The 22-acre office, commercial and residential Mission West development on 135th Street received another setback Monday, this time from the Leawood City Council.
Developer Rick Oddo and Klover Architects had asked the city council for a second chance to appear at the planning commission after the commission rejected it on Oct. 28. Instead, a unanimous city council flatly turned down the request to remand and denied rezoning from office to mixed use with a four-story maximum. Oddo must now wait six months to bring another plan to the table, unless the city council agrees to waive that rule.
With some councilmembers expressing frustration and a little anger, the vote for denial was unanimous. The majority said the development team had not done enough to ease their concerns about the impact of the added density on traffic and the nearby Mission Trails Elementary school.
Mission West is a 471,000-square-foot development on the northwest corner of Mission Road and 135th Street. The project would consist of 10 buildings, with 57,000 square feet in retail, 37,000 square feet in office and 377,078 square feet used for 326 residential units.
Although the area is zoned for office use now, future planning envisions it as mixed use, staff members said.
The developer had asked the city council to return the question to the planning commission because audio problems prevented their traffic expert, who was appearing remotely, from being heard at the most recent planning meeting.
The development team had also argued that their proposal was similar and in some ways better than the Oxford Promenade, another Oddo project to the south that the city already approved. Lawyer Curtis Holland, representing the developer, said given the future planning for the 135th Street corridor, and a lack of demand for office space, Mission West deserved consideration.
The mixed-use plan meets all the development standards, and would create less traffic than if office space was built there, Holland said. “We don’t think it’s fair to say we shouldn’t have anything developed here because it’s going to generate traffic along 133rd Street,” he said, noting that any type of development will generate traffic.
Leawood worried about the impact on a nearby school
But the impact on the school remained a central issue. Several speakers mentioned that the four-story apartment buildings would look down on the school playground.
Eight members of the public spoke against the development, and councilmembers referred to numerous emails they received ahead of the meeting. Rob Groves called the project an “attractive nuisance” because it will attract more people. “So how are we going to think about having the school entity right next door to two blocks of four-story towers with patios and bars and who knows what else?” he said.
Groves urged the city council to “scrap it completely,” to scattered applause.
Steven Durr echoed that. “You all read the newspaper. We all know that Leawood is not immune to society’s ills,” he said. “Unfortunately we live in a world with human trafficking, pedophiles, active shooters. I look at this and go, why in the world would anybody ever consider a four-story apartment building overlooking the Mission Trails playground?”
The possible danger to school kids was also a reason Councilmember Chuck Sipple gave for his no vote. He said the city would be “playing with fire” by putting that type of development close to a school, where kids could get into trouble playing around the water detention ponds or at the underground parking garages.
“Bad things could happen out there, and with that many people looking down on a playground of kids, it kind of makes me nervous,” Sipple said.
Some speakers were also concerned about traffic near the school in an area that would house more shoppers, office workers and residents. The development team pointed to a sidewalk plan and signals designed to provide pedestrians protection.
Two other speakers said the city should consider single-family homes along the 135th Street corridor, since demand for them has outpaced supply.
“What’s fair to the residents?”
Councilmember Julie Cain was outspokenly critical of the project, launching into an 18-minute speech as the city council wrapped up its consideration of the issue. She mentioned the speakers and the “absolute flood” of emails opposing the development plans.
“Your last comment that this is not fair just stabbed me in the heart,” she said, referring to Holland’s comment. “What’s fair to the residents? That’s my question. What’s fair to the residents, what’s fair to our school children?”
“I implore my colleagues here to not remand it. I implore them to deny this application,” she said, adding that more energy should be put into finding a better development of the land.
The East Village, a controversial Oddo development of 116 acres at West 133rd Street and Pawnee Lane, also came up, as council members discussed their unease at large apartment projects in Leawood, Overland Park and elsewhere.
The East Village project “stretched the boundaries of density,” said Councilmember Debra Filla. She and others advised the city to pause and consider how those types of developments affect the area before moving ahead with more.
Councilmember Mary Larson said she liked some aspects of the Mission West plan, such as the green space and underground parking, but still voted against it because of proximity to the school and a concern that the city is on a path for overdevelopment.
