Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues zoning-reform talks; staff asked to refine R2 district, public-hearing and protest-petition options
Summary
Lee's Summit staff presented options to add missing-middle housing types and a new conventional R2 district, and to alter public-hearing timing; council preserved R1/RP1 protections, favored moving triplexes to RP2, and asked staff for more detailed R2 options and protest-petition timing.
City staff returned to the Community & Economic Development Committee with a multi-part zoning reform presentation intended to increase housing choice and speed the development-review timeline.
Amy Nassif, deputy director of development, reviewed options to expand allowable residential uses in conventional districts (R1/RP1/RP2), including restricted townhomes, duplexes as conditional uses and triplexes in selected districts. Nassif said the goal is to remove "zoning barriers or barriers" that slow housing delivery while protecting existing neighborhoods. "One of the main things that we hear from home builders...is that zoning reform is the main area that cities can help toward getting more housing on the market," Nassif said.
Staff also proposed creating a new conventional R2 district as a predetermined middle-density alternative that would reduce the need for a preliminary development plan and shorten approval timelines. Under the R2 concept developers meeting fixed code requirements could proceed with a plat instead of a PDP; council members asked for variants that keep R1 and RP1 unchanged and limit R2 to predetermined uses (for example, single-family plus townhomes with triplexes remaining in RP2).
The committee also debated reducing the city's current two-public-hearing practice to a single required hearing (at Planning Commission) to save weeks in the process; staff cited state statute and comparator cities. Several council members opposed eliminating the second hearing, saying it would reduce constituent voice. On protest petitions, staff proposed a filing deadline (examples discussed: 48 hours or two business days prior to final action) so petitions can be validated and council can determine whether a supermajority threshold applies.
No ordinance was adopted. Instead council asked staff to return with more detailed options: a concrete R2 code framework (showing exact uses, setback and lot-size tables), specific conditional-use criteria, modeled examples of how R2 would apply to infill or vacant land, and precise protest-petition timing language for Planning Commission consideration.
Why it matters: The proposals aim to increase "missing middle" housing and speed approvals but generated concern about protecting existing single-family neighborhoods and maintaining meaningful public hearings.
What's next: Staff will draft R2 language and options and will advance amendments to Planning Commission for additional vetting before returning to council for direction.
