A divided Overland Park City Council approved changes to the city’s development code that include new limits on the height of apartment buildings.

Although city staff characterized the changes (which also included other amendments to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance) as “interim” and “incremental,” the proposal still sparked heated discussion among council members at Monday’s meeting. November.

Ultimately, the council approved the changes by a vote of 7 to 5, with Mayor Curt Skoog casting the deciding affirmative vote.

Notably, code amendments establish height limit for apartments in the city’s highest-density multifamily zoning areas, called RP-6.

They also eliminate a minimum height in the same areas of RP-6 and codify what are called “transition zones” between higher-density multifamily projects (which typically have multiple stories) and established areas of nearby suburban homes.

Apartment Height Limit Split Overland Park City Council

Discussion of the topic, which was initially listed as part of the meeting’s consent agenda but was removed at the request of Councilman Jeff Cox, lasted more than an hour and at times led to debates about the city’s housing philosophy. largest in Johnson County.

Previously, amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance passed through the Overland Park Planning Commission without objection, passing 9-0.

Additionally, city staff have said that these amendments are intended to serve as a “patch” of sorts as the city prepares to embark on a widespread overhaul of the city’s development codes to align them with the new comprehensive plan, OP Marco.

Ultimately, the city council approved the development code updates 7-5.

Council President Logan Heley and council members Cox, Melissa Cheatham, Scott Mosher and Richard Borlaza voted in dissent. An affirmative vote from Mayor Curt Skoog was required to approve the amendments.

Councilman Chris Newlin was absent from the meeting last Monday.

What development codes are changing in Overland Park?

Most of the updates focus on residential development, although there are some pieces for other types of land use.

Current Planning Director Brian Monberg said at last week’s meeting that the changes that have been made so far reflect neighbors’ concerns on recent projects that have gone through the planning process and common variance requests from developers, as well as changes in the development industry.

Changes approved last week include:

• Apartment buildings in the city’s densest residential zoning districts, RP-6, cannot exceed five stories without a variance request from the developer.
• The minimum height for four-story apartment buildings in the RP-6 district has now been eliminated.
• The new height limit does not affect the multifamily portions of larger mixed-use developments.
• The update also codifies transition zones between the two densest multifamily zoning classes, RP-5 and RP-6, and neighboring single-family residential areas. They also cannot enter areas designated as Suburban Neighborhood or Rural Transition Zone in the new long-term OP Framework plan.
• Buildings can now be up to 500 feet long, as long as there are some design elements or modulations to break up the facades. Previously, buildings could not exceed 200 feet without an approved deviation request.
• Additionally, these amendments make way for the city’s permit-ready housing pilot program, which aims to accelerate pre-approved housing designs in certain parts of the city.
• It also includes some changes related to commercial building materials and deviations from requirements on that front.

These amendments are “interim,” Monberg said, meaning they are intended as a stopgap measure to bring part of the city’s development code into line with the new standards set out in the OP Framework ahead of a larger update that will likely take several months. . to complete.

‘Why are we locking ourselves in?’

During the meeting, councilors were divided over changes to the Unified Development Ordinance, and tempers flared at times.

The main disagreement was the new height limit on apartments in RP-6 zoning areas, with several council members questioning the need for such a limit.

“We should not put obstacles in the way of housing construction in our community. We should do everything we can to encourage housing,” Heley said. “I think this seems like an unnecessary way to make housing construction in our community more difficult, rather than easier.”

Overland Park Planning Documents

At one point, Councilman Mitrisin offered an alternative motion that would have approved the amendments without the apartment height limit.

“Why are they locking us up?” —Mitrisin asked. “If anyone thinks they can support housing in our community, I don’t want to negotiate against that right now.”

That motion failed 4-7, short of the nine affirmative votes that would have been required to deviate from the planning commission’s recommendation. Borlaza, Mitrisin, Cheatham and Heley voted in favor of Mitrisin’s alternative motion.

In the end, Mitrisin voted to approve the amendments as recommended.

“I don’t want Overland Park to be that.”

For his part, Cox railed against density in housing developments but did not go into detail about the problems he has with these specific updates to the Unified Development Ordinance. He said the council’s housing decisions are “degrading what Overland Park is and why everyone loves it.”

“I’m trying to preserve what’s wonderful about Overland Park, and density comes at a big cost,” Cox said. “This relentless effort to become a city from a suburban community comes at a cost… I just don’t want Overland Park to be that.”

In the end, support for the amendments triumphed.

“I see this as a way to address some of the challenges that both our residents and our developers have faced in the projects that this council has looked at,” said Mayor Skoog.

Cox also complained that the issue was initially on the consent agenda. (Typically, items that the planning commission approves unanimously, as these proposed changes were, are included on the consent agenda, for the council to approve without discussion.)

Cox, however, felt that the proposed changes focused on important issues that the city council had recently clashed over. He said he would have preferred to discuss these changes in a study session before they ended up on the city council agenda.

In response, Skoog said any suggestion that City Hall was not being transparent or had malicious intent in its approach to this issue “is outrageous and wrong.”

Next steps

The city still plans to conduct a full review of its Unified Development Ordinance in the coming months.

City staff have noted that those upcoming changes are likely to include additional or other changes to Overland Park’s standards for apartments, although it’s unclear what that would look like.

Any future amendments will also require approval from both the planning commission and city council.

Overland Park also continues to develop a new special zoning overlay district for the College and Metcalf area that could set separate standards for building height, width and other factors to encourage mixed-use redevelopment in that prominent corridor.

This story was originally published by Johnson County Post Office.