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
Purple = 30% affordable portion | Dark Blue = 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—meaning 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)