Lansing council approves rezoning of 145 acres near K‑7 and McIntyre Road over resident objections

The Lansing City Council voted 8‑0 April 4 to adopt Ordinance 11‑30, amending the city zoning map for roughly 145 acres adjacent to Kansas Highway 7 and McIntyre Road from A‑1 Agricultural to three districts: R‑4 multifamily (about 39 acres), I‑1 light industrial (about 85.5 acres) and B‑3 regional business (about 21.5 acres). The council approved the measure in accordance with the planning commission recommendation; because a valid protest petition was filed the measure required a supermajority (six members, not including the mayor) under the city’s process and an Attorney General opinion from 1992 that the mayor does not vote in such supermajority votes.

The rezoning was presented to the council as a land‑use entitlement to “improve the marketability” of the property; no specific development plan was before the council. A staff member told the council that “every new development requires a traffic study,” and staff also said the property owner had requested the rezoning. City Attorney provided legal context for the vote and urged the council to decide the rezoning on the property’s own facts rather than on broader public demands for traffic or school studies.

Residents who spoke at the public comment period urged the council to follow Lansing’s comprehensive plan or delay rezoning until the plan is revised. April Cromer, a resident near McIntyre Road, told the council the proposed zoning “does not meet your comprehensive plan” and said the city should not change zoning without a proposed development because “once the zoning has changed, you surrender all of your input and control into what a developer can put there.” John Redden, a nearby resident, urged the council to consider cumulative impacts of three planned or proposed projects in the area and said the combined developments could put pressure on traffic and school capacity; Redden also cited figures he said appeared on conceptual plans, including “344 apartment units on Epic Estates,” and characterized those numbers as part of a larger cumulative calculation.

Other commenters raised safety and traffic concerns on K‑7 and McIntyre Road and asked whether the Kansas Department of Transportation would be involved. Mary Ryan and Rebecca Mahan asked about tax abatements and incentives; council and staff replied there were no tax abatements tied to this rezoning and that the rezoning request was conceptual and initiated by the property owner. Several speakers — including Dennis Harrington and Pat Melvin — urged the council to make public revisions to the comprehensive plan if the city intends to pursue this corridor for significant new development.

City Attorney framed the central legal question for the council: zoning decisions are to be made on the record for the property before the council, and requests for traffic or school studies are not a reason to deny a rezoning application at this stage. The mayor and staff noted that infrastructure investments already made in the area were a factor in seeking appropriate development.

Councilmembers voted on a motion to adopt Ordinance 11‑30 in accordance with the planning commission recommendation and the ordinance passed by roll call: Robinson, Clemens, Brumgard, Studnica, Gardner, Kirby, Kovaleski and Garvey voted yes. No binding development approvals were granted; any future site plan or development proposal would return to the planning commission and to the council as required by city procedures.

The rezoning affects a corridor subject to the city’s and regional planning efforts; residents and council members indicated further public engagement and review of the city’s comprehensive plan will continue as specific proposals emerge.