Leawood deserves better!

Leawood Neighborhoods Are Opposed to the Cameron's Court Development Plan.

We are a group of concerned Leawood residents that oppose this high-density plan with no public amenities.

Letters From Concerned Residents

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Good morning, I hope all is well in our fine city. I am writing this morning to once again request that this body deny the Cameron’s Court project when it comes to a vote on 12/6/21.

Before I jump into the “why,” I’d like to let you know that I come to this discussion well informed. I have attended every meeting with the city, my neighbo

Good morning, I hope all is well in our fine city. I am writing this morning to once again request that this body deny the Cameron’s Court project when it comes to a vote on 12/6/21.

Before I jump into the “why,” I’d like to let you know that I come to this discussion well informed. I have attended every meeting with the city, my neighbors, and the applicant on this topic over the past ~20 months. I was selected (along with another) to represent Wilshire Place in the recent meetings at City Hall with Mr. Lambers and the applicant’s team. I state this simply to attempt to stand out from what I imagine is a mountain of opposition messages you are getting on this topic.

Meetings with the City/Residents/Applicant

I attended both recent meetings with the applicant and the city and would like to offer my perspective on what transpired as I am certain that the applicant will stand up and tell you that they did everything we asked for. I know that because he attempted that line on us in the meeting.

I have also seen correspondence from the applicant’s counsel to this body stating that the meetings were “very productive” while touting the reduction of apartments and the addition of the 3.5-acre pond/park that will be “open to the public.”

When I think about the term "productive" I think in terms of end results. In my view, the meetings were useful rather than productive. They were useful meetings in so far as we heard the applicant say two things that we had already believed but had never heard him say before:

1. Applicant is designing Cameron's Court and its features for the benefit of his Cameron's Court residents

If outsiders get some benefit from anything in Cameron's Court, that's a happy coincidence. But Cameron's Court has not been and will not be designed with the purpose of providing benefit to outsiders. The applicant’s team made it crystal clear that while we could stop by it was designed and intended for Cameron’s Court residents; and

2. The plan on the table now is the lowest population/density plan the applicant is prepared to create

In terms of the current 846 residential units in the plan, it greatly exceeds the original 662 residential units in the August 2020 plan presented to the Planning Commission. When that was denied in January of 2021, somehow (despite feedback to the contrary), we got a much denser plan.

Later he said he increased the density because of the City's requirement that he create a grid-like street system which added substantial cost to his project and necessitated increased density as a result. At the meeting on November 4, in a sincere effort to work together a resident asked why the city insisted on a grid-like street system for a residential development given it has been said to have added costs and density to the project. I then followed up by asking the applicant if they could reduce the project's density if the city removed the grid-like street system requirement.

This was the first real opportunity for all three parties at the table working to find an acceptable solution (per Mr. Osman’s comments).

Applicant said, "No. I am at my floor on density.”

This told me that the increase in density after August 2020 was not due to the grid-like street system. I asked the applicant if he had driven down my street lately (High Dr) to which he responded yes. I told him that this minor adjustment was not going to be near enough to make the 100+ NO On Cameron’s Court signs go away. At that point, the meeting was effectively over.

Unfortunately, this made it clear to me that this was a check-the-box for the applicant’s team and that their only goal was to be able to come back to this body and tell you that they listened to everything we asked for and incorporated it. Feel free to reach out to me and I would be happy to point you to several attendees who can validate my comments as there were no minutes being taken that I am aware of.

*Additional note here regarding the scheduling/organization of the meeting – The process was less than ideal. A neighbor from Waterford (Rachel) really took the lead by reaching out to the applicant and team after the last GB meeting offering an olive branch to begin the dialogue that this body asked for. She put a cross-neighborhood group together that was organized and prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue with the city and the applicant. Rachel had folks from Greenbriar, Wilshire Place, Waterford, Leawood South Townhomes in a group of 8-10 that began meeting to lay out the requests of the surrounding neighbors. When she offered that list of names to Mr. Holland (at his request), things stalled out a bit and we began to hear about the applicant reaching out to HOA presidents (one of whom is related to the applicant). After a bit of a lull in communication with the group, suddenly we get a list from Mr. Holland (10/20/21 12:52 pm) indicating additional names that wanted to attend and telling us that we had to settle on who the 8 were. Rachel was left off his list and replaced with John and Dennis.

