Code Assessment: January 2023

dbaltuska Feb 15 2023 at 11:00AM on page 15

Question

Is there strong community support for keeping any parking minimums in place?

ppajkck Feb 1 2023 at 4:22PM on page 41

This topic deserves substantial discussion especially with respect to affordable housing. Overall, what are benefits of a dedicated district(s) w.r.t. affordable housing. The current wave of equity-fueled parks in Lawrence operate differently than historical "trailer parks." How will uses and standards be developed to treat "existing units" vs. new units brought to site? These are just a few of the critical questions that need to be addressed to meet the housing needs of the "missing middle."

JagerCompany Jan 30 2023 at 1:39PM on page 41

Suggestion

Consider an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) ordinance similar to what has been adopted in California. See this handbook here: link

JagerCompany Jan 30 2023 at 1:20PM on page 14

Suggestion

When developing a revised residential land use and/or zoning criteria, allow for flexible zoning standards to lot sizes, widths and depths and setback criteria. Incorporate the ability to allow for flag lot designs. The benefit of this would be the ability to retain historic structures on lots with sufficient depth and area to allow for additional units to be built behind and or around them.
Allow for adjacent lots to share common driveways with cross easements which reduces hardscape and increases softscape/landscape area. It is also far more economically efficient.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 12:37PM on page 41

As has been noted in various places in the assessment, increased density vs parking is the typical conundrum.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 12:32PM on page 41

Exciting possibilities -- not sure how the density bonus would work.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 12:31PM on page 41

Do not completely overlook the potential for cooperative housing.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 12:27PM on page 21

I hope that the city explores broadening the possibilities for use of the coop housing model. Application in more districts and relevant standards to facilitate its use.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 9:38AM on page 21

Expansion and consistent/coherent use of these zoning districts is an exciting part of the LDC update

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 9:36AM on page 21

I hope that this issue will receive systematic exposition and not rely solely on anecdotal evidence/opinions. The dimensions and standards re ADUs should be a key piece of this discussion.

ppajkck Jan 27 2023 at 9:30AM on page 13

Agree that # of residential districts should be reduced.

mveloz Jan 27 2023 at 8:04AM on page 9

Suggestion

I would like to see design guidelines added to the East Lawrence Neighborhood similar to other neighborhoods, in order to preserve the historic fabric of the area. Am I correct, in saying that the Oread and Old West Lawrence neighborhoods have design guidelines?

More people are coming in and buying up property with no intention of preserving the original historic structure, and would rather build these McMansion type homes that do not blend in with the existing fabric & design of the neighborhood.

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 10:29AM on page 37

Suggestion

Big agree with this section as well.

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:55AM on page 34

Suggestion

Big agree to all of this section.

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:53AM on page 34

Suggestion

Yes again!

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:51AM on page 33

Suggestion

Yes please!

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:42AM on page 25

Suggestion

Subdivision Regulations play a huge role in this as well. Potentially addressed via applicability standards, design standards, or a combination of both.

I like the information in this section in general, so long as there is a way to do it that doesn't up the complexity level for day to day application. Our code right now presents this same challenge as it often creates situations where balancing what one sections says vs another (and even knowing to go look there in the first place) can be difficult or time consuming. So having different standards for different areas or more flexibility in certain areas, or something along those lines sounds good so long as it doesn't over complicate the process.

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:37AM on page 24

Suggestion

Mentioned below, but the Community Design Manual is extremely relevant to this component as well. Don't know how much of that can be examined through this process, but that (difficult to use) document feels like it is as (or in some cases more) relevant to this subject as the Articles listed.

