×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Consolidated Draft: Land Development Code

Review and comment on the Consolidated Draft: Land Development Code

The Consolidated Draft is a combination of all three of the individually drafted modules, combined to allow readers to see how the full LDC is put together. This is NOT the final version of the LDC. It will be edited to include changes from the Steering Committee, Planning Staff, and community. An updated, edited final draft will be posted in early June for further review prior to Lawrence Planning Commission consideration in late June. 

You may leave comments in this document or you may submit comments to developmentcodeupdate@lawrenceks.org  The comment period closes on Friday, July 12.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Guided Tour Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide
Take a quick tour to see the most important parts of this document
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Mandy Enfield Jul 3 2024 at 7:04PM on page 129

Question
Article 6 is about Special Purpose Permits. I can't figure out how that connects to residential standards and attached dwellings. What am I missing?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jul 3 2024 at 6:56PM on page 43

Question
Will the number of allowable attached and detached dwelling units relate to the min/max density and the lot width?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jul 3 2024 at 6:05PM on page 129

Question
I don't understand. R district means all of them, R1, R2, R3, etc.? It says structures containing more than 3 units are prohibited in these districts. The chart says "attached, up to 8 units". What am I missing?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jul 3 2024 at 8:18AM on page 43

Question
With only 9 days remaining for comments and a significant number of residents becoming R2, shouldn't this most basic info be available in a way that's easy to read and locate?
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:45PM on page 316

Suggestion
Remove adapted plants. Focus on getting a list of native plants. Many non native plants are adapted (invasive) to our region, that doesn't mean we need to promote them.
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:42PM on page 314

Suggestion
Again, evergreens are not native to Kansas minus the Eastern Red Cedar, we should not make it mandatory to use half nonnative plants. We live in Kansas, lets appreciate our natural plants and their cycles during the winter.
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:40PM on page 312

Suggestion
Pick another plant group that is native to Kansas, evergreens do not occur naturally here (exception is Eastern Red Cedar) and this should align with our other provisions emphasizing native plants. There are many cool native plants that can achieve a screen, let developers get creative :)
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:26PM on page 286

Suggestion
Abolish development in the floodway fringe to begin with. Replace 20-1303 (d) (1) with the following language : Any portion or plot of land that is identified in 20-1303 (a)(3)(i) that is within the FEMA determined SHFA (Special Flood Hazard Areas) including zoning A/AH/AE/AO shall be defined as regulatory floodplain and follow the language already established for the regulatory floodway (Zone AE) recognized in the current LDC draft. “Any encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or cumulative improvements or other development is prohibited within the regulatory floodplain, except for the following structures: (i) Flood control and stormwater management structures; (ii) Road improvements and repair; (iii) Utility easements/rights-of-way; and (iv) Public improvements or public structures for bridging the floodway.”
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:23PM on page 286

Suggestion
"No rise" needs to be explicitly defined as absolute 0. 0.00" or more restrictive as it was interpreted by the Planning Director in his Written Interpretation dated 11/16/2023
0 replies

dominique_s Jul 2 2024 at 11:19PM on page 282

Why is this? Where can this be found on the current draft?
0 replies
in reply to kthompson@sunfloweer.com's comment

njk28 Jun 26 2024 at 9:45AM on page 209

This would have to go in the building code rather than land development code, and would likely be an exception to the otherwise blanket adoption of IBC/IRC.
0 replies
in reply to Mandy Enfield's comment

njk28 Jun 26 2024 at 9:42AM on page 112

Almost - they won't be permitted in the highest-density residential and mixed-use zones, nor in the protected mobile home park district.
0 replies
in reply to Mandy Enfield's comment

njk28 Jun 26 2024 at 9:41AM on page 112

Yes, and all residential and mixed-use districts will allow a single-family detached (as opposed to single-family attached) home to be built on an empty lot, except for the highest density districts that have yet to be mapped.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jun 18 2024 at 8:10PM on page 112

Question
Did "detached dwelling" replace terms like "single-family" or "single-unit"? It still allows for a single-family home to be built on an empty lot in R2?
1 reply

Mandy Enfield Jun 18 2024 at 7:49PM on page 112

Question
Single family homes are just assumed as permitted in all residential zones, right? The glossary also doesn't have an entry for single-use dwelling, single use residential, etc.
1 reply

Mandy Enfield Jun 18 2024 at 7:45PM on page 27

Question
Is the allowance for single-dwelling residential assumed? We aren't talking about disallowing new single-dwelling homes, are we?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jun 18 2024 at 7:23PM on page 222

Question
Is this supposed to be here? We were told at the engagement session that all parking rules are thrown out. No parking requirements for anything, right?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield Jun 18 2024 at 4:04PM on page 35

Question
Becky Pepper told me that as soon as one unrelated person becomes a resident, all residents are considered "unrelated" and would then max out at 5 but I can't find this in the document. Where can I find this?
0 replies

kthompson@sunfloweer.com Jun 10 2024 at 7:57AM on page 209

Suggestion
Is there any consideration for allowing single stair buildings taller than 3 stories? Seattle and New York have legalized these structures, which allow a wider variety of apartment types, as evedenced throughout the world, except for the US and Canada.
1 reply

Patrick Watkins Jun 3 2024 at 2:08PM on page 412

Suggestion
The City should retain as much discretion as possible, so that it only refers individuals for criminal or civil proceedings as an elevated penalty. Some language providing flexibility for criminal penalty seems appropriate.
0 replies

