The Leawood governing body on Oct. 9 unanimously approved an ordinance rezoning 34.2 net acres north of College Boulevard and west of State Line Road to an MXD mixed-use development district and approved a preliminary development plan for Holbrook North, a multi‑phase project led by developer VanTrust that names Lockton as the proposed anchor office tenant. The council also approved height deviations and moved forward with establishing a redevelopment (TIF) district and related incentive steps; final incentive agreements will return for later review.

Why it matters: The project is the largest private investment proposed in Leawood to date — roughly $760 million in full build-out as described to the council — and would add a headquarters office campus, 400 residential units, a 145‑room hotel, event space, retail, a daycare and structured parking adjacent to existing Leawood Park. The scale of the plan, and the city’s consideration of tax increment financing, a community improvement district and other incentives, prompted sustained technical review and public comment about traffic and downstream flooding.

City and developer approvals and next steps
The governing body voted 8–0 to approve: (1) deviations for building heights for the proposed headquarters and residential towers; (2) the rezoning and the preliminary development plan submitted as Planning Commission Case No. 73‑25; and (3) the form of a memorandum of understanding (nonbinding) that outlines proposed incentives and a calendar for further hearings. City bond counsel and staff described a path that would bring a formal TIF project plan and related community improvement district (CID) and industrial revenue bond (IRB) actions back to the council for final action at a December public hearing if the schedule holds.

VanTrust and Lockton described the development components and timing. VanTrust said phase 1 would include the headquarters and supporting retail, hotel and residential components; the developer projected breaking ground on the headquarters in 2026 with that phase substantially built out by about 2029–2030. Lockton’s chief marketing officer, Julie Gibson, told the council the firm considers the site “a special site” as it evaluates a long‑term headquarters location.

What’s planned and how it would be built
Planning staff described the overall program and technical requests: the project covers 34.2 net acres and lists roughly 1,482,000 square feet of total building area. The program shown to the council included three large office buildings totaling about 850,000 square feet, two multifamily residential buildings totaling about 500,000 square feet (roughly 400 units, or about 11.8 dwelling units per acre), a 65,000‑square‑foot hotel with 145 rooms, a 10,000‑square‑foot event center (about 280 seats), a 14,000‑square‑foot childcare center, about 16,000 square feet of retail and about 3,673 parking spaces (surface and structured). Building A (the main headquarters) was presented as 12 stories and about 200 feet tall; Building B (future HQ expansion) as eight stories and about 140 feet; the two multifamily towers as 10 stories and about 120 feet. Planning staff said several deviations were requested from the Land Development Ordinance (LDO), including reduced setbacks along State Line Road, a higher floor‑area ratio (FAR) than the base MXD allowance (the project’s raw FAR is about 0.76; the LDO baseline is 0.25 and the applicant requested use of LDO bonuses to reach 0.45), and height deviations.

Traffic and access plans
The applicant’s traffic consultants and the city’s engineers described a multi‑intersection mitigation package tied to site access. Planned off‑site improvements include lengthening eastbound off‑ramp turn lanes at I‑435, installing a new traffic signal at the site drive that aligns with 108th Street, northbound left and southbound right turn lanes on State Line Road at primary site drives, and optimization of signal timing along the corridor. On‑site access includes a main circulation spine between State Line and College Boulevard, secondary lower‑grade roads that provide access to below‑grade structured parking, and restricted (right‑only or three‑quarter) access at some drives to reduce conflict points.

Stormwater and flooding: experts, residents and the city
A major theme of public comment and council questioning was flood risk on the neighborhoods north of I‑435. Several residents who live north of the project described recurring backyard flooding and asked whether Holbrook North would worsen downstream flooding. In response, the developer and city public works staff presented technical findings and consultant reviews.

Public‑works staff said the developer’s engineers proposed an extended dry detention basin in the southwest corner of the site to provide water‑quality treatment for the project’s “first flush” (the consultants described the design objective as capturing and treating a 1.37‑inch water‑quality storm), with amended soils and native vegetation and an approximate 40‑hour drawdown period for that BMP. City stormwater staff explained the central technical point raised by consultants: the Holbrook North site is small relative to the Indian Creek watershed (engineers cited roughly 65 square miles upstream) and the site’s runoff peak occurs minutes after a storm at the site, whereas the watershed peak that produces the larger flooding events comes several hours later. After reviewing analysis prepared by the developer’s consultant (Dr. McEnroe), independent reviewer Water Resource Solutions and county‑contracted Olson Associates, city staff summarized the consensus recommendation: “our recommendation along with 3 different professionals is to not do detention to let the water get to Indian Creek prior to that peak flow coming through.” (David Lay, public works). Staff said the developer’s proposed BMP treats routine water‑quality flows but would not serve as a long‑duration detention facility for 100‑year storms.

