Planning commission recommends rezoning for View High sports complex amid traffic, noise and lighting concerns

The Lee's Summit Planning Commission recommended approval Jan. 23 of a rezoning and preliminary development plan to allow the proposed View High Sports Complex on about 17.18 acres east of Northwest View High Drive and north of Northwest Ashurst Drive.

The commission's recommendation moves the applicant's rezoning request from agricultural (AG) to CP-2 (planned community commercial) to City Council for final action. The proposal calls for a multi-sport indoor facility with courts and an indoor soccer field, outdoor fields and five outdoor pickleball courts, plus a conceptual 2-acre commercial parcel on the site north of the Summit Church parking lot.

Staff said the application is consistent with the Ignite comprehensive plan and noted the packet included a parking justification and a traffic-impact study. Adair Bright, Senior Planner, told commissioners staff reviewed a parking memo that suggested a peak demand calculation and compared it with the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation manual; staff accepted the applicant's shared-parking arrangement with Summit Church.

Applicant Matt Slish of Engineering Solutions described the project as a regional sports complex with a mix of indoor and outdoor courts, sports medicine and office space. "It's a full sports facility that can handle every one of the sports activities that we're currently needing space for in the city," Slish said, outlining a layout that the team designed to put potentially noisier uses away from the nearest homes and to preserve existing tree buffers.

Neighbors pressed commissioners and staff on traffic, noise and lighting. Brad Allen, who said he lives on Northwest Timberwoods Trail, asked for additional traffic study work and an acoustical analysis for the pickleball courts, arguing that local experience shows noise can travel farther than estimates. "A qualified acoustical engineer would a study by acoustical engineer would probably provide better insight about what those decibel levels would be," Allen told the commission.

Other commenters echoed concerns over cars cutting through the Edgewood subdivision, late-night lighting and the visual effect of a large building near homes. Doug Hay, who said his property backs to the site, said outdoor activity would affect sleep for people whose bedrooms face the fields: "I'm gonna have to hear that every night and every day whether I go out and try to enjoy with my family on my back patio or my back screened in porch," he said.

Applicant and staff responses

Slish said the project will retain most of the existing vegetation on the south and east property lines and add trees and shrubs to buffer the site. He described distances staff and the applicant used for noise calculations: the outdoor soccer field is roughly 310 feet from the back property line and the outdoor pickleball courts about 570 feet, which Slish said reduces expected decibel levels at the property line below the city's 55-decibel standard even before landscaping is accounted for. He also said lighting will be designed to meet UDO limits and required foot-candle standards at property lines.

Adair Bright confirmed staff will require a lighting plan at final development plan review and said staff supports two requested modifications: allowing preserved mature vegetation in lieu of a masonry wall or vinyl fence for the high-impact buffer along south and east property lines, and allowing more architectural metal paneling than the UDO standard, subject to a design review. Bright said staff reviewed the parking memo and agreed with the applicant's methodology.

Traffic

City traffic engineer Susan Berry described the traffic analysis: counts used PM peak and Saturday peak periods, and the consultant modeled trip distribution that estimated about 75% of traffic would head north toward I-470, with the remainder distributed to local streets. Berry said the study did not treat Sunday or rare peak special-event periods as the baseline; it focused on typical weekday PM and Saturday peaks. The study identifies road improvements and turning lanes at nearby intersections; staff listed sidewalks and a 10-foot shared-use path along View High Drive frontage as recommended improvements.

Modifications asked and commission action

The applicant formally requested modifications to UDO requirements for screening/buffers and for the allowed percentage of architectural metal panels. Commissioners heard from multiple neighbors and asked detailed questions about the noise assumptions, the route drivers would take to and from the site, how shared parking with Summit Church would work and how lighting at the site has been enforced at the existing church (a neighbor said church lighting had exceeded approved photometrics).

After discussion, Commissioner Connie Frazier moved to recommend approval of application PL2024-283 (rezoning from AG to CP-2 and preliminary development plan for the View High Sports Complex); the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval (Yes: Carrie Frazier; Greg Lovelace; Dana Arth; Donnie Funk; Terry Trafton; Tanya Jonaford; Chip Tuszynski; Randy Bembrooke). The motion will be forwarded to City Council for final consideration.

What remains

Commissioners and staff flagged follow-up steps: final development plan review will include a detailed lighting/photometric plan, the traffic study's recommended intersection improvements and sidewalk/shared-use-path construction will be carried into engineering approvals, and staff encouraged residents to report lighting or code concerns so enforcement staff can investigate. Several commissioners also suggested the applicant continue to explore additional sound mitigation near the outdoor courts (screening, plantings and orientation of spectator areas) and to consider operating-hour limitations if ongoing problems arise.

Technical notes and inconsistencies in the public record

Documents in the staff packet and statements in the public hearing show inconsistent building-area figures: one staff summary listed the proposed building area as about 164,000 square feet, while another staff comment in the record referred to about 64,000 square feet. The applicant described interior court areas in square-foot terms (for example, discussing roughly 50,000 square feet of court space plus additional internal space). The packet and final plans at the City Council stage should be used to confirm the building area.

Votes at a glance: View High Sports Complex

- Motion: Recommend approval of rezoning (AG → CP-2) and preliminary development plan for View High Sports Complex (application PL2024-283). Mover: Commissioner Connie Frazier. Second: not specified on the record. Outcome: recommended for approval (unanimous).