Patrick Watkins Jun 3 2024 at 2:04PM on page 545

Suggestion
This definition of unnecessary hardship is inconsistent with Kansas case law. The definition was originally created for 'use variances', which are already precluded under the code. 'Area variances' should be permitted in far more circumstances than this definition would otherwise allow. This definition should either be deleted (allowing the phrase to take its plain meaning) or be edited to be consistent with Kansas law.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:41AM on page 43

Suggestion
University Place cares about our neighbors, our trees, our wildlife, our children, our elderly residents, and our sense of community. We love hosting KU visitors and staff for campus walks and game days. We love our renters and never distinguish between owner occupied and rental residents when sharing news and participation opportunities. This is not a NIMBY thing or a fear of change. This is our lived reality. We see families lose out on buying a home when it goes to an investor with deep pockets. We live near empty homes that are only occasionally used as vacation rentals. We see our land property tax increase because of the income potential from rentals. KU is a unique variable and we need specific protections that are different from other areas.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:33AM on page 112

Suggestion
Penalize demolition by neglect before you change code to incentivize it through added income potential for property investors.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:31AM on page 35

Suggestion
This can't be enforced effectively now. We are dealing with party houses and no police response to parties and parking violations. Now we are almost doubling the number of students a landlord can pack into a residential home? Three unrelated has become 4 and 5 without consequence. Five unrelated (plus 1?) will become 7 and 8 students, plus their cars, trash, and friends. Implement proper code enforcement before adding more problems.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:27AM on page 35

Suggestion
Investors, speculators, and absentee owners are buying historic properties from homeowners and then renting them. We will see demolition by neglect and then cheap rental rebuilds. 15 of the 27 homes sold in University Place in the last 2 years have gone to landlords and out-of-town owners. They are being rented at insanely high rates. These buyers pay with cash, well over the asking price. THIS is pricing people out of the market. Not the low-density of University Place.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:17AM on page 112

Suggestion
This encourages tear down of historic homes in favor of cheap rentals. Again, for the benefit of developers. Not helping low income families or existing residents in campus adjacent areas.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:15AM on page 115

Suggestion
There is no economic development without affordable childcare. We need fewer barriers for child care providers.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:13AM on page 115

Suggestion
Permit all forms of childcare facilities in residential zones. This serves families and economic development. It is part of the health equity plan, etc. Childcare is infrastructure.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:12AM on page 115

Suggestion
Why not? How far will parents have to walk or bus with their kids to get them to quality licensed childcare?
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:11AM on page 115

Suggestion
If this is about equity and affordability, multigen households, etc. Childcare facilities should be allowed in all zones. Wait... there's no money in childcare so I guess the developers aren't advocating for it.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 9:07AM on page 112

Suggestion
Adding zoning density (near campus) provides opportunities for investors, speculators, and absentee owners to tear down historic homes and replace them with new denser housing types. This does not add equity or affordability. It only helps landlords.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 8:52AM on page 376

Suggestion
Do not allow upzoning in R2! Allowing apartment buildings in campus adjacent neighborhoods will not serve affordable housing goals and it will destroy single-family options.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 8:29AM on page 356

Suggestion
Don't allow upzoning in established neighborhoods. We need protection from big money developers. Fritzel has already built apartments in the back yard of Alvamar folks and is now poised to do it again. The city shouldn't help flimflam builders dig out of debt by killing the livability of established neighborhoods.
0 replies

Mandy Enfield May 29 2024 at 8:26AM on page 356

Question
Huh? Elect to rezone a property that is approved to be rezoned? Is this a typo? I assume it's intended to say "not approved"?
0 replies

Rob Richardson May 28 2024 at 2:04PM on page 37

Suggestion
the 2018 building code would allow units as narrow as 14 feet.
0 replies

Rob Richardson May 28 2024 at 2:00PM on page 32

Suggestion
unless otherwise permitted by the code. I think the code now allows for the expansion of nonconformities meeting certain criteria
0 replies

Rob Richardson May 28 2024 at 1:53PM on page 29

Suggestion
This category has no zoning district
0 replies

Rob Richardson May 28 2024 at 1:40PM on page 22

Suggestion
Other codes that impact the zoning code should not be allowed to amend or enhance the zoning code requirements without following the proper zoning process. Sometimes this can occur in the building code and in the fire code.
0 replies

mjean May 26 2024 at 11:52AM on page 286

Suggestion
Floodplain restrictions need to match floodway restrictions. We are already seeing the effects of the changing climate and as time passes, we will only have to deal with more water. Floodplains are a natural asset that must be heavily restricted from development. Flooding is an expensive disaster. Floodplains main function is to hold and slow water. We need to keep the remaining floodplains in this city/county. Removing riparian systems costs tax dollars , property, and lives. Restricting floodplain development from commercial and residential development will save money, property, and lives.
0 replies

Mike Brungardt May 9 2024 at 1:20PM on page 175

Suggestion
There is no discernable reason for this requirement. Why would it matter which way the door faces, if the ADU structure is in the back yard? This requirement is far too specific, and fails to imagine any of the nearly infinite circumstances when a side or rear facing entrance would be better than a front facing entrance. Side lots? Alley access? Suggestion: Remove this paragraph.
0 replies

Mike Brungardt May 9 2024 at 1:19PM on page 174

Suggestion
Why can't an existing detached structures be converted to ADU's. There needs to be another paragraph allowing the conversion of existing garage
0 replies
View all