Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel rejects proposal for seasonal inflatable dome at View High Sports Complex
Summary
Lee Summit Planning Commission voted not to recommend approval of a proposed seasonal inflatable dome for the View High Sports Complex after residents raised concerns about height, visual impact and enforcement; staff had recommended a 5-year SUP and conditions.
The Lee Summit Planning Commission on March 12 declined to recommend approval of a proposed seasonal inflatable dome that would cover a previously approved outdoor soccer field at the View High Sports Complex.
The hearing focused on a request tied to application PL2025-249 and a related special-use permit. Applicant Matt Sllish of Engineering Solutions told commissioners the developer reduced the dome’s originally proposed profile several times — from roughly 80 feet down to a structural height of about 59.11 feet and a UDO-calculated height of 53.57 feet — and added thicker materials, extra air handlers and a skylight to reduce snow loads. “We’ve shrunk down the dome…to just under 60 ft of total height,” Sllish said during his presentation.
Senior planner Adair Bright told the commission staff supported mitigation measures but recommended a five-year initial SUP rather than the 20-year term the applicant requested. “Staff would recommend a 5-year initial approval period,” Bright said.
Neighbors who spoke opposed the dome’s scale and location. Lawrence Close, who lives on Northwest Edgewood Trail, urged denial and called the structure “a massive structure, larger than a football field,” saying the dome would be visually incompatible with nearby homes.
Commissioners debated measurement, verification and enforceability. Several asked how the city would confirm the as-built height; Commissioner Chip Tazinski successfully moved an amendment requiring an independent licensed land surveyor to certify the structure’s calculated height as a condition if approved. After the amendment passed, the commission put the underlying motion to recommend approval of the preliminary development plan to a roll-call vote; every commissioner voted no and the recommendation to approve the PDP failed. A separate roll-call vote likewise resulted in a recommendation not to approve the SUP.
The commission’s votes are advisory and the matter will next be available for review at the City Council level along with the full administrative record and public comments.
What’s next: The applicant may revise the application and could return to the commission or proceed to council depending on procedural steps and any new submittals.