Council members and the applicant’s experts acknowledged the neighborhoods north of I‑435 experience chronic ponding and said the city will continue separate, broader drainage studies to evaluate possible downstream fixes. City staff said Olson Associates is updating regional floodplain models and that additional, area‑specific solutions may be developed outside the Holbrook North project scope; staff also said the developer had agreed to BMPs designed to limit short‑term impacts from the site.

Public comment and civic input
About a dozen speakers addressed the council during the Holbrook North hearing. Dozens of other residents attended. Supporters included the Leawood Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Council, whose CEO said the project would broaden the city’s commercial tax base and attract regional employers. Several residents living north of I‑435 and near the downstream berm described repeated backyard flooding and asked for more analysis and possible relief: speakers asked the council to ensure that engineer modeling considered neighborhood drainage, flap gates under I‑435 and how Holbrook North flows would interact with existing culverts. The council and staff committed to further outreach and to share model results with neighborhood stakeholders as county‑level flood studies are completed.

Legal/financial incentives and the approval path
City staff and the city’s bond counsel reviewed a package of incentive tools the developer asked the city to consider. The nonbinding MOU presented to the council describes the developer’s request to pursue: a 20‑year tax‑increment financing (TIF) project area under K.S.A. 12‑1770 (property‑tax increment captured to reimburse eligible infrastructure/site costs); a community improvement district (CID) sales tax (up to 1% proposed in the MOU; state law permits up to 2%); a transient guest tax redirection from within the proposed district for hotel nightly room revenues; and the use of industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) to enable sales‑tax exemptions on construction materials and equipment. Staff and the city’s financial advisor presented cash‑flow models for full build‑out and stressed that the developer proposes pay‑as‑you‑go reimbursement (the developer privately finances construction and is repaid from future captured revenues). City bond counsel and staff emphasized that the city would not underwrite those private financing obligations and that the other taxing jurisdictions (county and school district) have statutory rights to review or object to some TIF steps.

Council votes and schedule
The council approved the height deviations 8–0, adopted the rezoning and preliminary development plan ordinance 8–0, approved the form of the MOU unanimously, and voted to establish the redevelopment/TIF district under K.S.A. 12‑1770 by unanimous ordinance vote. Staff and counsel outlined the next procedural steps and calendar: a Planning Commission review of the TIF project plan (consistency finding) is scheduled for Oct. 28; the council will consider resolutions calling public hearings on the TIF project plan and CID in early November; and the developer and staff aim for a Dec. 15 meeting to hold final public hearings, consider a TIF project plan ordinance and a CID ordinance and adopt a development agreement and a master resolution of intent for IRBs if negotiations conclude.

Quotations from participants
• "I appreciate the process and the rigor that staff has put this project through," said Justin Duff, vice president of development for VanTrust, thanking city staff for their engagement with the team.
• "This is a special site," Julie Gibson, chief marketing officer for Lockton, said as the firm described its interest in locating a long‑term headquarters on the property.
• "Our recommendation along with 3 different professionals is to not do detention to let the water get to Indian Creek prior to that peak flow coming through," said David Lay, who summarized the city and consultants’ stormwater recommendation.

What the council did and did not decide tonight
The council has completed land‑use approvals for this phase by adopting the rezoning, preliminary plan and associated deviations and has approved a nonbinding MOU and the statutory step to create a TIF district. The council did not adopt a final development agreement, a final TIF project plan or a CID ordinance tonight; those documents — which set the legal and financial obligations and any pay‑as‑you‑go reimbursement schedule — will return for separate public hearings and votes, currently targeted for Dec. 15. The city emphasized that the MOU is nonbinding and that final incentive payments will be triggered only after statutory procedures and the execution of a binding development agreement.

What to watch next
• Oct. 28 — Planning Commission consideration of the TIF project plan for a consistency finding.
• Early November — council resolutions calling public hearings on the TIF plan and CID, with public notices and interjurisdictional notifications.
• Dec. 15 — targeted date for public hearings and council votes on the TIF project plan, CID ordinance, a development agreement and related IRB actions, if staff and the developer finalize terms.

The Holbrook North project moves Leawood into a new phase of large‑scale mixed‑use development. The governing body and staff said they would continue to publish model data and outreach materials to neighborhood stakeholders as county flood mapping and city‑led drainage studies are completed.