Kyle Jan 19 2023 at 9:29AM on page 23

Suggestion

Definitely support examining the uses and their definitions. Many of them are defined/described so narrowly that even slight variations on a characteristic can make the 'obvious' choice unusable because its missing a specifically described component. An example is the definition of dormitory says "ingress to and egress from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge at all hours." Which means that even if every other characteristic of the development screams 'this is a dorm' if they don't have a 24/7 lobby supervisor it can't be called a dorm. So we either have to find another use that doesn't really fit, or ignore something the code says. Tough spot to be in.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 7:13PM on page 45

Suggestion

This could be combined with the mobility article. Just because the cars aren't moving while parked doesn't mean parking standards (like sidewalk dimensions or transit accessibility) don't affect transportation outcomes.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 7:10PM on page 44

Suggestion

Calling this section "protection" rather than "compatibility" reinforces the unspoken rule cities seem to have that single family detached housing is paramount and anything encroaching on it should be limited. Besides the racist/classist history behind this tacit distinction, there's also the fact that SFH districts aren't the only places that could use "protection", depending on who you ask.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 6:58PM on page 44

Question

Seems like, earlier in the Code Assessment, planned developments were seen as problematic in the they sort of constitute a mini zoning code-within-a-code. Given increased flexibility with all other districts, is it possible the content of this section could be merged elsewhere?

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 6:56PM on page 43

Question

If even residential districts will be able to have residential uses (like we currently have with home occupations, and like ever other country has with more uses), wouldn't everything technically be mixed use? Even industrial districts with potential commercial units would count as well.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 6:50PM on page 42

Suggestion

Specifically, without requiring a car

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 6:48PM on page 41

Question

Would it be possible to suggest pre-approved designs for missing middle housing? Then, as long as a developer chooses from one of the designs the community (or even just the neighborhood) has signed off on, the approval process can stay more objective rather than discretionary and open to opposition.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 6:36PM on page 25

Suggestion

In addition to restrictive development regs, the building code itself can hinder infill development, such as the general prohibition of point-access block apartment buildings taller than two stories, or sprinkler requirements for small multifamily or mixed use structures.
Calling these out as hidden cost adders (or infill project deterrents) may help generate interest in tweaking how we adopt IBC.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:57PM on page 22

Suggestion

This is only true at the time the PD is coming online. In practice, all those we currently have do the exact opposite, as it locks whatever the idea at the time was in place and basically assumes nothing will ever change. And if someone does want to change almost anything, lots of resource cost.

A lot of this is covered after this statement, I am just leery about framing almost anything about PDs as flexible. In a way that is true, but overall I think whatever flexibility exists at the time they are established is dwarfed by the inverse after establishment.

And, frankly, if the intent of the zoning regulations is to basically be a playbook for development and demonstrate how we want the City to look/work - providing a readily accessible workaround for people with the resources seems to undermine that overall purpose.

Furthermore, in terms of resource cost, in my opinion this is shouldered primarily by staff. By primarily I mean overwhelmingly. They are a huge resource cost.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:52PM on page 20

Suggestion

Picking nits here, I'd be okay with keeping this as CD or something like that. To differentiate it from other districts as it is pretty unique.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:51PM on page 20

Suggestion

Bit granular here but if this is the replacement for CS I'd frame it as 'General Commercial' or something like that. Because that's basically how it functions now. Though... that is mostly because its the only one that works for a lot of things.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:47PM on page 19

Suggestion

I would support/encourage examining an even further reduction to the amount of districts we have. Fewer districts that have broader parameters would be a big improvement in my opinion. It may be overly simplistic, but a low/medium/high approach seems like something to look into. This would really help with residential development in general and infill development specifically. The fewer the zoning districts the fewer the rezoning applications needed to do the thing the applicant wants to do. The older parts of town (which many consider the most interesting areas) were developed within this type of regulatory framework.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:40PM on page 16

Suggestion

Among the most important sections for overhaul. Strong support for a substantial rework of this Article/these standards. Less process, more Planning! When process does happen, make it clear and make it make sense. There's a lot going on with this Article so at this level I just want to say yes this needs lots of work.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:34PM on page 15

Suggestion

Support this bullet so long as it is done in a way that is easy to understand, apply, and enforce.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:33PM on page 15

Suggestion

Strong support of all these bullet points. The SubD Regs are perhaps the most confusing and in some places, frankly, broken code sections we have. Which is saying something.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:28PM on page 14

