PRICE T. BANKS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 442341
901 KENTUCKY STREET
SUITE 206
LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66044
785/842-7900
FAX 785/841-2296
January 26, 2005
Lawrence City Commission
PO Box 708 via facsimile & US Mail
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
Re: Lake Estates at Alvamar (the subject property)
Dear Commissioners:
I represent Francois Henriquez in the above-mentioned matter. Francois owns and lives on the lot directly north and adjacent to the proposed development.
The applicant Proposes to develop the property into single-family homes and duplexes adjacent to Lake Estates Subdivision, which consists of very large estate type lots developed in the unincorporated portion of Douglas County. The proposal creates several problems for my client and other residents of Lake Estates.
Background-
This entire area has been developed without the benefit of an overall plan. Most of the existing land uses preceded the South Lawrence Trafficway which created unforeseen barriers to development. The multi-family zoning in the area was unplanned, but according to staff, was granted as a lesser evil than a county commercial zoning district as old as our regulations. The privately drafted Alvamar Master Plan was professionally drawn and did an excellent job of reaching as far as Lake Alvamar. However, piecemeal land use changes have resulted in the problems I will discuss in the following paragraphs. Now is an opportune time to work with residents in the neighborhood to develop an area plan consistent with Horizon 2020.
Issues-
This same applicant applied for and recently received zoning and plat approval on land further to the south and is currently developing a dense apartment project on that land.
The developers representative has suggested that the subject property should provide a medium density transition zone from the apartments to the very low-density residences to the north, and that good planning principals dictate a transition to duplexes and then medium density single family land uses.
It seem apparent that the developer is creating the objectionable land uses to the south and should not then be rewarded by achieving higher density zoning on land he wants to develop adjacent to that problem. The developer is in a position to use all manner of plantings, berms or other screening between his apartments and the subject property which he owns. The developer, alone, should absorb the impact of the dramatic land use change. It simply does not make sense to impose an abrupt density change at the edge of my client’s lot when it can as easily occur on the developers land. If development is permitted on the subject property, the boundary between the apartments and the subject property should also be the boundary between RM-1 zoning and RS-E zoning.
The proposed development is grossly out of character with the neighboring land uses to the north.
The apartment and commercial development to the south will combine with the current proposal to bring a collector street from Clinton Parkway north to connect directly to Lake Estates Drive, thereby converting Lake Estates Drive to a de facto collector street. Horizon 2020 suggests that the collector should connect with E 902 Road which is the frontage road for the South Lawrence Trafficway. However that connection is not available and may not be available for the long term. Lake Estates Drive is not an appropriate collector, and should not be, since it serves as a local street and lacks the design to carry even medium volumes of traffic. Nevertheless, if the proposed connection is made, Lake Estates Drive will eventually provide alternative ingress and egress from the developer’s high-density residential and commercial land on the south to future development to the north including a possible future connection to Bob Billings Parkway.
City policy suggests that development of fringe land should not be permitted until adequate infrastructure is available to serve that land. There are a host of examples where the city has required landowners and developers to wait until said infrastructure served the property before development could proceed. In this case, the collector street
will not be a true collector until it has connectivity on both ends, either with another collector, or with an arterial street. The transportation infrastructure does not exist at the
subject property. Therefore, the subject property should neither be annexed nor zoned until the proposed collector street can connect with E 902 Road as proposed by Horizon 2020.
Recommendation-
I urge the Commission to deny the annexation, the rezoning and the plat of the subject property.
Should any commissioners have questions relating to this matter, I will be pleased to discuss it with you.
I look forward to meeting with you on February 1, 2005
Sincerely,
Price T. Banks
Cc: client