age of 21. You can still buy it. Under the age of 21, you can't. So, thank you. You bet. Tracy Alers, Development Services. Um, so certain products would be prohibited altogether. um adulterated, the 70 um that's referred to in the ordinance, and products that are packaged um or advertised to be confection-like to be appealing to minors and to youth. And that language largely mirrors the language that was in the Kansas City, Missouri gas station drugs ordinance. Then separate from those prohibited items, there are regulations that would limit cratom sales um that fall under those thresholds to persons 21 and over. So it's a little bit of a one-two punch.

So you can still buy, you can still buy someratom products, but others will be prohibited. So really minors can still getratom. Not minors. No, cuz they would still get alcohol. So they can still get I can't speak to what miners can or cannot procure but againratom products would be reserved to persons 21 and o older by this we decided to do it that way and not just like

the way that it was recommended at CEDC we put forward an ordinance that really mirrored what Kansas City put forward also independence and blue springs for continuity purposes and it focused on the wholesale prohibition of what was perceived as being the most dangerous types the adulterated the 70 and anything intended to mimic a confection and then limit the balance to persons 21 and older. Okay. So that goes for gas stations and actual vape shops can't carry it certain kind. Okay. And then 21 and older they can buy certain types of correct. But yeah the healthy one.

Yeah. It's all bad. But so they can buy that at gas stations and vape shops. Correct. What the regulations would do is limit it to 21 and older. And it also specifies how it can be advertised. It's basically got to be behind the counter and not be able to be accessed except as part of that sales transaction. Oh, I was under the impression it was going to be a little more strict than that. I don't know that I like this, but it is what it is. So, no, because I want I mean, I want it to pass and we can work on it. We can What? What' you say? But then it won't No, we pass it tonight.

Okay. Pass it tonight. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, it's on. If we pass it tonight, yes, you can work on it. we can work on it more in the future to restrict it more is what I'm is what they were is what they were saying on the dis if you couldn't hear them from the crowd and such. So um but if if you want to at least get this on the books right here right now I'm going to call for the vote unless there's more discussion. Okay, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. Does go to second reading unanimously. Thank you. Council member Shields, would you please?

Thank you. And I move for adoption of bill number 26-059 and ordinance neck new sections of the code of ordinances titled section 17-240 cranium products and dangerous chemical inhalance definitions in new section 17-241 prohibition on sale or distribution of cratom products and dangerous chemical inhalance.

Thank you. I have a motion to adopt bill number 25 26-059 by council member Shield. Second by council member Carlile. Discussion please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. It is adopted unanimously. Thank you. Takes us to proposed ordinances. First reading. Council member Hajes, would you please read bill number 26-060. I advance to second reading. Bill number 26-060. An ordinance approving the cooperative agreement by and among city of Lee Summit, Missouri and Land Reserve Incorporated for the Todd George Parkway project. Thank you. Have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26- 060 by council member Haj. Seconded by council member Shields. Discussion. Council member Shields.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, could staff just clarify is this um like an initial agreement to work together or an actual um like how far are we in this process? What are we approving tonight?

Uh yeah, so this is a public private partnership agreement where they would actually carry forward the design and construction of Tai George Parkway. So this sets forth really that we would still manage the scope. could still be a city project as it's been established in the capital improvement plan, but our current capital improvement plan would not have this project delivered until 2030. It doesn't match up with the LR land reserves development plan, their schedule, and and for the the taxpayers, I think delivering it early delivers it at a better cost. And we're also capping the reimburseable amounts to those public improvements at the 2023 April no tax increase bond amounts at 24 million. So it it feels like a win-win for everybody as a way to get the project done earlier at a a savings if you will in the economy of scale as part of the lo larger overall development. And so this this is the full agreement to complete the project.

Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate the explanation. Thank you. Mr. Park, don't leave. Mayor Pat Lopez, sorry. Quick question. I can you just confirm will this be the entire stretch from Coburn to to Woods Chapel?

This will and I can I know the the full scope is in the the agreement but it does cover um the scope of what was the capital improvement plan for Todd George widening Coburn Road to Woods Chapel. There's probably some intersection work at either end as well as the Stru Road improvement between Todd George and the I470 where the interchange is already built out. And then the water manes uh water mane that would go along Strather. Actually, it's a little south of Straw where it bes 470 but also connecting to serve the entire property. Excellent. Thank you. You're welcome. Perfect. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no further discussion, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please score the vote. That bill uh does go to second reading unanimously. Thank you. Takes us to Mayor Tim Lopez. Would you please or I'm sorry, Council Member Hodgees, would you please read bill number 26-061? I advance to second reading. Bill number 26-061, an ordinance establishing policies, guidelines, rules, regulations, and minimum standards for commercial and non-commercial operations at this Kansas City Lee Summit Regional Airport.

Thank you. A motion to move to second reading bill 26-061 by Council Member Hodgees, seconded by Council Member Carlile. Discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. Thank you. Uh, it does move to second reading unanimously and that takes us to bill number 26-062. Council member Rder, would you please?

