-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 8:23 PM
To: asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Cc: sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Planning Commission comments Z-10-49GH-04
Please
convey the following remarks to the members of the Planning Commission on
Monday, December 13.
To: Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioners
Re: Rezoning Barker neighborhood plots from RS-2 to RS-5 or RS-7
Date: December
12, 2004
These remarks concern the proposed rezoning in the Barker neighborhood which
has been primarily RS-2. Some homes are going to become RS-5 and other
RS-7.
My home of 11 years is on Johnson Ave., built in the 1920's, with 6,500 sq. ft and a
50 foot frontage. This means that it is 500 sq. ft. too small and 10 feet
too narrow to meet the definition of RS-2 or RS-7. It is scheduled to be
rezoned to RS-5.
Frankly, I am concerned and confused about the rezoning. I had thought it
was created for new areas of the city. I am completely opposed to
creating smaller lots in my neighborhood and to creating a more dense living
environment. I oppose additional infill housing where it destroys the
look of the neighborhood and affects nearby property owners who purchased with
the previous understanding that small open plots or large yards were too small
to be built on.
Our neighborhood has had several PRD developments from rezoning. We have
had a significant increase in commuter traffic and significant loss of property
to some of the nicest homes through street widening. The rural or quiet
nature of this neighborhood is being destroyed.
To change to RS-5 would allow for the development of homes with only 40 feet of
frontage. This might even affect a property one house away from me.
There is a large accessory building on an oversized lot that was run as a
television repair shop illegally for years. Perhaps now this will become
a home. The bright light installed makes it impossible for me to enjoy my
back yard or the night sky in darkness. Also, close dwellings and
outbuildings shade yards from the sun and make it harder to garden.
I believe that this is insufficient distance for the privacy and quiet
necessary for homes. My next door neighbor installed a central air
conditioning unit that is unbalanced and extremely noisey, and the closeness of
our homes makes this very difficult for me to tolerate. Fortunately, my
other neighbor and I are separated by our driveways and a hedge, although
friendly. I cannot imagine having a lot 10 feet narrower.
Additionally, it seems that some properties in my neighborhood would now become
RS-7 and be allowed to have accessory dwellings. At the present time, we
have not been allowed to have a second dwelling unit on our property.
This could greatly increase the density of dwellings and
"grandfather" any such dwellings that exist now in violation of code.
As a homeowner, I have a concern that if my home were destroyed by something
such as fire or tornado, I would not be allowed to rebuild it. The same
for my garage, which I hope to upgrade. While I do not favor the rezoning
to the small lots of RS-5, I am uncertain as to what my rights would be if
rebuilding were necessary and my lot was non-conforming. I was told that
I would have to go before the BZA to request permission to rebuild if my lot is
non-conforming.
Unfortunately, the tables of individual lots prepared by the Planning Dept. do
not list the dimensions of the properties involved, so it is difficult to know
how many are just a little bit smaller than RS-7 requires like mine.
Again, I take the risky step of commenting on the process for public
comment. We have a very small neighborhood listserve. Emily Wellman
posted an item about this rezoning coming to the Planning Commission this week
on Dec. 8, Wed. afternoon. I emailed Planning with some specific
questions about the pros and cons of this Thursday and requested that a copy of
the staff report be emailed to me so that I could comment by Monday a.m.
I did not receive an answer to my email or phone calls by about 4:15 p.m. Friday. I called
and did manage to get the report emailed to me and a staff member answered some
questions. However, I did not get to talk with anyone who could really
tell me about the pro's and con's. If you have not heard from others in
Barker, it could be because most are unaware of this proposed rezoning.
The staff report states: "When this new code was being developed, an
informal coalition of representatives from these central city neighborhoods
requested a zoning category that was representative of their smaller lot sizes
and one that would recognize the existing, smaller platted lot sizes in these
neighborhoods. The RS5 zoning district was created specifically in
response to this request for smaller lots in single-family use." I
have no knowledge of such a group and, even though I am a member of the Barker
Neighborhood Association, we have not been informed about such a group or their
views or findings or requests. Our chair stated in her email that this
was primarily a housekeeping issue, but it seems to be much more than that.
I believe that the Planning Commission recently considered whether to require
neighborhood association notification of certain items. I believe that
this is a good idea, but not a sufficient means of notification.
