Lee's Summit leaders debate new citywide architecture and building design standards

Lee's Summit officials and planning commissioners on April 21 reviewed draft citywide architecture and building design standards, hearing a consultant’s outline and offering early policy direction on materials, façades and exceptions for small residential lots.

The presentation, led by Chris Shires of Confluence and Amy Nassif, interim director of development, laid out a draft code chapter addressing building architecture and a related “materials table” that ranks exterior materials by durability and preferred locations on a building. The draft would apply to new construction, additions and façade changes citywide while leaving existing downtown design standards and airport structures unchanged.

The draft matters because it would create consistent expectations for future development across Lee’s Summit — from strip retail and quick‑service restaurants to multifamily projects — and reduce the number of administrative modifications developers now seek.

Chris Shires, a consultant with Confluence, summarized the draft approach: “We are really excited to be back before you tonight with, some draft language and to get your feedback and input on a lot of the areas that we have.” He described two code sections: one focused on building architecture and materials, the other on site standards such as screening and pedestrian frontage.

Key elements presented included a requirement for four‑sided architecture, screening for rooftop mechanical equipment, and a “top/middle/base” approach to façades. The presentation proposed a materials classification table (tier 1–4) to guide where specific materials are appropriate and avoid prescriptive percentage formulas that developers faulted as inflexible.

Much of the council and commission discussion centered on franchise and “façadism” architecture — trademarked, brand‑specific building shapes and bright corporate colors that can make reuse difficult if a tenant leaves. Council Member Pryor said, “I don't like the chain colors that a lot of them do. I like the more uniform colors,” and said faux roof façades can look “tacky.” Council Member Shields and Commissioner Kitchens voiced concern that overly strict rules could raise cost and deter tenants, noting some franchise shells have been successfully reused elsewhere in the city.

Several members sought balance. Commissioner Kitchens noted examples where franchise buildings were reused and urged practicality: “When we put too many restrictions on it, we kinda get carried away into this modelesque city that…looks terrible.” Council Member Lovell urged design approaches that increase reuse and longevity for larger multifamily developments, saying a higher standard could improve long‑term appearance and utility.

On metal building façades — a point that has produced many requests for waivers — staff described a three‑tier, administratively managed approach already in place: up to 40% metal allowed by right; up to 75% requires Planning Commission approval; above that goes to City Council. Staff proposed keeping a designated “metal building area” but raising the bar by requiring articulated entries and at least three different materials on primary façades to improve appearance without unduly restricting industrial development.

Single‑family and narrow‑lot housing would see limited new regulation. The draft suggested a cap on garage width — a commonly cited concern — at 50% of the street‑facing façade for lots 60 feet wide and larger, with exceptions for narrower lots. Staff said they will consult the Home Builders Association on those provisions.

Council and commissioners also discussed how the new design rules should interact with incentive requests. Several members suggested tying incentives to higher design standards in the city’s economic development policies; staff and the city attorney said that is a broader topic that should be considered separately so the Planning Commission can focus primarily on land‑use decisions.

Next steps identified by staff: revise the draft code using the feedback from the joint session, meet with the Home Builders Association and other stakeholders, then proceed to formal public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. Amy Nassif said staff will return with a redraft and stakeholder outreach before scheduling the formal review process.

The discussion produced direction rather than formal legislative action; staff will incorporate the council’s and commission’s preferences into the next draft and return for public hearings.