Thank you, mayor. I build uh move to second reading advance to second reading bill number 26-062, an ordinance approving a development land and land transfer agreement by and between the city of Lee Summit, Missouri and the Hunt Midwest Real Estate Development Inc. for the transfer of two parcels and three easements for the Mouse Creek Trail expansion and the Southwest Prior Road storm water and the multimmodal projects improvement and authorizing the mayor to execute the same.

Thank you. You have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-062 by council member seconded by council member Carlile. Discussion please cast your vote. All votes in. Please record the vote. does go to second reading unanimously. Thank you. And then um bill number Yeah, Council Member Shields, bill number 26-063, please.

Thank you. I move for second reading bill number 26-063, an ordinance approving the 2026 labor agreement by between the city of Lisum, Missouri, and the International Association of Firefighters, local number 2195, and authorizing the city manager to execute the same buying on behalf of the city. Okay, we have a motion to move to second reading bill number 26-063 by Council Member Shield, seconded by Council Member Hodes. Discussion. Yes, Council Member Prior. Thank you. Thanks to my buddy, Council Member Funk reminded me to recuse, so I'll be recusing from this. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Shields.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to say thank you to all the hard work that went into this agreement. Um, both on the side of the city staff, the city council, the IFFF. Um we really appreciate the work that um our firefighters do keeping the city safe and making sure that we're compensating them appropriately and staying competitive with our neighboring jurisdictions. And I know this was a lot of work to to get this done and I appreciate it. So thank you.

Yep. I think we all we all very much appreciate it. Um this council wanted to get this done on our watch. So, um, I appreciate this being on the agenda tonight and the push to get it done. Um, any other discussion? All right, seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in, please vote. It passes 8 to zero with one recusal. Thank you. I need a motion to finish this last one, two, three, four. I need to finish Four more readings if I can get a motion to continue this meeting after 11.

Move to continue the meeting past the ungodly hour of 11 p.m. Second. Thank you. Have a motion by Council Member Shield, seconded by Council Member Funk. Can I get a roll call vote, please? Fire. Uh, Council Member Shields I. Council member Funk I. Council member Rder I. Council member Levelville I. Council member Hodes I. Council member Prior I. Council member Carlile I. Mayor Pro Tim Lopez I. Mayor Baird I. Thank you all.

No it doesn't. You could have voted no and I know it is still. Um that that gets us though to propose ordinances second reading and we will go with Do you have this ready sir? Are you ready to read this or did you hand it off? Okay. Council member Levelville, would you please read bill number 26? You can't read. Please hand that off. Council member Hodes, would you please read bill number 26-040? I move for adoption of bill number 26-040, an ordinance approving a lease agreement for the Paragon Star Village garage land clearance redevelopment authority redevelopment plan.

Thank you. A motion to adopt bill number 26-40 by council member Haj, seconded by council member Carlile. discussion. Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes in, please record the vote. It passes 7 to one with one recusal. Thank you. Um, bill number 26-022. Who has this? Council member Shields, please.

Thank you, Mayor. I move for adoption build number 26-022 an ordinance approving reszoning from a agricultural to RP1 plan single family residential RP3 of land residential mixed use and CP2 plan community commercial and preliminary development plan on approximately 131 acres of land generally located at the southeastern intersection of southwest ward road and southwest hook road in accordance with provisions of chapter 33 the unified development ordinance according ordinances of the city le summit Missouri

thank you we have a motion to adopt bill number 26-022 by council member shield seconded by council member Carlo discussion Seeing none, please cast your vote. All votes are in, please record the vote. It's adopted unanimously. Thank you, Council Member Shields. Bill number 26-048, please.

Thank you. I move for adoption bill number 26-048, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of 182 Axon body, four cameras with hardware refreshments upgrades, 45 Axon fleet, three incar cameras with hardware refreshments upgrades, 182 taser 10 for Skyio X10 drones, prepared 911 software, Axon assistant software unlimited Axon storage, digital evidence unlimited thirdparty storage, digital evidence, CAD RMS autotagging, Axon response software reduction assistance software, community request, public evidence submission, Axon investigate input, ACE Axon auto transcribe data migration service, says a nine acts on interview room with hardware refreshment through the use of an approved soul source and authorizing city manager execute all related necessary documents for the city of Lee Summit Missouri.

Can I hear an applause for that please? Thank you. Thank you. Uh we have a motion to adopt bill number 26-048 by council member Shield seconded by council member Carlile. Discussion seeing none please cast your vote. All votes are in. Please record the vote. It's adopted unanimously. Thank you. And bill number 26-04. Council member Shields. Bill number 26-049. Please. Thank you. I move for adoption. Bill number 26-049, ownerance approving lease agreement for project 2 east village within the redevelopment area for the 291 South Regional Clearance Redevelopment Authority redevelopment plan.

Thank you. We have a motion to adopt bill number 26-049 by council member Shield. Seconded by council member Hodes. Discussion. Yes, it should. All right, seeing no discussion, please cast your vote. Doesn't matter, John. You only got one minute left. All votes are in. Please support the vote. Seven. Yeah. Seven in favor, one against, and one recusal. It's adopted, though. and committee reports. Probably not council comments.

