The Case for UDO Reform
The data, the precedents, and the policy levers that make Overland Park's zoning rewrite a generational opportunity for housing access.
The Adopted Framework
FrameworkOP, the city's adopted comprehensive plan, established the policy framework that the UDO rewrite is supposed to implement. These are the key policies and action items most relevant to housing and zoning reform:
P-LU.5 Increase Housing Choices, including "missing middle" housing
P-LU.9 Encourage Development of Complete Neighborhoods
P-H.1 Foster Development of a Variety of Housing Types, attainable to residents at many stages of life and with varying incomes
P-H.4 Utilize Creative Tools for Increasing Housing Choice (pocket neighborhoods, permit-ready designs, missing middle)
A-H.5 Revise regulatory standards to remove procedural barriers to missing middle housing
A-H.6 Revise regulatory standards to remove barriers to infill lots
The data below shows where Overland Park stands against its own adopted goals.
Overland Park by the Numbers
Renter vs. Owner Households
38.5% of Overland Park households are renters. The effects of restrictive zoning fall disproportionately on them.
The Widespread Affordability Gap
Light green = 30% of income | Dark green = remaining income | Red shaded = affordability gap
The "Preferred" vs "Supported" Distinction
Every proposed district sorts potential uses into preferred and supported. This language is aspirational. The critical question is whether "supported" uses (like duplexes in Neighborhood 1) will be permitted by right or subjected to discretionary review. A-H.5 directs the city to "review the Unified Development Ordinance and identify development standards and procedural barriers to creating missing middle housing...and revise the regulations to make it easier to build these housing types." If "supported" means discretionary review rather than by-right approval, the code is creating exactly the kind of procedural barrier A-H.5 was written to eliminate.
Boise's recent reform experience makes the stakes clear: allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right produced a 650% increase in applications. Conversely, requiring discretionary review (like a special use permit) suppresses housing production even when the district explicitly "supports" the use.
Legacy Development: A Sleeper Issue for Renters
When the new UDO takes effect, many older apartment complexes in northern Overland Park won't meet new landscaping or design standards. If classified strictly as nonconforming, any significant renovation triggers expensive requirements to bring the entire site into compliance, so buildings simply don't get renovated.
The outline proposes a "legally conforming legacy development" distinction. If implemented right, this allows incremental property improvements without forcing full compliance, protecting the city's most attainable housing stock.
SB 391 and State Preemption
SB 391 (source-of-income discrimination preemption) passed the Kansas Senate 31-7 and faces House hearings. Backed by realtors and landlords, it would block cities from requiring landlords to accept housing vouchers.
If the state preempts direct tenant protections, local land-use regulation through the UDO becomes the most vital lever Overland Park retains to influence housing access.
Comparable Cities
Overland Park isn't doing this in a vacuum. Similar cities have implemented these exact reforms to address similar housing deficits:
Lawrence, Kansas
Allowed missing middle housing and ADUs in all residential zones, and eliminated parking minimums entirely (effective April 2025). This is the nearest precedent under the exact same state legal framework.
Kansas City, Kansas
Enacted a 3-year moratorium on commercial parking minimums east of I-635 (July 2025). A powerful KC metro precedent.
Spokane, Washington
Passed by a 7-0 bipartisan vote. Allowed duplexes up to fourplexes across residential zones, contributing to record building permits in 2024.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Added 12% to its housing stock over 5 years under the 2040 plan reforms. Rents remained flat while peer cities saw sharp increases.
FrameworkOP P-H.4 (Utilize Creative Tools for Increasing Housing Choice) explicitly lists missing middle housing, pocket neighborhoods, permit-ready designs, and hotel-to-apartment conversions. The cities above have implemented exactly these tools. Overland Park's own plan already endorses the approach.
Draft Documents Released
On March 2, 2026, the city's UDO consultant released the first substantive structural documents for the core zoning rewrite, proposing to consolidate 33 districts into 11. The draft documents are cataloged in our source library.
Here is a summary of the proposed districts most relevant to our constituency, drawn from the Guiding Principles document:
Neighborhood 1 (N1)
Replaces: Mostly single-family zones (R-1, R-1A).
Preferred uses: Single-family detached.
Supported uses: Cottages, duplexes, townhomes.
Key question: Will supported uses be permitted by right?
FrameworkOP: P-LU.5, Housing 2 use category (cottage-style, duplexes, townhomes)
Neighborhood 2 (N2) & 3 (N3)
Replaces: R-2, R-3, deeper residential.
