League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County

P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044

December 12, 2004

Mayor Mike Rundle

Lawrence City Commissions

City Hall

Lawrence, Kansas

RE: ITEM NO. 5, CONSIDERATION OF NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

Dear Mayor Rundle and Commissioners,

We appreciate the time and effort that has gone into writing the zoning portion of the proposed Lawrence Land Development Code.  Many of the original errors in the code have already been corrected.  However, there are two that require immediate correction or they will create major problems for the city and its citizens in the future.  These will be difficult, if not impossible, to fix if left in the Code.

NEED FOR PREDICTABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

A.  In the current draft of the new Code, a single family use now requires a Special Use Permit in order to be allowed in a multiple family district.  This requirement was added specifically to protect single family home buyers from inadvertently investing in housing in a multiple family district without special provisions.  The conditions written into a Special Use Permit would provide such protection to single family detached housing built in multiple family districts. 

However, Cluster Development, which also is single family detached housing, is not afforded this protection in the new Code: it is currently permitted by-right in multiple family districts. We ask specifically, that you change the Code to require a Special Use Permit to allow Cluster Development in any multiple family (RM) districts.

B.  The RMD (Duplex District) does not exist in the new code.  This District, which in our current Zoning Ordinance (3500, and amendments) allows only two units per lot, was originally included to act as a buffer between incompatible uses and to allow preservation of older owner-occupied housing that had one additional rental unit.  The owners had asked for the creation of this District in order to prevent conversion of neighborhood housing into apartments.  The RMD District is now being used, in addition, as “entry-level” townhouses, with two separate owners per structure on townhouse lots.  In the new Code, these essentially single-family uses on townhouse lots will automatically convert to a multiple family district (RM12).

The conversion of the RMD District to RM12 will change the 2-unit limitation per lot to an unrestricted number of units and housing types per lot, determined by lot size, as is the case in all multiple family districts.  This conversion of the RMD District to the RM12 District is the most serious of flaws in the new Code.  The Code should provide at least one district which regulates the massing of housing scale, to be used as a buffer between single family and more intensive districts.  Under the current Code, the only such district is RMD.  We suggest that (1) the RMD District be reinstated and applied to all areas the majority of uses of which are actual duplex uses, and (2) existing RMD Districts being used as de facto townhouse districts be converted to RS3 Districts with a Special Use Permit, and that an Administrative Plat process be applied to these areas to allow proper conversion of the RMD Districts to the small-lot, single family district of RS3 as “attached” dwellings.

NEED FOR TRANSITION IN SCALE BETWEEN INCOMPATIBLE BUILDING TYPES

Because there is no distinction in housing types in multiple family districts –only a distinction in density– our new code allows tall, three and four-story apartments with balconies to be built immediately adjacent to small, single family homes.  Though the required setback between multiple family lot lines and single family districts has been increased to the height of the multiple family building, and “bufferyards” are also required, in many cases this distance and landscaping still will be insufficient to protect adjacent single family housing from noise and invasion of privacy.  If the RMD District is eliminated, the former use of the Duplex District as the intervening smaller-scale buffer between single family and multiple family districts will no longer be available.  We believe that it may be best to reinstate the RMD District to be used for this purpose and to incorporate this use into Horizon 2020.  We also suggest that the policies in Horizon 2020 regarding transitional land uses be examined.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,

Caleb Morse                                                    Jennifer Dropkin

President                                                          Land Use Committee