Dear Planning Commission:

We do not support an increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II.

We are concerned for the safety of the children walking and riding bikes to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness.

The increased density is not supported by Horizon 2020. Nor was the original plan abided by.

We are also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhoods.  We paid alot for our house in the neighborhood and do not wish to see it overrun by apartment complexes.  There are plenty in the city now.

Sincerely,

William W. and Patricia I. Roberts

4316 W. 26th Terrace

Lawrence, Kansas 66047

 

 

August 23, 2004

 

Planning Commission

City of Lawrence, Kansas

Lawrence Douglas County

Metropolitan Planning Office

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

 

Re: Planning Commission Meeting – August 25, 2004

Agenda Item No. 6A

Preliminary Development Plan for the Legends at KU, Phase II; South of

24th Place Between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive (SLD)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are writing to formally express our objections to the above-referenced request

by the Peridian Group to rezone Phase II of the Legends at KU project located South of

24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive (the “Project”) from PRD-2 (with

restrictions) to PRD-2. We object to Peridian’s request because we are concerned with the increased traffic from the development, the potential density permitted in this request is not supported by Horizon 2020, and we are concerned with the integrity of our neighborhood. The following is a more detailed discussion of our objections.

 

Increased Traffic

Representatives of the developer for suggest that residents of the Project, when completed, would enter and exit and 24th Place via Crossgate Drive rather than Inverness Drive. The rational being that the majority of the Project’s residents would be KU students and that the general traffic flow would be to the East. However, we believe that as the occupancy of Legends Phase I and Phase II increases, residents will tend to take the path of least resistance resulting in significant traffic diverting to Inverness Drive.  Any increase in traffic at the intersection of 24th Place and Inverness Drive will only add to the safety hazards of grade school children attempting to negotiate the roundabout at that intersection. We believe that residents of Legends Phase II will find Inverness Drive more convenient for ingress and egress because the layout of most of the other new development in the Inverness Park Addition encourage the residents to use Crossgate rather than Inverness to access Clinton Parkway. The traffic from the Inverness Park Addition development, coupled with the traffic from the Legends Phase I and from residents East of Crossgate would make Crossgate a less convenient option for accessing Clinton Parkway for residents of the Legends Phase II. In addition, we believe that a greater problem (although not reflected in traffic studies for the Project brought to our attention) is the effect any increase in density of developments West of Iowa will have on traffic at Clinton Parkway and Iowa. During morning and evening “rush hours” traffic at Clinton Parkway and Iowa is often untenable. Until completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway, permitting or encouraging any significant increase in density of residential projects West of Kasold seems irresponsible.

 

Horizon 2020

The change in zoning also is not supported by Horizon 2020. Chapter 5 of Horizon 2020 recommends that new housing options within Lawrence should be designed to help avoid major and abrupt changes in density or use. The potential increase in density in this request would permit maximum units per acre that would be a drastic change in use from the single family residences West of Inverness. Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.3(b) and (e) provide that City officials should utilize development regulations to ensure compatibility of different housing types within neighborhoods and also discourage concentrations of high-density multifamily infill within neighborhoods. Similarly Goal 1, Policy 1.2 of this chapter recommends that the City integrate housing types so that uses are of compatible density and scale and are appropriately mixed in a given area.

 

The developers would argue that the comprehensive plan for the entire Inverness Park addition integrates an appropriate mix of housing types consistent with Horizon 2020. On a micro level this may be true. However, on a macro level any additional multi-family development in the broader area bounded by Crossgate to the East, 27^th Street to the South, Wakarusa to the West and Clinton Parkway to the North, tighten the noose of non-permanent, multi-family housing on the surrounding stable single family residences in this area. Any proposed or permitted increase in density in developments in this area will further deteriorate the character of the existing neighborhoods and will also begin to tip the property mix in the general area to multi-family housing.

 

Similarly, Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.4 provides that the character and appearance of existing low-density residential neighborhoods should be protected to maintain the property value of and quality of life in the neighborhoods. The potential for increased density in the Legends Project would adversely affect the property value and character of adjacent neighborhoods as it would add to the concentration of “transitional” residents in the area.

 

Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.4 of Horizon 2020 recommends that development projects should minimize traffic impact through neighborhoods. The increase in density permitted by the zoning change requested would not achieve this goal as discussed in detail above.

 

Integrity of the Neighborhood

We understand that the purpose of this meeting is to address whether the change in zoning requested by the Peridian Group should be approved. We admit that we make our technical objections (which we believe to be true) because raising such objections is our only procedural resource to have any substantive input on the development of the Inverness Park Addition at this stage of the development. While, we understand Planning Commission’s scope on this item is limited to the request for rezoning, we would be remiss not to take this opportunity to integrate this issue with what we perceive to be the larger issue at stake with respect the proposed development.

