×

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.

Lawrence Land Development Code | Adoption Review Draft

The Adoption Review Draft is the version of the LDC that will be the focus of community review from July through late September. It will be open for comments during that entire timeframe.

This version will not be revised until the completion of the Planning Commission review schedule (see Home page). Proposed changes will be listed on the project website following Planning Commission or Steering Committee meetings.

You may leave comments in this document or you may submit comments to developmentcodeupdate@lawrenceks.org  General responses to public comments will be posted to the project website on a periodic basis.

Key information you may want to review:

Residential Development: Zoning districts (Article 3), Permitted uses (Section 20-803), and Design standards (Article 9)

Parking (Article 12): Minimum parking requirements (Section 20-1204), Maximum Vehicle Parking Allowance (Section 20-1205), and Bicycle Parking Requirements (Section 20-1212)

Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Natural Resources: Stormwater Management (Section 20-1304), Natural Drainage Path Protection (Section 20-1305), and Floodplain Management (Section 20-1303)
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…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

Ryan Dec 3 2024 at 12:54PM on page 53

Suggestion
This is not enough density.
replies

Ryan Dec 3 2024 at 12:38PM on page 50

Question
Per acre?
replies

Joy Foster Nov 16 2024 at 10:42AM on page 184

Question
Why are the Min SF in this table different from that in the R-2 (and other) tables for small lots. Is this specific only if it is a "development" vs a single lot?
replies

Joy Foster Nov 12 2024 at 9:33PM on page 111

Suggestion
What is the reasoning behind not allowing short term rentals in R2? The guidance itself already limits it to part of the year, is it necessary to limit it to only some residential districts? I recommend allowing STR for owner occupied homes in all residential types
replies

Lowell Nov 11 2024 at 11:16AM on page 111

Suggestion
I'd like to see food sales requirements waved or significantly reduced if the establishment is producing/bottling >51% of the alcohol being sold on premise. Current state you can't have a brewery, winery or distillery and serve individual drinks without having >51% of sales made up of food. This puts these types of establishments, which are destination locations or tourist attractions at a disadvantage to the same types of establishments in surrounding communities (Topeka, KC, Ottawa).
replies

Mike Oct 23 2024 at 9:18AM on page 54

Suggestion
In the existing code, side setbacks for accessory structures on lots that abut an alley is zero. The "Rear Side" terminology seems to be hinting at preserving that (which it should), but it is not clear. The "Interior Side" setback should include the same note [1] as the "rear Side" does, so it's clear that the previous "Side" setback of zero us maintained in the new code, as it exists in the current code. The zero "side" setback for accessory structures on lots that abut an alley must be maintained. There are countless accessory structures currently built with zero side setbacks in the older parts of town (where lots abut an alley), and removing that provision would throw all of them into non-conforming status, which would jeopardize future real estate sales, insurance, renovations, or other property improvements.
replies

Mandy Enfield Oct 20 2024 at 9:12PM on page 200

Suggestion
Steering committee members should not use name calling like "NIMBY" or dismissive terms like "whims" to describe residents who do not share their exact perspective.
replies

Mandy Enfield Oct 20 2024 at 8:44PM on page 40

Question
What does this mean?
replies

Mandy Enfield Oct 20 2024 at 8:16PM on page 155

Question
The occupancy conversations at Planning Commission were based in the idea that only detached dwellings could have an ADU. It was stated that duplexes cannot have an ADU. But here, we can add an ADU to an attached dwelling (I understand to be 3 units...) So how long until we just say duplexes can have ADUs? And then what about the ADU and primary dwelling becoming a "duplex" if the primary is no longer owner occupied?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:50PM on page 287

Suggestion
This is kind of silly. An actual "greenway" (i.e., if you asked people to picture one) would have a treed median with trees on the side of the road; you know, like Ward Parkway in KCMO. All we're specifying here is super-wide roads with boring grassy medians, unless any more specific language is included. Is that really what passes for an impressive "City gateway" these days?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 276

Suggestion
Let's not get too specific here; advocates are trying to get away from SUPs as the only solution to bike infrastructure. Just reference Appendix H of the MSO Design Criteria.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 273

This is redundant - this is copy/paste from 209-03(e)
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 272

Suggestion
I'm unaware of what governing laws/standards might be influencing these dimensional requirements, but it may be time to start rethinking utility easement geometry. Other developed countries typically put them in the street or under sidewalks in order to not waste greenspace between the RoW and structure. Alleys are a good option too. Also, most utilities (barring drinking vs wastewater) don't need a ton of separation between them.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 271

Suggestion
Can we at least encourage them in residential/mixed-use areas? They're super useful and reduce curb cuts (which has a bunch of benefits), may as well at least encourage alleys.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 270

Suggestion
Define "Half-Street", or maybe even show a pic.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:49PM on page 269

Incorrectly tabbed articles starting here
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 269

Suggestion
There are specs in the MSO Design Criteria that likely follow KDOT's manual, just reference that table (3.5).
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 268

