Leawood's Park Place development

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:50 am

Saw in the paper where Leawood is looking at a plan for a 22 story tower north of the Town Center Plaza?

Wow, I didn't think there was ANY way Leawood residents would let anything like that through......just what that area needs, more office space...couldn't they just use some of Sprint's empty buildings???

Good2Great · Post by **Good2Great** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:17 am

I must have misread the article. I thought it said 22-smaller buldings.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:32 am

My bad, relooked up the page....sure enough, 22 buildings...that sounds about right.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:50 am

yeah, 22 buildings...mostly residential. They are tryin' to increase the foot traffic at Town Center Plaza. They hope to have the same success as the Country Club Plaza

Good2Great · Post by **Good2Great** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:24 pm

QueSi2Opie wrote:yeah, 22 buildings...mostly residential. They are tryin' to increase the foot traffic at Town Center Plaza. They hope to have the same success as the Country Club Plaza

Who doesn't? Everyone with 2 yards of brick pavers is claiming to be a new urbanist!

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Mon May 12, 2003 8:31 am

Leawood residents call development too dense

By:Jonna Lorenz, Sun Staff Writer May 08, 2003

Residents near Town Center Drive and Nall in Leawood say a 34-acre development planned at that corner is too dense and too tall.

Jeffrey Alpert and Melanie Mann, partners with Park Place Partners LLC, are proposing a 1.2 million-square-foot mixed-use development on the 34-acre triangular site next to Town Center Plaza. The development calls for 22 buildings reaching heights as tall as 100 feet.

They have asked the city for deviations from the city's requirements for height, density and distance from the street, which they say is in exchange for enhanced quality and enhanced financial commitment.

"Our goal for Park Place is to provide a mix of activities with a great deal of attention to the environment, the experience, and the enjoyment of shopping, dining, working and living," Alpert said. "We provide wide-open spaces where you can play Frisbee with your children and intimate plazas where you can read a book in the shade or people watch. We provide a pedestrian-friendly walkable setting that fosters a strong sense of community and belonging - a place that connects to the community and surrounding neighbors and can give a town its spirit."

The City Council heard from the developers and neighbors during its meeting Monday. The issue was continued to the June 2 meeting. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 on April 8 to recommend approval of the plan.

"This is a beautiful presentation," said Bob Barton, a resident of Edgewood, which is across the street from the development. "It's similar to the one that they made almost a year ago. The only thing that's changed is the scope of it. It's become bigger and higher and wider and more dense, and that's the problem I have with it."

The $225 million project includes four areas:

* A village center with 240,000 square feet of retail space;

* A commercial neighborhood with a 100-foot tall office building and a 100-foot tall hotel;

* A village green neighborhood with three condominium buildings stepping up to eight stories in height and two rows of townhomes or lofts;

* Another residential neighborhood with four five-story condominium buildings.

The project includes 350 condominium units total. Parking will be provided in three parking garages - two have seven levels and the third has eight levels. An underground parking garage will be provided below the residential development.

The developers tout the project as "a place to stroll," with 20-foot sidewalks, large trees and open-air dining.

Al Cinelli, president of the Edgewood Home Owners Association, said that group is opposed to the project.

"Park Place development is not in harmony with our neighborhood, and it will cause harm to property values in Edgewood and will result in the deterioration of the quality of our life," Cinelli said.

He said the tall buildings will "stand out like a sore thumb in our neighborhood."

Cinelli said the project would change the character of the community and increase congestion.

"With this population density you have, you're going to attract drug dealers in this area. You're also going to have a number of burglaries," he said.

He pointed out the density would be even higher under a previous acreage count for the site.

Previously, the site was considered to include about 29 acres. That number was increased to about 34 acres to include a portion of Town Center Drive, said Diane Binckley, planning and development director.

Councilman Lou Rasmussen asked Binckley whether adding those acres in to the calculations of density was a subterfuge.

She said the city ordinance allows developers to consider such right-of-way property when calculating density.