 

The reactions to neighbors to the Project are similar to objections by members of other neighborhoods in the City. As reflected in an article in the Lawrence Journal World (Interior Growth Often Tricky – July 11, 2004) infill projects in the City often run into neighborhood opposition. On its face, such neighborhood objections may appear as pure “NIMBYism”. However, we believe that a more accurate assessment is that the residents of Lawrence recognize a phenomenon that the City planners may not. It is obvious that available property for any housing construction in the City proper is limited.

 

In addition, the City lacks sufficient affordable single-family residences. The Tenants to Homeowners and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing in a Lawrence Journal World Article (“Rising Prices Make Owning Home Increasingly Difficult- August 17, 2004”). According to this article, the average sale price for a home in Lawrence exceeds the federal guidelines for a home for a four person family in Lawrence by almost $17,000. Further evidence of the lack of property for single family dwellings is reflected in the Fox Chase subdivision. A total of 119 lots in the Fox Chase South subdivision were recently made available to builders. The developer of the subdivision received lot purchase requests for 140 lots in one week's time.  The lack of affordable housing and the escalating cost for the houses available are in part caused by the propensity of developers in the City to turn any available undeveloped property into an apartment complex. All things being equal, the natural assumption is that the housing market in Lawrence would demand that available land be used for residential units. However, all things are not equal because the cash flow from rent on multiple tenants in multiple units on a parcel far exceed the lump sum developer would receive for selling a lot for single family residence. In addition, as evidenced by the generous incentives offered by apartment managers to attract residents, many of the units remain vacant. Given the high vacancy rate, it would appear that principles of supply and demand would “self regulate” the number of units built since if the units are vacant the project would not generate sufficient cash flow to sustain the project.  However, tax laws provide investors an incentive to build multifamily developments even at high vacancy rates. This causes an incongruence in the goals of the community and the goals of investors. This practice will continue as long as the City leaders allow investors to implement their estate and investment planning strategies by building housing that the community neither needs or wants to the detriment of housing that the community wants and needs.

 

Conclusion

It was brought to our attention that the developer for the Project plans to build dwellings with less density than would be allowed if this zoning request is approved.  However, if Peridian’s request for rezoning is approved, we would have no recourse to object in the event the developer decides to change the plans for the Project. That is why we have focused on the potential density allowed with a rezoning rather than the proposed density for the Project in this letter. After all, these developers originally represented to the neighborhoods that the parcel in question would be used for a nursing home. In relying on the developers representations, the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods gave up an opportunity to object to the initial development plan.  We understand that this is not the appropriate forum to push for a moratorium or restriction on multi-family construction in Lawrence. We also understand that we cannot prevent multi-family development in the Inverness Park Addition. However, in an effort to protect the integrity of our neighborhood, we will continue to pursue any option available to reduce the density of property affecting our neighborhood even if that reduction is a single dwelling unit.

 

We believe that if the current construction trend continues, Lawrence will become little more than a bedroom community. A 13.7 bedroom per acre community at that.  We respectfully request that you deny the above referenced request for the reasons stated above.

 

 

Sincerely,

/s/ Kevin B. Wickliffe

Kevin B. Wickliffe

 

/s/ Lori Wickliffe

Lori Wickliffe

 

------ Original Message------

From: Rob and Jamie Hulse [mailto:rjhulse@sunflower.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:37 PM

To: jhaase@sunflower.com

Subject: Legends at KU Phase II, Request for increased density

 

Dear

 

We live within 200 ft. of the proposed Legends at KU Phase II at Inverness and 24th, and would like to see the request to increase the density from 12 units per acre to 13.7 units per acre be denied by the Planning Commission.

 

We have been told by Planning Staff that Staff recommended a denial for this request. We also have been told by Planning Staff that a Senior Citizen development requested increased density when the area was originally annexed into the city, and their request was denied, then the Senior Citizen development subsequently went away.

 

We understand you voted in favor of the request when this same agenda item was before the Planning Commission in June. We are trying to understand why the Planning Commission would unanimously approve the request after Staff recommended denial, a previous request was denied by a previous Planning Commission, and the neighbors are also opposed. It seems like we must be missing something...and would truly like to understand your position. If you could please email us with your reasons for voting for the increased density, we would greatly appreciate it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rob & Jamie Hulse

393-2943 393-2942 841-7653