Suggestion

If at all possible, eliminate PDs entirely. Or as much as possible. There are a lot of these in Lawrence and they are extremely time consuming and confusing to figure out how to work with them. Not to mention the process requirements that come into play with even simple changes. The initial idea makes sense to me, but at this point it seems to me that they are actually a net negative for all parties involved given the resource costs.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:26PM on page 14

Suggestion

Fewer districts I think would help with this as well. R-1, R-2, R-3 for example with permissive yet definitive density and dimensional standards would be very in line with making infill/housing development more doable.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 3:23PM on page 14

Suggestion

Stronger/more definitive code guidance related to standards please. Fewer exceptions/convoluted explanations/rules in general. Some simplifications and clarifications would go a long way. For example clarifying how the front yard/setback is determined (right now its not clearly defined which can lead to confusion on how to correctly apply them). Another example would be having a 'frontage setback' rather than a front and exterior side setback. Overall just more permissive AND definitive on what is or is not okay. Images and diagrams will be helpful too.

dbaltuska Jan 18 2023 at 1:34PM on page 11

Question

Wouldn't this be counterproductive to the city's own goal of providing more affordable housing downtown?

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 12:16PM on page 32

Question

Why does development need to be restricted on slopes? Other cities (San Diego, Pittsburgh, even Kansas City) have plenty of development on challenging sloped plots. Unless it's just conditionally restrictive - i.e., don't build unless you can manage landslides - it seems like we'd be further hampering infill development.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 12:12PM on page 31

Suggestion

This is a bit random and I have no idea if there's precedent, but is there an opportunity for demographically based incentives? Similar to some municipalities' procurement policies that favor bids from minority- or women-owned businesses, could there be an analogue for property development?

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 8:37AM on page 20

Question

Would uses beyond residential and civic be allowed? For example, a coffee shop serving hospital employees and patients? Or a restaurant next to a county office?

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 8:35AM on page 19

Question

Will RS districts be carried forward unchanged, or will they ease restrictions on anything but detached single-family?

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 8:05AM on page 14

Suggestion

Fewer uses requiring SUPs please. If we get standards right, it seems like less process should be needed because we shouldn't have to have long complicated processes to figure out if something is okay or not. The standards seem like they should be the mitigating factor - not denial by process (time/money cost for people to do a thing).

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 8:03AM on page 14

Suggestion

I don't see further discussion of 20-4 in here, so as an additional use type that's not currently in here: Hostel

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 8:00AM on page 14

Suggestion

Some specific/narrowly defined uses are going to be needed - but overall, I think it would be better to have broader definitions/types of uses. So much time is spent just on identifying the 'right' use category for things because most are so specifically defined right now. This would also help 'future proof' the code as specifics might change over time but the general character/type of use is basically the same.

njk28 Jan 18 2023 at 7:58AM on page 11

Question

Where does this recommendation come from? MMTC recommended to City Commission (back in 2019 I think) that maintained no off-street parking requirement for all downtown. City Commission agreed with this recommendation, though Planning & Development did not.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 7:57AM on page 14

Suggestion

Generally, a more permissive code would be better for all parties involved. Something as simple as allowing duplexes by right in more/all residential districts would go a long way. Same with ADUs. Overall, more things allowed in more places. This also synergizes with reducing the amount of districts.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 7:55AM on page 13

Suggestion

I would strongly support condensing district terminology, standards, permitted uses, and any other related information into a single section/article. Put as much information in one place as possible. This will make it easier to read and understand the code, reduce inconsistencies, and free up resources for the public and staff to do other things. Less time navigating/deciphering the code, more time for other things.

Kyle Jan 18 2023 at 7:31AM on page 13

Suggestion

Strongly encourage reducing districts as much as possible. For me the ideal would be 3-5 R districts, 3-5 C/MU districts, 2-3 industrial districts, then a few other misc special districts. Or something along those lines.

mmiller Jan 17 2023 at 3:45PM on page 16

Suggestion

Include a caveat for those area where the neighborhood association is inactive, or hasn't been formed. Also include a provision for a meeting that is held, but not attended.

mmiller Jan 17 2023 at 3:40PM on page 14

Suggestion

I'd suggest making the design standards very broad and flexible.

Warning message

Code Assessment: January 2023

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.