As it turns out, John and Dennis were strongly opposed to the platform for many of the reasons below which I’m sure they will speak to at the 12/6/21 meeting.

Why we (actually) continue to Oppose

To listen to the applicant and team tell it, we don’t know what we want (whack-a-mole) and they have done nearly everything possible to work with neighbors. Instead of debating that fallacy, I would like to lay out the facts based on ~20 months of involvement and consistent feedback from surrounding neighborhoods:

Too Dense

The city of Leawood currently has just under 34K people spread across 9664 acres. That works out to 3.5 ppl/acre. Per the city’s calculations, Cameron’s Court will house 2,300 people almost entirely on the 64 acres to the west of the church property. That works out to be almost 36ppl/acre OR 10X the average density of our current city. We can quibble over units/acre, but this data point drives it home for me. Density drives traffic and this places a city within a city at my doorstep.

Cameron’s Court Is Not Mixed Use

The project is not Mixed Use. This body recognized this when they denied it last time. There have been no efforts in the current iteration to change that. Jan4_21_GB Minutes

Not enough green space/attractions

They added a 3.5-acre park/pond in the current iteration which was progress. Where they failed in my opinion is that they have it completely walled off to their residents by the surrounding buildings. Another check-the-box and hope for the best vs thoughtful planning. The applicant made it clear that this park is for his property and residents in our meeting. One of the residents in the 2nd meeting with the city and applicant went so far as to re-imagine the space in a way that would be exciting. The silence was deafening until the applicant said it wouldn’t work. So much for real effort.

Traffic study is deeply flawed

Density drives traffic and our neighborhoods already have a traffic problem. I am not a traffic engineer, but I don’t think it takes one to see that a study which doesn’t contemplate traffic on the major neighbor streets isn’t valid here. I’m certain many of my neighbors will be better equipped to talk about this issue but it is a major one. Again, driven by density. In the last meeting with the city and the applicant, the applicant essentially said that he can’t be responsible for traffic and that we should take it up with the city.

Sets a Bad Precedent

After studying this, I am convinced that the applicant builds relatively quality dwellings. My concern is the slippery slope of where it goes from here. If this is approved, we all know that the next project will use these numbers against the city to build this again at the corner of 133rd and Mission across from Mission Trail and Price Chopper. When they do that, what assurances will Wilshire, Bridgewood, etc. have that the next one isn’t lower quality? If this gets approved, the die is cast.

Cameron’s Court Takes but Gives Little Back

There is zero draw to this project for those who don’t live there. Zero. In meeting with folks in my neighborhood, some were open to some of the density if there were a draw. As it stands now, I can’t think of a reason that I would go over there. I’m sure we will all hear more about Chadwick Greenway at the meeting and all about the car shows and programming that nobody wants in that 0.9-acre space. If/when that “programming” takes shape, my guess is we will have people parking on our streets to attend given the lack of parking over there.

This body has already voted this down

On 1/4/21, this body voted down 8-0 a plan that contemplated 662 multi-family units and 54 single-family homes for a total of 716 residential units. Ill note that the plan in front of you has 843 residential units in it for an increase of 127 units over the plan you denied earlier this year. Interestingly when I went back and read the minutes from 1/4/21, your 8-0 vote to deny was based on many of the same issues I outline above. This is not distinctly Leawood in any way and your constituents are speaking up.

In conclusion, thank you for your time on this. Through my involvement with this I have gained a new appreciation for what each of you do. I realize you are trying to balance the needs of residents and of the city while trying to find good economic opportunities to grow the tax base. The good news is that you represent Leawood. This is a city that stands out among others in the community and should continue to demand excellence.

Thanks again, see you 12/6.

Jeff

Show Less

Letter #2

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Councilmembers & Mayor Dunn, Please accept this note as my formal, written request to deny the Developer's Application for the Cameron's Court proposal, Case #4920, during the upcoming October 4th meeting of the Governing Body. While I do not agree with Chairman Elkins' vote on this matter, I completely agree with his on the record comme

However, despite a chorus of public comments about the projects density, and it's impact on all the families currently living in the surrounding area, I am concerned that the Council will approve the plan anyway. In that event, please include the following stipulations to your vote for approval...