Cinelli also opposed the lack of a proposal to retain stormwater on the site, saying the development could aggravate erosion problems in Tomahawk Creek and possibly propagate the spread of West Nile virus.

"If we have stagnant water in these dams, that's going to be an area that will attract mosquitoes to breed," he said.

John Petersen, an attorney for the developer, said including stormwater detention on the site would have a negative effect.

"It is better to get the water off the site quicker, and we are addressing the current erosion," he said.

Council members were generally supportive of the concept but echoed the concerns from residents about height, density and stormwater retention.

"I will not vote for any project in the second ward of Leawood that dumps more water on Tomahawk Creek," Rasmussen said. "You will detain, or you don't get my vote. That's it. That's in accordance with our ordinance."

Rasmussen also questioned the safety of pedestrians crossing 117th Street to get to the project.

Councilman Shelby Story said the transition of development from nearby residences to the proposed eight-story buildings is too abrupt.

Petersen said the developers will continue to work to address the concerns of the nearby residents and the City Council.

Â©The Johnson County Sun 2003

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:02 pm

Thanks for reminding me why I got out of JoCo as soon as I could!

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:43 pm

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:08 pm

KCgridlock wrote:
"With this population density you have, you're going to attract drug dealers in this area. You're also going to have a number of burglaries," he said.

I laughed out loud when I read this quote in last week's paper. There are already burglaries, and it's not because of density; it's because of the demographics, which mean that the area's homes and garages are filled with expensive stuff. Burglars aren't stupid. They know where to go.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon May 12, 2003 3:14 pm

Are you guys really surpised? .....THEY LIVE IN LEAWOOD!!!!!!!!

Can we expect anything more?

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon May 12, 2003 3:23 pm

It reminds me of when St. Charles County, MO voted down an extension of the St. Louis light rail system into their county - largely because there was wide-spread fear that the train would make it easy for the criminals from the inner city to travel out to the suburbs to rape and pillage. It wasn't rational, because they didn't consider the absurdity of transporting giant screen TVs and piles of stereo equipment on a train car.

This sort of thing is an example of the well-conditioned fears that so many people have. They have been trained to equate tall buildings and parking garages with the big scary inner city. The poor guy probably believes what he said, without realizing the absurdity of his words.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon May 12, 2003 4:29 pm

dangerboy wrote:It reminds me of when St. Charles County, MO voted down an extension of the St. Louis light rail system into their county - largely because there was wide-spread fear that the train would make it easy for the criminals from the inner city to travel out to the suburbs to rape and pillage.

Atlanta heard the same arguments when MARTA first started considering a rail system. There were even bumper stickers to the effect of: "Bring crime to the suburbs. Vote yes on MARTA."

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Mon May 12, 2003 7:24 pm

The Georgetown neighboorhood in DC had the same reaction, and once the thing was built and turned out to be very nice, they wanted a stop! But it was too late

Just think about the high crime rates along College Boulevard!

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Wed May 14, 2003 10:09 am

It's the same thing here in Orange County. They're trying to start up light rail and I heard my city councilman claiming that light rail "causes blight". Of course he had no proof or facts to back up that claim.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 12:24 pm

They have approved it. This could be a good development if done right.

Posted on Wed, Jun. 18, 2003

Leawood approves Park Place plan
By ERIN FITZGERALD
The Kansas City Star

After considering the Park Place plan for the third time, the Leawood City Council voted 8-0 Monday to approve a rezoning request and preliminary plans.

The mixed-use development would be about 1.2 million square feet and located north of Town Center Plaza.

The project's developer, Park Place Partners, sees its urban-style community east of Nall Avenue between Town Center Drive and 117th Street as a place where people can live, eat, work and shop.

The plan includes 240,000 square feet of retail space, 353,000 square feet of offices, 350 condominiums totaling 560,000 square feet and a 75,000-square-foot hotel.

But council members and nearby residents have struggled with the project's density and height as well as storm-water issues. A vote to approve the project at the June 2 council meeting failed, with three council members voting against the motion for approval.