Focus: Progressively more flexibility. N3 allows up to 4 stories and zero
front setback from local streets (Option 2).
Key question: Is single-family detached still allowed here?
FrameworkOP: P-LU.5, P-LU.8 (Promote Appropriate Linkages and Transitions Between Adjacent Land Uses)
Neighborhood Center (NC) & Regional Center (RC)
Replaces: Auto-oriented retail hubs.
Focus: Facilitating mixed-use transition for underperforming commercial centers.
Key question: Will parking minimum reductions apply here?
FrameworkOP: P-LU.2 (Focus Growth Along Strategic Investment Areas), P-LU.3 (Direct Growth to Infill and Redevelopment Sites)
Neighborhood Bus./Commercial Corridor
Focus: Allowing older transit corridors and business routes to gain residential life.
Key question: Will commercial-to-residential conversion be streamlined?
FrameworkOP: P-LU.3, P-H.4 (transition of older hotel/lodging uses to apartments)
Our Read of the Draft Code
FrameworkOP, the city's adopted comprehensive plan, calls for vibrant neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and attainable options for residents at every stage of life. The UDO rewrite is how the city delivers on that commitment.
We're tracking the process, analyzing every draft, and advocating for a code that matches the city's own vision.
The Market Study Says One Thing, the Code Draft Says Another
The RCLCO market study identifies structured parking costs as a key barrier to the types of compact, walkable development the city says it wants. VTPI data shows suburban surface parking runs $11,000 to $14,000 per space in land and construction costs alone, before annual operating expenses.
Despite this, the code outline says it will "carry forward" existing parking standards. This makes no sense when neighboring cities are moving forward: Lawrence just eliminated parking minimums citywide, Kansas City (KS) suspended them, and Kansas City (MO) removed them downtown.
Where the New Districts Help
- Simpler code: Consolidating 33 base zones into 11 makes the process more predictable for everyone.
- Missing middle progress: The Neighborhood 1 district lists cottages, duplexes, and townhomes as "supported" uses, a meaningful step away from strict single-family zoning. This aligns directly with P-LU.5 (Increase Housing Choices) and P-H.4, which calls for missing middle housing and pocket neighborhoods as tools for diversifying the housing stock.
- Better commercial areas: Neighborhood Center and Regional Center districts will allow underperforming auto-oriented centers to transition into mixed-use hubs. With a 20.9% office vacancy rate, this is critical. (A Kansas City-specific Urban3 analysis found mixed-use yields 10x the tax revenue per acre compared to auto-oriented development.)
Where the Critical Details Are Missing
The Childcare Gap: Despite a shortage of over 14,000 childcare slots in Johnson County, the draft use list of 35 specific categories entirely omits childcare. It must be explicitly permitted by right.
"Supported" vs. "Permitted": The code lists diverse housing types as "supported." If this means by-right approval, it will work. If it means discretionary review and lengthy hearings, very few will get built.
Vague Administrative Flexibility: The outline mentions a staff-level modification procedure. For this code to succeed, administrative approval must be the default for projects that meet objective standards.
These gaps run counter to specific FrameworkOP action items. A-LU.1.C directs the city to "remove regulatory barriers that impede the development of a diversity of housing types and price points." A-LU.1.J directs the city to "address barriers to missing middle housing and infill development." A-H.5 directs the city to revise regulatory standards that create procedural barriers to missing middle housing. These are adopted action items, not aspirational suggestions. The code draft needs to follow through.
What This Means for Renters
- Legacy development: If older apartment complexes are branded "nonconforming," renovations become nearly impossible. The new "legacy development" category could protect this crucial housing stock. This connects to P-H.2 (Support Aging and Established Neighborhoods) and A-H.2, which directs the city to monitor factors that impact the retention of attainable housing.
- The family definition: The current code limits households to four unrelated people, a rule that penalizes roommates and non-traditional families. The rewrite must remove this cap. A-LU.1.C specifically directs the city to "remove regulatory barriers that impede the development of a diversity of housing types and price points." An occupancy cap based on family relationships is exactly that kind of barrier.
- Tenant protections: The draft code leaves rental licensing out of the UDO, squandering a chance to directly tie zoning rights to building quality standards.
The State Legislature Adds Urgency
SB 391 recently passed the Kansas Senate (31-7) and had a House hearing. It would prohibit cities from requiring landlords to accept housing vouchers. If the state continues narrowing tenant protections, the local zoning code becomes our most vital tool for ensuring housing access.