Question
Any reason that these are wider than city streets, other than simple space wasting? Like, do the utilities (which, it should be noted, serve fewer people) need more room? If there's not a good answer to this question, then these need to match or be smaller than the City minimums.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 268

Suggestion
"MSO Design Criteria"
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 268

Suggestion
This is in conflict with the table it copies (3.5) from the MSO Design Criteria. For one, residential collectors are 50' min, and the next two street types aren't even defined. Not a great idea to have a slightly different table from the other governing document, so I'd highly recommend keeping a single copy of this table in one doc and referencing it in the other.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 267

Suggestion
This whole section would benefit from diagrams, definitions, examples, etc. Unless, of course, it's a super rare scenario and discretion is fine.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 267

Question
Any dimensional standards for this? I recommend not having any, but just checking.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:48PM on page 267

Suggestion
This may need a definition or diagram. I deal with transportation stuff a lot and I have no idea what this is asking for.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 266

Suggestion
This is our once-in-a-generation chance to make new development not hostile to anyone outside of a car. Please require these facilities, and reference the new MSO bike/ped standards (it's an appendix/addendum)
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 266

Suggestion
Let's say "only if". I thought this was more strict in the previous draft.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 265

Suggestion
Wasn't there a previous version of this doc that encouraged grid layouts rather than letting developers do whatever, which will always be curvilinear grids with cul-de-sacs? Plan 2040 certainly says that, so the code should follow it.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 265

Question
Isn't this in direct conflict with the 800' block maximum above? Assuming that max stays in place, why would the distance between intersections (i.e., a block) be able to go up to 1320'?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 265

Suggestion
This seems way too long for a single block. Salt Lake City, notorious for car dependence, has 600' blocks; let's not get close to that limit. Portland, on the other hand, has 200' blocks and is widely known for walkability.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:47PM on page 264

Suggestion
Could we do stronger language, i.e. "are encouraged"?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:46PM on page 264

Suggestion
Or Cottage Courts?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:46PM on page 263

Question
With new (and less conservative) dimensional standards, is this still necessary?
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:46PM on page 263

Suggestion
Duplicate, suggest deletion.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:46PM on page 263

Suggestion
Should probably directly reference the MSO Design Standards.
replies

njk28 Oct 16 2024 at 9:45PM on page 240

Question
Why limit to 4? What if there's a lot of frontage on the plot (not "pot", btw) and the developer wants multiple townhomes or a cottage court or something?
replies
in reply to Mandy Enfield's comment

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:44PM on page 107

I would take my interpretation with a grain of salt, since it was a confusing Steering Committee discussion that I'm not entirely sure reached an agreeable conclusion. Generally speaking, the definitions of these various (and sometimes overlapping) dwelling units could use some streamlining, or at least really clear definitions in the glossary.
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:41PM on page 212

Suggestion
As much as I love the intention towards bike inclusion, I don't know how practical this is. Basically, we're requiring bike lanes on EVERY new development, which could even be small-lot industrial. Steering Committee discussion noted that at least having a designated (on site drawings) route for bikes is a good start, to prove that bikes can access the site.
replies
in reply to Dave Cronin's comment

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:40PM on page 213

If I recall correctly, newer bike parking requirements are in the revised version of what used to be Article 8, Loading and Access Standards.
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:40PM on page 212

Suggestion
Anything larger than ADA is an added cost to development and should be avoided.
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:39PM on page 211

Suggestion
This leaves decision open to discretion. A bit more transparency would help developers and citizens understand which developments get a pass.
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:39PM on page 210

Suggestion
Specify which types of streets we're talking about. If it's alleys + local, blocked corner views aren't nearly as big a deal as they'd be on collectors or arterials.
replies
in reply to Dave Cronin's comment

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:39PM on page 210

Fully agree, we do not want to be encouraging every site to have its own access to arterials, that defeats the purpose of arterials (throughput, not access).
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:38PM on page 209

Question
"or alley access"?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:37PM on page 208

Question
Would it be reasonable to include something about safety here?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:37PM on page 206

This section is good stuff!
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:37PM on page 205

Suggestion
So we can't restore neighborhood grocery stores in older neighborhoods then? I hate to have to put this implication into words, but perhaps some people's version of "history that should be preserved" is just the state of the neighborhood when they bought into it. Do we want that to be our collective value?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:35PM on page 204

Question
Why would we limit adaptive reuse to residential? Who does this help?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:35PM on page 203

Question
Other cities don't require this and get along just fine. We're requiring wasting 10' of space due to....what?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:35PM on page 203

Question
Again with the priorities: Do we favor "unique" buildings (i.e., "brick wallpaper") or driving down the cost of development?
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:35PM on page 202

Question
How does this work for a big box store? They already typically have 2 customer entryways, but they necessarily have to be on the same façade.
replies

njk28 Oct 14 2024 at 10:35PM on page 202

Question
Can murals be substituted for transparency? Instead of windows showing off the doors of storage units, you could instead of art; with this current wording, the windows are the only option.
replies
View all