The developer had requested deviations from city requirements, including increasing the density of the project and the height of two buildings.

The office building planned for the northwest corner of the property was planned to be eight stories and exceed 90 feet in height. But since the June 2 council meeting, the partners decided to limit that building to seven stories and 90 feet in height.

The developer still asked to increase the height of the hotel building by 10 feet from the 90-foot limit. The building is planned to be eight stories.

The council approved increasing the height of the hotel building and the project's density as part of the plans, but the council would need to approve final plans for the project.

Lowering the height of one of the buildings didn't seem to appease nearby residents.

About a dozen people spoke against the project Monday night citing concerns including that nearby homes would decrease in value and that the project is too dense and too high. At least one was worried that the project would turn suburban Leawood into an urban area.

During the June 2 meeting, Councilman Scott Gulledge voted against the rezoning request and plans. He raised concerns about the density and height of the project.

He said Tuesday that one of the biggest reasons he changed his mind was because the developer lowered the height of the office building. Gulledge was not as concerned with the height of the hotel because it will be in the middle of the development, he said.

"I just wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors of Edgewood in meeting the height requirements for a building right next to their property," Gulledge said.

Councilman Gary Bussing also voted against approving the plans at the June 2 meeting. After additional research, he determined that the project is appropriate for the site, he said during Monday's meeting.

Gulledge said Tuesday he doesn't agree that nearby homes will decrease in value because of the project. In fact, he thinks the new development will increase home values.

Gulledge said residents have told him that south Leawood needs maintenance-free housing, which the condominiums would provide, he said. Plus the retail and office portion would give a boost to the city's tax base, he said.

Construction on phase one of the $225 million development is expected to begin in the fall and open in fall 2004, according to a press release. That phase will include constructing retail, residential and office space as well a park.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Erin Fitzgerald, call (816) 234-7722 or send e-mail to efitzgerald@kcstar.com.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:20 am

Am I the only one who sees Park Place as Leawood's effort to amend what went wrong with Town Center Plaza next door. Some of the recent articles about this development even had Leawood officials saying that this would be a pedestrian friendly environment-- "something that TCP is not."

I am also wondering who is looking at Park Place for retail. Despite the "sexy demos" of Leawood and South OP, it was speculated that upscale Jacobson's was doing very poor when it opened in Leawood in the late 90s. I also recall that TCP had stores like Nicole Miller and Orvis which closed. Really, the only thing TCP has now that is at all unique is Pottery Barn and Restoration Hardware which are arguable. Could Park Place be trying to create the atmosphere that TCP failed at and attract better stuff like Tiffany & Co., Crate and Barrel, and Neiman Marcus? I think when Jones Store goes in at TCP, it could mean trouble for TCP's dubious reputation as "upscale."

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:25 am

Ground will be broken this Summer on the first phase including...

100,000 sq. ft. of retail laid out to resemble an old-fashioned main street, with 80,000 sq. ft. of professional office space above. The development will also include a 120-room luxury hotel; a 52-unit; eight-story condominium building; a 700-space garage; and a four-acre park.

nota · Post by **nota** » Mon May 02, 2005 8:06 am

ZR South????

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon May 02, 2005 1:45 pm

nota wrote: ZR South????

No doubt that's the idea. I have a feeling they'll be more successful than Steiner was in getting more high-end and exclusive tenants. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some of the shops at Leawood Town Center jump ship for a development that offers pedestrian traffic in addition to the convenience of parking next to the door and walking in. I know BN sued the owners of Town Center recently and I can't imagine the Ensure crowd that shops at Chico's, PB, Harold's, etc. is exactly a good match for Abercrombie or Express.

Thrillcekr · Post by **Thrillcekr** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:53 pm

Those people don't have a freaking clue. Since when did adding an upscale development cause a major crime epidemic? I suppose if you consider jaywalking a serious crime then they could be right. Absolutely stupid!

KCRag Forum