My neighborhood association has met, to my recollection, in Jan. and in Sept.
this year. A promised Nov. meeting never materialized. Any number
of significant items have not been mentioned in newsletter (which is not sent out
regularly) or meeting. Our most recent notice said that, in the future, the
person doing a newsletter would determine its content as well as to whom it
would be distributed. The membership is extremely small relative to the
number of residents. Some associations have subsidized staff and therefore can
send out newsletters, etc. Also, there would be nothing to stop a
developer of a new area of the city from creating an organization that calls
itself the neighborhood organization.
Thank you for your consideration. I trust that you will consider the
overall good of my neighborhood and the desire of many residents not to become
more densely built.
Patricia Sinclair
NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
LAWRENCE, KANSAS
December 13, 2004
Dear Lawrence City Commission:
The North Lawrence Improvement Association and the residents of North Lawrence do not want to implement the proposed change from RS2 zoning to RS5.
80% of North Lawrence is either in the flood plain or flood prone and most of that area does not have storm sewer infrastructure to handle storm water runoff. Most of North Lawrence has narrow streets and open ditches. The larger areas that are proposed to change to RS5 are not in the flood plain. However, storm water runoff from these areas affects surrounding areas, which are either in the flood plain or flood prone.
The NLIA has long advocated for larger lots as a method to help diminish the storm water runoff problem. Four homes per acre is the target density we would like for future development. RS5 zoning would eliminate the rural atmosphere of North Lawrence and the open spaces that allow more room for storm water to percolate into the ground.
There have been many storm water studies done in the past with nothing done to improve storm water drainage. There is currently a $282,000 study in progress not to be completed until sometime in 2005. Even with the study completed, will the city find the money to implement whatever recommendations are made by the study to alleviate the storm water runoff problem?
The development of RS2 zoned property in North Lawrence has adversely affected the amount of storm water runoff into surrounding areas. Changing to denser zoning would acerbate that situation even further. The development in the northeast corner of North Lawrence has affected estalished residents with deeper ponding and more runoff as a result. More development with higher density is the last thing this neighborhood needs.
Sincerely,
Ted Boyle President, NLIA
NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
LAWRENCE, KANSAS
December 30, 2004
Lawrence City Commission
Dear Commissioners:
The North Lawrence Improvement Association and the residents of North Lawrence do not want the proposed change from RS2 to RS5 zoning. This zoning is higher density zoning and would allow developers to build on smaller lots.
The NLIA and residents of North Lawrence have long advocated for larger lots to help alleviate the storm water runoff problems in our neighborhood. North Lawrence is currently undergoing a storm water study that may not be completed until spring or early summer. We would ask that the issue of the zoning change be deferred until the completion of that study. At that time we will know what recommendations are proposed to handle the storm water problem and how the zoning changes may or may not be beneficial to those ends.
Sincerely,
Ted Boyle
President
North Lawrence Improvement Association
cc: Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission
Lawrence Planning Department
12 December 2004
John Haase, Chair, and Members Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission City Hall
Lawrence, KS 66021
RE: ITEM NO. 5: REZONING TO RS5 FOR LOTS IN THE OREAD NEIGHBORHOOD Dear Chairman Haase and Planning Commission Members:
I do want to thank all of you for your work on the new development code. Although I very much appreciate the intent of the proposal to rezone many of the lots in our existing neighborhoods that were RS-2 to RS5 rather than RS7 I am writing to identify two locations where I believe the change from RS7 to RS5 is particularly inappropriate: the 1600 and 1700 blocks of Kentucky and Massachusetts Streets.
The "standard" lot size in the Oread Neighborhood is 50' x 117' however the majority of these lots are on blocks where vehicular access is available to the back of the lot from the alley. This is not true of the RS-2 area in the Oread Neighborhood; in that area only the properties along the west side of the 1700 block of Vermont back onto an alley; all the rest take vehicular access from the street. Before you recommend changes to the zoning, I hope you will consider how new development on smaller lots in this area would accommodate vehicular traffic especially as the RS5 designation will allow for lots with a 40' frontage that is narrower than the current standard in the neighborhood.
My particular concern is in allowing narrower lots (and more curb cuts) to take access directly from streets that carry major traffic in our community: Kentucky and Massachusetts. The map shows only two of the lots on the west in the 16.00 and 1700 blocks of Massachusetts as "standard" with the others larger. The map shows no "standard" lots currently on the west side of Kentucky. Perhaps the RS7 zoning is more appropriate than RS5 in this district.
I am hoping to discuss this issue with ONA board members at the Oread Neighborhood Association Board meeting December 13th and may have additional comments at the meeting Wednesday. Meanwhile I would appreciate your consideration of this concern.
Sincerely yours,
Marci Francisco, Oread Neighborhood Resident
1101 Ohio
Lawrence, Kansas 66044