1) Make the Developer Pay All Fees, Taxes, Etc. as currently required...during the 9/14 Commission Meeting, the Developer requested that roughly $2mm in fees required by the City be waived. - The City "needing" revenue has been a big topic for discussion in this process, please do not agree to anything that lessens the revenue. The applicant stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars on this project, he can pay the fees that go with it.

2) Make the Developer Connect The South Leawood Bike Loop to the proposed Cameron's Court Trail/Path System. - The City has gone to great time and expense to develop this project. The Developer's plan, right now, is going to destroy a portion of what was just completed along 133rd...it would be common courtesy to repair, replace and reconnect it. Please require this courtesy.

3) Keep the "Joint & Several" Liability Language as is...the Developer tried to convince the Planning Commission to let him "off the hook" to the "Several" portion of this language, because he does not want to pay in the event that their are no pockets as deep as his to be "jointly" liable for ongoing expenses, etc. Again, this language is there to protect the community's best interest, please do not vote to alter it.

4) Permanently Restrict all uses on the Eastern Land along State Line Rd., Phases 5 & 6 of the Cameron's Court Proposal, based upon the ratios provided in the existing proposal, and requiring that those ratios being proposed by the Applicant be met by any and all future or alternative developers that may acquire that land, in perpetuity. - Many residents have expressed concern that the commercial portion of the project, that is being used to justify all the apartments, may never be developed as proposed. If the City would restrict the land usage for this portion of the project, at least we know that when the land gets developed, it would be developed in a way that jibes with the math we are being sold now.

5) Require the Applicant, per City Guidance, to widen 135th Street between Pawnee Ln. and State Line Rd. to 6 Lanes, from an existing 4 lanes, at the Applicant's expense. All of the stipulations above are reasonable, and in the best interest of the City as a whole, and all of it's residents. In the event that you vote with the Developer, despite concerns of the impacted Leawood Residents, please help us make the best of a bad situation by including all of the stipulations above. There is no reasonable justification for the City to approve the plan without all of these stipulations.

Proud to Live, Work, and Play in Leawood,

Show Less

Letter #3

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #3

REASONS TO DENY CAMERON’S COURT

TRAFFIC

The flawed traffic study was conducted during June 2020 COVID lockdown. It has been amended multiple times but is still based on faulty numbers. Almost 100% of public comments have included traffic concerns.

PUBLIC OUTCRY

Hundreds and hundreds of residents have taken their time to e-mail and spea

REASONS TO DENY CAMERON’S COURT

TRAFFIC

PUBLIC OUTCRY

Hundreds and hundreds of residents have taken their time to e-mail and speak raising a multitude of concerns. You’ve read them all, please don’t turn your back on us!

FEASIBILITY

COVID has changed everything! RCLCO feasibility study from June 2019 is out of date with post Covid trends in both residential and retail. In fact RCLCO now has this on their website: “ The urban neighborhoods with the greatest occupancy rate declines were similarly the ones where many residents were likely affluent renters by choice - meaning they could easily afford to relocate or buy when having more space and greater privacy during the pandemic became an overnight priority.”

BIKE LANES

FACT: 80% of the South Leawood loop bike lanes between Pawnee and High Drive will be lost. Ask the Leawood bike/walk committee to explain the numbers to you. You cannot just count the “short street entrances” as Mr. Oddo claims - the tapers and turn lanes eliminate the marked lanes and must be included in the loss.

SAFETY

The safety of current residents along 133rd is already a concern. There are NO sidewalks on the north side of 133rd from High Drive east to Kenneth. There are NO crosswalks From Mission to State Line. These facts with so many walkers/joggers/bikers will turn from a concern to a hazard with QuikTrip traffic in January, let alone a possible Cameron’s Court.

SCHOOLS

We have not been shown any CURRENT 2021 correspondence with BlueValley schools on the UPDATED plat and density.

DENSITY/DYNAMICS

Talk about changing dynamics! Wilshire Place -172 homes, Greenbrier - 98 homes, Enclave at Cedar Pointe - 24 homes = 294 residences Current Cameron’s Court = 1,035 total units

LACK OF SUPPORT

The huge packet contains hundreds of e-mails yet support of any kind is almost non-existent. It seems those that have supported are adjacent vacant landowners, relatives, and a few renters from other Oddo properties.

