Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning and Development Services

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Planning Staff

 

CC:

Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services

Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director

 

Date:

January 27, 2013

 

RE:

Occupancy of Planned Developments (PDs)

 

 

Agenda item: Consider initiating a text amendment to the Land Development Code that considers revising/clarifying the occupancy limits in all zoning districts.

 

At the November 27, 2012 City Commission meeting, the Commission considered a memo related to occupancy limits and directed staff to submit language that would reduce the occupancy for Detached Dwelling (single-family) and Duplex uses in certain districts from 4 unrelated occupants to 3 unrelated occupants.  This code revision is intended to apply the 3-person occupancy limit, currently applied in only RS districts, to all neighborhoods that contain a majority of single-family and duplex uses in order to consistently apply a standard viewed as beneficial to such neighborhoods.

 

Staff analyzed the housing types in the different districts and compiled a report reflecting the number of one, two, and multi-dwelling units in the various districts.  The table shows that dwelling units exist in all zoning districts.  In some cases these are conforming and in others the units are nonconforming. The North Lawrence neighborhood, for example, includes many Detached Dwelling units in the IG district, which reflects the issue that generated this review – one side of a single-family area is zoned RS and limited to 3 unrelated occupants, and the other side is zoned IG with single-family type housing and is limited to 4 unrelated occupants.  Because of this, it is not enough to review only the Planned Development areas.  The housing types in all districts must be considered in the discussion.

 

The other point that the report reflects is that approximately 3,000 units or more in the PD districts would be affected by changing the occupancy limit and the potential for rental income if the units are rented.

 

Staff believes the most efficient way to approach this issue is to maintain the 4 unrelated occupant limit in districts that behave like multi-dwelling neighborhoods and 3 unrelated occupants in districts that behave like single-dwelling neighborhoods.  Duplexes present a challenge in that many exist in PD districts in the context of single-family type neighborhoods and others exist in RM12D zoning where more density should be expected.  Staff’s proposal below aims at striking a balance between the two, permitting 4 unrelated occupants in RM12D zoned areas, but restricting duplexes in PD zoned areas to no more than 3 unrelated occupants.

 

Staff has reviewed the Development Code to determine the most efficient way to implement the Commission’s direction.  The definition of Family has served to limit occupancy of unrelated people in housing structures.  However, the actual code standard related to occupancy limits is located in Article 2 of the Development Code, which references the definition of Family.  The following is an example of how the code currently addresses occupancy.  Similar language exists for all districts.

 

(g)     Occupancy Limits

In RS Districts, no more than one Family, as that term is defined in Section 20-1701(1), (2), and (3)(a), shall occupy a Dwelling Unit. On properties in RS Districts that have an Accessory Dwelling Unit, established in accordance with Section 20-534, no more than one Family, as that term is defined in Section 20-1701(1), (2), and (3)(a), plus one additional person shall, in the aggregate, occupy a Dwelling Unit and Accessory Dwelling Unit.

 

The definition of Family follows:

Family

(1) A person living in a Dwelling Unit alone; (2) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, living in a Dwelling Unit together; (3) (a)  in RS Districts, a group of not more than three persons, not related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, living in a Dwelling Unit together, as distinguished from a group of persons occupying a Dormitory, Congregate Living, motel, hotel, fraternity house or sorority house; or  (b) in  non-RS Districts, a group of not more than four persons, not related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, living in a Dwelling Unit together, as distinguished from a group of persons occupying a Dormitory, Congregate Living, motel, hotel, fraternity house or sorority house.  For the purpose of this definition, “living in a Dwelling Unit” shall mean residing or sleeping at a Dwelling Unit the majority of a person’s time.

 

 

In order to implement the revised occupancy limits per the Commission’s direction, staff proposes that the definition of Family be deleted from the Development Code and that occupancy limits be instead identified for each zoning district. The substance of the current definition of Family would be maintained, but the specifics related to how to treat different housing types within the zoning districts would be more manageable. The table below reflects the current and proposed limits on unrelated people in each of the zoning districts and, in certain zoning districts, for different housing types within the district since some districts can contain single and multi dwelling uses and housing types.


 

 

 

Current Standard

Recommended Option

Option 2

Zoning District

Limit of Unrelated

Limit of Unrelated Occupants

Limit of Unrelated Occupants

RS

3

3

3

RSO

3

3

3

RM, including RM12D

4

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

RMG

4

Does not Apply

Does not Apply

RMO

4

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

All Commercial

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

All Industrial

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

MU

4

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

GPI

4

3

3

H

4

3

3

PUD[name]

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

PRD[name]

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

PCD[name]

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

PID[name]

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

POD[name]

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

UR

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

U/U-KU

4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

Detached Dwelling and Duplex – 3

All other housing types - 4

OS

4

3

3

Lawrence SmartCode

Per SmartCode

Per SmartCode

Per SmartCode

 

Note:   Approximate no. of units affected by Recommended Option – 3,058

           Approximate no. of units affected by Option 2 – 8,123

 

The recommended option essentially maintains the 3 unrelated occupant limit in RS districts and the 4 unrelated occupant limit in RM districts.  It requires that the Detached Dwelling and Duplex uses in PD districts meet the 3 unrelated occupant limit, but permits 4 unrelated occupants for other housing types that behave similar to RM districts.  These limits intend to allow all single-family type neighborhoods to be treated in a consistent fashion, while allowing multi-dwelling type neighborhoods and parts of neighborhoods to maintain RM type living conditions.

 

Option 2 is stricter in employing the 3-occupant limit, employing the standard to all Detached Dwelling and Duplex uses, regardless of the zoning district.  This was discussed by the City Commission at their November meeting and staff was instructed to provide information on the impact of this option.  Approximately 5,065 units in the RM districts alone would be affected by including Detached Dwelling and Duplex uses in the occupant limit reduction.

 

Staff recommends providing a date, such as until August 1, 2015, to comply with the standard to aid owners in reducing their occupancy within a reasonable timeframe.  As previously noted, the recommended option will affect approximately 3,000 Detached and Duplex units and the income stream generated if the structures are used as rental properties.

 

As the standards related to occupancy limits reside in the Development Code, a text amendment process, including a hearing before the Planning Commission, is necessary to revise the language.  The City Commission has the authority to initiate text amendments to the Land Development Code.  The next step in this process is to initiate a text amendment and schedule it for the Planning Commission’s consideration where public comment will be received.

 

Staff Recommendation – Initiate a text amendment to the Land Development Code that considers revising/clarifying the occupancy limits in all zoning districts.

 

Action Requested

Initiate a text amendment to the Land Development Code that considers revising/clarifying the occupancy limits in all zoning districts.