Lawrence commission approves rezoning at Third and Michigan over neighborhood objections

The Lawrence City Commission voted 3-2 on May 20 to rezone about 0.69 acres at the southwest corner of West Third Street and Michigan Street from R-2 (low-density residential) to R-4 (high-density residential), approving on first reading Ordinance No. 10132.

The rezoning matters because the applicant, represented by Land Plan Engineering, said the change would unify split zoning on the parcel and allow a single, two-story, 24-unit apartment building designed for the site. Opponents said the proposal would change the character and traffic patterns of an established neighborhood.

Planner Catherine Week presented staff analysis and told commissioners the parcel is a split-zoned lot in the Pinkney neighborhood, previously reviewed under the old code as RS-7 and RM-24 and now mapped as R-2 and R-4 under the city’s April 2025 land development code. Week summarized the rezoning review criteria — conformance with the comprehensive plan, neighborhood character, suitability of the property for existing restrictions, nearby uses and zoning, and public welfare. She said staff concluded the request met the criteria and recommended approval to the commission. "Staff feels that it can meet the criteria points for rezoning," Week said.

Corby Rust of Land Plan Engineering, the applicant's representative, described a site plan concept and calculations supporting the application's scale. "We're asking for 24 units. It is 1 building, 2 stories, 24 units. That's 12 single bed and 12 2 bedroom apartments," Rust said, and added the design locates parking internal to the lot and proposes nearly 40% landscaped open area and new sidewalks on Third and Flora streets.

Public comment was substantial and sharply divided. Supporters urged new housing supply and proximity to jobs and services. David Baston said the project would add needed housing. Several neighbors urged denial, arguing the project’s density, traffic and scale are incompatible with existing single-family and duplex fabric. John Turner, who said he lives two blocks away, asked the commission to deny the rezoning, saying: "Granting this request means trading the opportunity for additional modest, attainable, affordable, single, or double family type housing in an area that already exists as such for multifamily 24 unit housing that will forever change the nature of this neighborhood." Several speakers also raised concerns about vehicular access, stormwater and sidewalk availability.

Commission debate reflected those divisions. Vice Mayor Finkeldei moved to approve the rezoning; Commissioner Sellers seconded. The motion passed 3-2, with Commissioners Littlejohn and Larson voting no. Mayor Mike Deaver announced the result: "Okay. Motion passes 3 2 with, Littlejohn and, Larson with a nay." The ordinance was adopted on first reading.

The commission record and staff reminded the public that site plan review and engineering studies remain to be completed. Catherine Week noted that traffic, drainage and other technical studies are required at the site plan stage and will be reviewed by Municipal Services & Operations and other city divisions before building permits are issued. She also explained that alternative approaches — for example, subdividing the lot or building taller structures within existing R-4 acreage — are possible under current code but would trigger additional public processes such as plats or variance hearings.

Decision vs. next steps: the rezoning vote is a legislative zoning decision (first reading of an ordinance). It permits the applicant to proceed to the next steps of site plan review, which will require submission of engineering studies, a traffic analysis, stormwater controls (including proposed bioretention), and final design review. Any subsequent variances or special uses would generate additional public hearings.

Commissioners who voted for the rezoning emphasized the need for infill housing near major employers and walked through tradeoffs between maximizing density vertically under current split zoning versus approving a lower-rise, site-specific development. Commissioners who opposed the rezoning said the parcel’s current mix of detached and duplex housing makes a 24-unit apartment out of scale for that block.

The commission record shows the planning commission had been split on the application (a tie vote), so no formal recommendation accompanied the item to the city commission. As the city clerk noted, a simple majority of three votes was sufficient to approve the rezoning.

The applicant and neighbors will continue through site plan review and any required plat or variance processes; staff emphasized required technical reviews and access/stormwater mitigations that will be evaluated before any permits are issued.