Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed Unified Development Code design standards fail to advance amid implementation questions
Summary
A proposed amendment to Raymore’s Unified Development Code to add anti‑monotony standards (lot width variation, entry types, landscaping points) did not receive a motion and failed to move forward; council and staff discussed implementation flexibility, landscaping point formulas and variance processes.
City staff presented a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code that would add design standards for new single‑family and two‑family residential development to promote variety in form and landscaping.
Staff explained the package’s three main tools: required lot‑width variation across blocks, a requirement to vary entry feature types, and a landscaping point system (examples were shown to illustrate what 40 points could look like). The staff presentation traced the outreach process (work sessions in 2025, engagement with the Kansas City Home Builders Association and local builders, and a November open house) and said the code changes are intended to be flexible and not mandate specific floor plans or minimum house sizes.
Council members asked how maintenance provisions would be enforced and whether maintenance language applies to builders or future homeowners; staff clarified that highlighted text in the packet shows proposed additions and that the maintenance section is existing code and not proposed to change. Staff said enforcement of maintenance is focused on commercial and multifamily properties and the intention is not to enforce those maintenance standards against single‑family homeowners after turnover. Staff also described a variance process for topography or other site‑specific issues.
There was discussion about how the point system treats smaller shrubs versus larger trees, and staff said point values were adjusted to encourage larger trees while allowing flexibility. After discussion the council took no motion to dispose of Bill 4024 and the item failed for lack of a motion.
Next steps: Staff can provide more detailed implementation guidance and the council may return the item after further refinement; no code change was approved at this meeting.
