Council advances Chapter 100 plan for Montage parcel as developer outlines mixed‑use buildout

The Lee’s Summit City Council advanced first reading of an ordinance approving a Chapter 100 plan for the Montage project on an 8‑0 vote Tuesday, a step city and developer representatives said is intended to provide tax‑certainty needed to fund roughly $3.6 million in public infrastructure for the parcel and to spur the wider Lee’s Summit Crossing master development.

City officials and the project team framed the Chapter 100 request as a limited, targeted tool to enable the developer to build critical streets, water and storm utilities that would also open surrounding land for private development. The council motion to advance the ordinance was made by Councilmember Raider and seconded by Councilmember Shields; the vote was recorded as unanimous.

The Montage parcel is part of the larger Lee’s Summit Crossing master plan. Developer representatives said the 54‑acre Montage portion includes two rental housing products (townhomes and single‑story “courtyard villas” marketed toward older adults) and that the public improvements tied to the Chapter 100 request run the length of the project’s “handle,” delivering a new north–south arterial, sidewalks and utility mains that will serve commercial development to the west and residences to the east.

Kurt Peterson, representing 635 Holdings (the project’s master developer), summarized the status of the broader master plan and the Montage request: “Tonight we would give you a brief update and status report because that’s what you deserve,” he said, and then described two new commercial users under letter‑of‑intent: LOOKS (a combined brewery/restaurant/bakery concept) proposed for the 291/150 hard corner, and Under Par Life, a golf‑oriented entertainment and food‑and‑beverage operator seeking roughly 15 acres in the northern commercial area.

Peterson said the LOOKS arrangement envisions the developer advancing an estimated $3 million in public infrastructure for the corner and providing approximately $1.5 million up front to the tenant, to be repaid over time through incentives. Under Par Life would participate on a ground‑lease structure and receive up to $5 million in support over time, Peterson said; he emphasized most of that sum is associated with public infrastructure the tenant would help finance or construct.

City staff told council the specific Chapter 100 request before them is limited to the Montage parcel’s pilot structure and sales tax exemption related to construction materials; other incentive documents (a TIF plan, CID and TDD petitions) for the larger master plan remain under review and would return to council separately. Assistant City Manager Ryan Elam confirmed the developer had submitted draft TIF materials to staff for review but that those documents were not yet finalized.

Finance and planning staff and the developer provided several numbers to council during the presentation and Q&A: the Montage portion’s construction cost was described as about $51 million with a total project investment (including land and soft costs) “over $60 million,” and the developer proposed a fixed per‑unit pilot payment of $2,776 per door with a biennial 3% inflator for the Montage residential units. Peterson told council that, under the proposed schedule, taxes paid during the 10‑year pilot would be in the range of roughly $407,000–$501,000 annually (depending on build‑out timing), and that the sales‑tax exemption on construction materials would lower the effective infrastructure cost to the developer.

Councilmembers asked detail‑level questions about phasing, whether the developer’s anchors are corporate or franchised, the nature of the stormwater basins on the Montage plan, and timing for documentation and permits. City staff and the developer said the developer’s two announced anchors were corporate concepts (not franchises), that the basins shown on the approved preliminary development plan are detention basins (designed with gradual slopes rather than vertical drop faces), and that final development plans and related site engineering will be reviewed during later land‑use approvals.

Council discussion before the vote noted persistent concerns (including whether the senior‑targeted units should be deed‑restricted as 55+ product) but also acknowledged the developer had increased the proposed pilot to a level that staff and some members described as closer to what the typical tax yield would have been without a Chapter 100 arrangement. Several councilmembers said the amount of public infrastructure expected to be delivered for the Mosaic/Montage site—relative to the Chapter 100 benefit—represented strong public value.

Votes at a glance: the council recorded multiple procedural and adoption votes during the meeting. Key items tied to tonight’s discussions included: 1) Bill 25‑011, “An ordinance approving a Chapter 100 plan for the Montage project” — advanced to second reading (motion: Councilmember Raider; second: Councilmember Shields). Vote: 8‑0 (yes: Rader, Pryor, Lebel, Shields, Hodges, Lopez, Carlisle, Mayor Baird). Outcome: advanced to second reading (second reading scheduled for Feb. 4). Other bills advanced or adopted during the meeting (all unanimous 8‑0 unless noted): Bill 25‑012 (amend Chapter 17 — public safety/controlled harvest of wildlife) — adopted; Bill 25‑013 (Wilson & Co. sole‑source engineering agreement, Remington Woods stormwater project) — adopted; Bill 25‑014 (MoDOT block grant amendment, airport terminal design) — adopted; Bill 25‑015 (OATS transportation services amendment) — adopted; Bill 25‑016 (nonexclusive easement with Little Blue Valley Sewer District) — adopted; Bill 25‑017 (budget amendment No. 4 FY2025) — adopted; Bill 25‑018 (Jackson County poll contracts for 2025) — adopted; Bill 25‑019 (purchase of Glock firearms for police) — adopted; Bill 25‑020 (purchase of portable barrier trailers and training) — adopted. Several plat approvals and development‑related ordinances were moved to second reading for later adoption.

Why it matters: Developer representatives and staff said the package of public infrastructure and targeted incentives is intended to unlock commercial and residential development across an 85‑acre master plan area and to deliver rooftops that make retail and restaurants viable. Council members flagged still‑outstanding questions they expect to examine at later hearings — final TIF/CID/TDD documents, detailed infrastructure funding agreements, site elevations and the final detention/retention design — but a unanimous procedural vote Tuesday keeps the Montage Chapter 100 plan on track for a second reading and further negotiations.

What’s next: The council will receive the second reading of the Chapter 100 ordinance at a subsequent meeting (Feb. 4 was referenced), and staff told council that remaining incentive documents (TIF plan, CID petition, TDD petition) and final development plans for other parcels in the master plan will return for separate hearings and approvals.