Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legacy Ridge Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lee's Summit Planning Commission recommends denial of 131‑acre Legacy Ridge rezoning

Lee's Summit Planning Commission · January 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of testimony and commissioner questioning about traffic, infrastructure and density, the Lee's Summit Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of PL 2025‑079 (Legacy Ridge), a proposed 131‑acre rezoning and development by Griffin Riley Property Group. The commission cited concerns about a conceptual apartment component and Hook Road upgrades.

The Lee's Summit Planning Commission on Jan. 8 recommended denial of PL 2025‑079, a 131‑acre rezoning and development application called Legacy Ridge from Griffin Riley Property Group, after a lengthy public hearing and deliberation.

The motion to recommend denial passed on a roll‑call recommendation. Commissioners cited concerns about the proposed conceptual apartment area at the Ward Road/Hook Road node, traffic and road‑improvement obligations under the city's unimproved‑road policy, and the requested reductions in minimum lot sizes.

The application would have rezoned roughly 131 acres at 815 Southwest Hook Road from agricultural to a mix of RP‑1 (planned single‑family), RP‑4 (planned apartment/umbrella residential) and CP‑2 (commercial). The developer proposed a phased plan that included owner‑occupied single‑family pods A and B, a smaller single‑family Pod C, townhomes, active‑adult villas, and a conceptual 300‑unit apartment component. Staff summarized the full proposal as including about 738 dwelling units if the conceptual apartment area were later developed, and roughly 66,000 square feet of commercial space at the corner.

Hector So to Jr, the city's senior planner, told commissioners staff's recommendation included six conditions of approval and emphasized that the conceptual apartment piece would require a separate preliminary development plan and subsequent public hearings. "Approval of a conceptual development plan does not constitute approval of a preliminary development plan," he said in staff remarks, underscoring that apartments are not automatically entitled by the conceptual designation.

Despite that distinction, multiple commissioners and residents said the conceptual apartment area effectively pre‑positions the site for multifamily development. Resident Bridal Williard, who lives on Hook Road, told the commission: "Nobody is on board with this plan. Nobody likes it," arguing the apartments and commercial corner would not fit the long‑standing acreage character of the surrounding neighborhoods and would worsen existing traffic congestion on Ward and Hook.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on Highway 291 interchange plans, Hook Road upgrades and the city's unimproved‑road policy. City traffic engineer Susan Berry explained the policy's interim standard — 12‑foot travel lanes with 6‑foot paved shoulders — applies to certain residential scenarios until traffic volumes reach a threshold, while commercial development typically triggers a higher urban standard. Commissioners asked how and when the traffic threshold would be monitored; Berry explained the city uses periodic tube and radar counts as part of a monitoring program.

Applicant representative Matt Tapp said single‑family pods A and B were intended for sale and that the active‑adult villas and townhomes would be for rent in the developer's view. Tapp also asked the commission to accept interim improvements on the north side of Hook Road to preserve a "blank canvas" for future development, arguing full urban upgrades on both sides would be cost‑prohibitive for early phases.

Public testimony focused on traffic, stormwater and neighborhood character. Several speakers asked the city not to transfer existing detention basins to an HOA; downstream property owners worried about long‑term maintenance. The city's development engineering manager said the developer must bring basins to current design standards and new BMP inspection requirements will require annual inspections once ownership changes.

Commission discussion repeatedly returned to the apartment/conceptual area and density. Commissioner Randy Bembrooke, who moved the recommendation to deny, said: "There is a place in Lee's Summit for this development and I don't believe it's here," pointing to the intersection's capacity and the presence of acreage properties adjoining the site. The motion carried by roll call.

Votes at a glance: The commission's recommendation to deny PL 2025‑079 passed on a roll‑call recommendation with the following recorded votes: Ed Yerington — yes; Terry Trafton — yes; Dana Arth — yes; Jessica Grenell — yes; Tanya Johnaford — yes; Chip Tazinski — yes; Randy Bembrooke — yes. The recommendation is advisory to City Council, which will take the final decision.

What was proposed: The Legacy Ridge application included requests for two modifications to minimum lot sizes (allowing narrower lots and slightly smaller minimum lot areas in parts of the RP‑1 and RP‑4 parcels), a preliminary development plan for phased single‑family, townhome and active‑adult portions, and a conceptual development plan showing 300 apartment units on 17 acres. Staff emphasized the conceptual apartment area would require a later separate preliminary development plan and public hearings before entitlements could be granted.

Next steps: The Planning Commission's recommendation now goes to Lee's Summit City Council for final action. City staff and the applicant indicated they would continue conversations after the meeting to resolve infrastructure and phasing questions raised by commissioners and the public.

Reporting note: All direct quotes and vote tallies are taken from the public meeting record of the Jan. 8, 2026 Planning Commission hearing on PL 2025‑079; at the hearing speakers repeated that the apartment piece shown on the conceptual plan would require separate entitlements in the future.