Lee’s Summit council approves Oldham Village rezoning, CID and TIF after hours of public comment

LEE'S SUMMIT, Mo. — The Lee's Summit City Council on Jan. 13 adopted a series of ordinances and resolutions that clear the way for the Oldham Village mixed‑use development at the southwest intersection of U.S. 50 and M‑291.

The council approved the Oldham Village Phase 1 preliminary development plan, a rezoning and preliminary plan for Phase 2, the project’s tax‑increment financing (TIF) plan, a petition to form a community improvement district (CID) and a redevelopment plan under the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA). Council votes on the cluster of items were recorded between 6–1 and unanimous depending on the measure.

The measures together set the zoning, public‑finance framework and redevelopment authority needed for the private developer and city to negotiate specific project agreements.

Why it matters: Council approval gives the developer the land‑use entitlements and a path to seek public financing (TIF and CID) to reimburse eligible project costs. Opponents urged the council to reconsider which properties would be included in the CID boundaries and pressed for guardrails on how public funds would be used.

Public comment and council discussion: During the meeting multiple people spoke against including Hy‑Vee and Hy‑Vee customers inside the CID boundaries. Alex Burns, a Hy‑Vee representative, said the proposal as presented ‘‘seems to prioritize private development interests’’ and urged the council to ‘‘pause and reassess’’ and to remove Hy‑Vee from the CID boundary. Christine Bushehead, speaking on behalf of Hy‑Vee, told the council she was concerned that the city had moved to first reading of the regional CID ordinance without a city staff report analyzing the requested incentives. Rob Waddle, another Hy‑Vee representative, described the third‑street interchange improvements as a recent addition to the plan and said Hy‑Vee customers alone were being included at that intersection while nearby competitors were not.

Developer representatives and staff responded that the project and the financing tools are structured to allow particular public improvements and to be flexible to accommodate market‑driven tenant mixes. During deliberations the council directed staff and the developer to include a limit on drive‑through uses as part of subsequent contract negotiations; councilmembers indicated they would seek a cap (council guidance discussed was seven drive‑through lanes maximum) to be negotiated and recorded in the TIF/CID agreements rather than as a change to the zoning approvals.

Votes at a glance - Substitute bill 25‑001 (special use permit for a concrete batch plant at 2250 NW Quarry Road): adopted (motion by Councilmember Rader, second by Councilmember Shields). Tally: 6 yes, 1 no. (Outcome: approved.) - Bill 25‑002 (Oldham Village Phase 1 preliminary development plan): adopted (motion by Councilmember Shields, second by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez). Tally: 7 yes, 0 no. (Outcome: approved.) - Bill 25‑003 (rezoning to Planned Mixed‑Use and Phase 2 preliminary development plan): adopted (motion by Councilmember Shields, second by Councilmember Hodges). Tally: 7 yes, 0 no. (Outcome: approved.) - Bill 25‑004 (approval of Oldham Village TIF plan): adopted (motion by Councilmember Pryor, second by Councilmember Hodges). Tally: unanimous. (Outcome: approved.) - Bill 25‑009 (petition to establish Oldham Village Community Improvement District): adopted (motion by Councilmember Hodges, second by Councilmember Shields). Tally: 6 yes, 1 no. (Outcome: approved.) - Bill 25‑010 (approval of the LCRA redevelopment plan for the Oldham Village project): adopted (motion by Councilmember Carlisle, second by Councilmember Shields). Tally: unanimous. (Outcome: approved.) - Resolution (supporting formation of a Transportation Development District related to Oldham Village): adopted (motion by Councilmember Shields, second by Councilmember Hodges). Tally: unanimous. (Outcome: approved.)

Contract and implementation next steps: The council approved the land‑use entitlements and TIF plan but directed staff to proceed to negotiate the specific TIF/CID contract language with the developer. City staff told the council the contract negotiations will address how project‑related public improvements (including interchange changes at Third Street and U.S. 50) are reimbursed and whether the developer will accept limits on the number and placement of drive‑through uses. City legal staff and the developer indicated that final contractual terms and any developer reimbursement schedule would be negotiated and returned to the council for approval.

Who spoke: Citizens and business representatives who testified during public comment included Hy‑Vee employees and representatives (Alex Burns; Christine Bushehead; Rob Waddle), who urged removing Hy‑Vee property from the CID; Dale Mitchell, a resident who raised questions about the interchange design and timing; and developer and project representatives who answered council questions during deliberations. Several council members said they favored completing contract negotiations rather than reopening the zoning approvals. Councilmembers used the formal roll‑call votes to finalize each ordinance.

What remains unresolved: The CID and TIF create mechanisms for public reimbursement of certain project costs but do not themselves finalize a contract for payments. The council’s action authorized staff to negotiate agreements; those contracts — which will state the legally enforceable reimbursement schedule, eligible costs and limitations — must be approved in future council action. Opponents who asked for Hy‑Vee to be removed from the district were told by city counsel that petition boundaries and petition terms cannot be altered mid‑vote without following the formal amendment process; the council did not change the petition boundaries at the Jan. 13 meeting.

Ending note: City staff said contract negotiations and final documents will be forthcoming to the council, and that project implementation will require coordination across city departments, state transportation officials for interchange work, and the developer’s financing partners.