OPTICS

After denial on 7/23 of 4-1 from planning commission, the sudden change to a 4-3 passage on 9/14 is suspect! Yes, there were changes made to the plat, but those changes included a fast food drive thru (causing Enclave at Cedar Point to strongly oppose) plus the confirmation of QuikTrip at 133rd and State Line should have raised huge concern for traffic in that area. Public Works was said to have a 133rd Street plan, yet no representative was there to confirm or deny. The manner in which Mr. Elkins addressed the MXD zone issues and density concerns before casting the deciding yes vote were baffling! Of further concern is the City of Leawood blocking of a protest. That a “400 million $ project” rests on these peculiarities is a blight to Leawood. Would you be proud to see this info as a headline in the KC Star or an evening news story?

Please vote NO

Show Less

Letter #4

Letter #3

Dear Leawood Governing Body, Please hear our plea! Something is gravely amiss when a new development plan like this is approved without taking into serious considerations the nearby Leawood neighbors’ input.

This project is too dense and is primarily designed to house more transient people who live in apartment rentals
This project is n

This project is too dense and is primarily designed to house more transient people who live in apartment rentals
This project is not Leawood-worthy in terms of our reputation for quality, single family neighborhoods that provide large lots and a lot of green space.
This project also does not take into consideration the neighborhood culture, which is WHY WE ALL LIVE IN LEAWOOD: Uncrowded streets, where kids can safely ride bikes and play; low noise level; high air quality, availability of nearby parks and recreation areas, and a SAFE, cohesive neighborhood, where residents know one another and look out for one another . Apartments by their design are NOT cohesive, relationship-building neighborhoods. They are primarily solitary, independent and mostly unfriendly places where residents live there only long enough to save for a home purchase or move on to their next job.
If this project is approved, the City is going against its own Master Plan, which calls for Mixed Use. The developer claims that one day he will develop the rest of the property for mixed use, but how can we trust that will happen, with all the open retail space around both the Kansas and Missouri sides of 135th & State Line? The Leawood development at 133rd & State Line has never been full. Never.
And, if the developer is to add Mixed Use, when is that one day coming? 20 years from now, when the entire corridor between State Line and Mission Road is already ruined?
My opinion is that THIS PROJECT IS NOT WHAT WAS ENVISIONED for this corridor. The City envisioned a higher quality project than this when its Master Plan called for Mix Use. This was to include retail, boutiques, cafes, offices, a quality hotel, and other entities. This plan DOES NOT include these required elements.
The Planning Commission barely passed this after months and months of their recommendations to deny each plan put forward, and despite the Chair’s statement that, ”this plan is too dense” and one of the dissenters not being present at the meeting. I find this very troubling and curious, indeed.

INSTEAD:

This project, which will be bloated with hundreds of apartments, and with people moving in and out of them daily, with moving trucks and furniture delivery trucks coming and going, will overtake 133rd Street and the surrounding neighborhood and streets.
It also means those living in the apartments will presumably be driving in and out of the neighborhood at least twice or more daily.
It also means at least 4 school buses coming in and out daily.
The apartment neighborhood will also be inundated with multiple Amazon, FedEx, and UPS trucks and other businesses who will make deliveries.
As it is now, kids walk and bike to school along 133rd Street. Is this extra traffic and noise what we really want for our kids? How safe will it be to have so many heavy trucks going up and down 133rd Street when kids are going to and from school?
Is it safe for that many strangers to be driving up and down 133rd Street with young kids going back and forth to school?
How much additional vehicle exhaust will clog the air around the project, particularly when there is yet another huge project going in directly across on the south side of 135th Street? Doesn’t anyone care about air quality?

Frankly, there is MORE WRONG with this project than is right. And, I think the City is intimidated that this developer will file suit against, but, isn’t our City and quality of life worth fighting for? Why does the Planning Commission and entire Voting Body want to ruin the quality of life that South Leawood neighborhoods now enjoy?

Why does anyone really care about a developer whose sole aim is to make a profit, without considering the quality-of-life factor for current residents? Each step of the way, his drawings have shown less than 40-50 single family homes, as his only intent in my view, has been to flood the area with more apartments due to government incentives and his desire to make huge profits.
This is not a neighborly way to develop land. If the developer wants to make profits, there is a history of other developers doing well with neighborhoods like Hallbrook Farms, Tuscany Reserve, Mission Farms, and many more.
This proposed development simply DOES NOT FIT South Leawood.
Would YOU, City Council Persons, WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT out your own back door? Please think honestly about this.

