Leawood council rejects Mission West rezoning after residents cite school, traffic and safety concerns

The Leawood City Council on Monday voted unanimously to deny a rezoning and preliminary development plan known as Mission West, rejecting an applicant request to convert about 22.5 acres at the northwest corner of 135th Street and Mission Road from office zoning to MXD‑4 mixed‑use (4‑story maximum).

Staff described the proposal as 326 multifamily units, roughly 57,000 square feet of retail and 37,000 square feet of office across ten buildings, with underground parking beneath the residential blocks. The applicant’s traffic consultant presented a traffic impact study that concluded the proposed mixed‑use development would produce fewer peak‑hour trips than a comparably sized office project. “If the whole site was developed as office, it would actually generate more traffic than a mixed‑use development,” the traffic engineer said.

But the hearing drew heavy opposition from nearby residents, school representatives and council members who raised concerns about traffic, school access and character. “Four‑story apartments towering over Mission Trail Elementary and drive‑through restaurants next to a school is not appropriate,” said Rachel Rubin, a resident who urged denial under Leawood’s rezoning criteria. Commenters argued the proposal would increase congestion on already busy corridors, bring more vehicle trips past Mission Trail and concentrate dense housing adjacent to an elementary school playground.

The applicant, represented by Patrick Reuter of Clover Architects and legal counsel Curtis Holland, asked the council to remand the application to the Planning Commission for further review; the development team said it would consider revisions and noted staff’s packet included a peer review by Olson and Associates. “There’s a lot here that the planning commission unfortunately didn’t get to hear,” counsel Curtis Holland said, requesting remand to allow more detailed traffic and safety discussion.

Council members cited the so‑called golden rezoning criteria — including neighborhood character and relative gain to public health, safety and welfare — as the touchstones for the decision. Several councilmembers said that while mixed use is allowed by the comprehensive plan for this corridor, the particular configuration (notably the residential towers and multiple drive‑through pads) and the cumulative approvals already pending nearby warranted caution. After extended discussion and public testimony, the council adopted the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the rezoning application and directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.

The denial does not bar the applicant from returning with a revised plan; the LDO provides a six‑month waiting period for resubmittal unless the governing body waives that interval. The developer had asked the council not to impose the waiting period and to allow continued review; the council instead adopted the Planning Commission recommendation to deny at this time and preserve options for revised future filings.