Council member Prior, thank you. I know. I'm sorry, guys. Okay, so what would it take? Do we just to get the camera angles turned back around? Like I I know I don't want a huge discussion, but like what does it take just a vote? just a consensus telling city staff that you would like the cameras turned back around and it would be all of us liking the cameras turned back around. Yeah. Okay. Well, so I won't I know we're at the end of our meeting. Maybe next time we can bring it up and talk about it. Yes. Yes. Okay. Next wrap it up. So next time just prepare. Well, and I I don't know. Yeah, I'll just bring it up next time.

All right. Thanks. Council member Levelville. Uh so this will be what? Um we won't have a meeting till post election 14th. Correct. Right. Yep. Um well just wishing everybody uh good luck in their election. I'm happy that it's coming to an end. I love you all. Whatever happens um and uh good luck to that first. All right. Thank you. um staff round table.

Thank you, mayor. I do have a few items. Um she picked a good meeting to come to. Uh we have a new team member on our management team. Um and if I can have uh Assistant City Manager Lake come up and introduce one of our newest leaders. Um and then I'll just have a few quick things after that. Donna Lake, assistant city manager, and I am happy to announce that we have filled the role of director of creative services with Megan Dillard. Megan comes to us from the Independent School District, and you might recognize her from her time in uh journalism on Fox 4 and other news, media, and channels. So, she has hit the ground running last week dealing with a lot of media attention around the Douglas Road widening project. uh updated uh that landing page related to that project, handled the media calls and that was just her first week here last week and then today of course with the conversation about the soccer dome and all of the media attention around that. So she has hit the ground running. She is uh getting up to speed as we're working through our um creative uh our communication strategic plan. And so without further ado, Megan, do you want to come down and introduce yourself? I know.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm very happy to be here. I know it's a late meeting. Um did hit the ground running. Strategic planning is very important to me. Um I think it's important that you guys have no surprises. I think it's important that we have processes in place to support the city, trying to marry those two things together. and then also trying to get my bearings understanding that all of this is about to shift as we have some replacements and all of that. So, um quick introduction for tonight, but I do plan to reach out to individuals and schedule some meetings and um yeah, get the get the ball rolling. So, did they prep you really well for this night?

Yes. And I'm debating between like saying the line about an angel and wings or just telling you the truth that it's die hard. So, Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. Wow. Yeah. It is a Christmas movie. Well, and that's the debate, right? Like we could vote and everybody would go. Yeah. I'll give that to you. Thank you. I'll take it. Your one win. That's what you get. That's it. Can we get that as an agenda item next week to vote on? I'm proud of you guys for prepping her and not leaving her hanging. I guess that's good communication.

There we go. See, start it over. There we go. All right. Well, welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Yes, Council Member Lovel. I don't know why. Oh, okay. All right, Mr. Dunning. Yeah, just just a few reminders here.

Uh we have a public meeting for um the Southeast Douglas infrastructure improvements. So that's uh Blue Parkway on the south up to 4th Street. Uh that public meeting, it's a come and go event from 4:30 to 6:30 uh on the 26th here at City Hall in the Strather Conference Room. Um a reminder to all of you invitation to the fire department award ceremony at 3:00 this Saturday, March 28th. That's at Green Street. Uh then on April 2nd, we will be holding a city um career fair at the uh Gamber Community Center. We do those about twice a year to solicit interest in occupations, all kinds of things that you can do here at the city. So that's going on April 2nd from 1 to 6 at the Gammer Community Center. And then lastly, uh our trip to Washington DC was a very beneficial one, I feel, and I thank you all for that were able to make the trip. Um those relationships we establish at the state and the federal level, they they are meaningful. So thank you all for taking time out of your busy schedules to make that trip. That's it. Mayor, thank you.

Um, I guess since you brought it up, just to make sure the council knows because I haven't communicated this. Um, when we did when we went to DC, um, the lobbyists um, that we've hired were a big part of it and so they did a really good job and they're going to help keep relationships up with all of because it's the followup. You know, going once a year is not enough. We got to have the followup and the and the relationships and the communication with the key staff members. And so I was really pleased with John Hensley and Zack Pollock. Um they they've done a good job. And thank you to the council members that went because it's very lonely to go to DC and do that stuff alone and I've not had to do that in a long time since like for for many years now. So thank you all. All right, we're going to um council member Shields is going to read us in the closed session. Everybody else have a great night. Pursuant to section 61021 with provide statutes of the state of Missouri pertaining to legal actions causes of action litigation involving public governmental body and confidential or privilege communication with public governmental body representatives and its attorneys in pursuant to section 610 2113 that statute of the state of Missouri pertaining to individually identifiable personnel records performance ratings records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment. I move to enter close session.

Second. Thank you. I have a motion go into close session by council member Shield. Seconded by council member Hajes. Discussion. Seeing none. Can I get a roll call vote please? Council member Shields. I. Council member Hodgeges. Hi. Council member Carlile. Hi. Council member Prior. I. Council member Levelville. Hi. Council member Funk. I. Council member Rder. I. Mayor Prom Lopez. Hi. Mayor Baird.

Hi. Hey, baby.