This project is not suitable for this land, and we urge each City Council member to vote NAY.

J and B

Show Less

Letter #5

Letter #4

Letter #5

Dear Leawood Planning Commission and Leawood City Council Members,Has anyone making decisions about the Cameron Court development for Leawood, KS looked at the definition of Mixed Use Development? Please note the terms highlighted with red print. Do any of these definitions sound like Leawood, Kansas? Does the proposed development meet a

in traditional urban neighborhoods, as part of urban renewal and/or infill, i.e. upgrading the buildings and public spaces and amenities of the neighborhood to provide more and/or better housing and a better quality of life - examples include Barracks Row in Washington, D.C. and East Liberty, Pittsburgh
in traditional suburbs, adding one or more mixed-use developments to provide a new or more prominent "downtown" for the community - examples include new projects in downtown Bethesda, Maryland, an inner suburb of Washington, D.C., and the Excelsior & Grand complex in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, an inner suburb of Minneapolis greenfield developments, i.e. new construction on previously undeveloped land, particularly at the edge of metropolitan areas and in their exurbs,often as part of creating a relatively denser center for the community – an edge city, or part of one, zoned for mixed use, in the 2010s often labeled "urban villages". Examples include Avalon in Alpharetta, Georgia and Halcyon in Forsyth County, Georgia, at the edge of the Atlanta metropolitan area
Repurposing of shopping malls and intensification of development around them, particularly as many shopping malls' retail sales, and ability to rent space to retailers, decrease as part of the 2010s retail apocalypse

Leawood is a suburban, not URBAN, not EXTRA-URBAN community. The heretofore high standards of zoning is a key reason people choose to live in Leawood rather than other suburban communities. The commission member that tried to relate how well these developments worked in Berlin or Chicago is missing the point entirely. Leawood is not remotely similar to Berlin or Chicago, and I have not met a Leawood resident yet that would prefer that style of living. That is precisely why Leawood residents chose suburban living in the first place.
It should also be noted that when looking at pictures of other Mixed Use developments, they do not resemble a vista of 4 story apartment buildings and some luxury duplexes thrown in for good measure with a hotel and small amount of retail at the very end of the development SEPARATED from the residential buildings. This is a misrepresentation of Mixed Use Development and is a sly attempt to circumvent zoning density requirements of Leawood, KS.
It is clear the landowner and developer want the lucrative apartments and duplexes, with no palpable desire to even build the hotel/office/retail, other than to lessen the burden of adhering to zoning density requirements. It is demonstrably misleading to use this “Mixed Use” as a cover for increasing the residential density.
Why are you considering approval of this project? The Leawood Planning document may not carry enforceable concepts, but it does represent the people you represent. What is the purpose of this document, if not to solicit residents’ ideas and comments and then try, to the best of your abilities, to provide that standard?
The landowner’s “fear” that the land might be developed in a more piece-meal manner is ridiculous. It is simply an expedient way to sell a lot of land and make a lot of money on one transaction, rather than several real estate transactions for smaller developments. Vacant land along 135th has been developed in smaller acreage developments previously and does not seem to be any worse off for it. TThe Cameron Court development does not meet Mixed Use Development definition or intent. The development is out of character for the entire Leawood area. I strongly oppose this project and call on you to listen to the dismay of neighbors regarding this development and other city residents who do not want this type of deception used in other areas of Leawood. This land can be and will be developed, of that there is no doubt. The development should be in keeping with the character of Leawood and the vision of Leawood residents, not one landowner and one developer.

Regards,

Show Less

Leawood Neighborhoods Are Opposed to the Cameron's Court Development Plan.

Background and Information

Call To Action - Sign Online Petition!

Leawood Residents' Development Platform

Letters From Concerned Residents

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #2

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #3

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #3

Letter #4

Letter #4

Letter #3

Letter #5

Letter #4

Letter #5

Leawood Neighborhoods Are Opposed to the Cameron's Court Development Plan.

Background and Information

Call To Action - Sign Online Petition!

Leawood Residents' Development Platform

Letters From Concerned Residents

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #2

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #3

Letter #1 (based on Oddo's latest plan)

Letter #3

Letter #4

Letter #4

Letter #3

Letter #5

Letter #4

Letter #5

This website uses cookies.