Francois G. Henriquez, II
Laura A. Stephenson

1436 E. 920 Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 841-1017

December 7, 2004 HAND DELIVERED

Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission Sixth and Massachusetts Streets

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, Kansas 66044-0708

Attn: Sandra L. Day, AICP City/County Planner

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My wife and I are property owners and residents in the Lake Estates Subdivision, in the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 13 South, Range 19 East, in Douglas County, Kansas. We understand that at the Commission's regular meeting to be convened on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, beginning at 6:30 p.m., the Commission will consider several proposed actions that will affect us. We appreciate the Commission's willingness to consider our views regarding each of these actions.

Applicant's Requested Actions:

A-10-05-04: Annexation request for approximately 13.3626 acres;

Z-10-50-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.6348 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District;

Z-10-51-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 9.7277 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RM-D (Multi-Family Residential) District; and

PP-10-26-04: Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar. This proposed single-family and duplex residential subdivision contains approximately 12.2053 acres.

These requests, taken together, were submitted to the Commission by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, the applicant, and contemplate a single-family and duplex residential subdivision, together with certain improvements (the "Proposed Development.")

Comments:

A. By approving the Proposed Development, the Planning Commission would be permitting development in a haphazard manner and inconsistent with the Commission^'s own long range development plans. In 1996, the Commission adopted a

Comprehensive Plan for Lawrence and Unincorporated Douglas County, Horizon 2020. In adopting Horizon 2020, the Commission stated that the comprehensive plan "provides the foundation and framework for making physical development and policy decisions in the future." Horizon 2020 goes on to say that:

[s]pecifically, the city and county use the Comprehensive Plan to evaluate development proposals; to coordinate development at the fringes of the county's cities; to form the foundation for specific area plans; to project future service and facilities needs; and to meet the requirements for federal and state grant programs. The Comprehensive Plan is used most often as a tool to assist the community's decision makers in evaluating the appropriateness of land development proposals. The Comprehensive Plan allows the decision makers to look at the entire community and the effects of land use decisions on the community as a whole to determine whether individual proposals are consistent with the overall goals of the community. (Emphasis added.)

Various maps in Horizon 2020 define the current and future use of the western half of Section 5, Township 13 South, Range 19 East (the "Fringe Planning Area") as "very low density residential" and "low density residential," as distinct from the "higher density residential" distinction applied to the majority of the Urban Growth Area (the "UGA").

The physical boundaries of the Proposed Development are clearly within the Fringe Planning Area identified in Horizon 2020. As such, the development of this land should be precisely coordinated under the vision articulated in Horizon 2020. Earlier in 2004, against our protest, the Commission and the City approved the annexation and development plan of "The Ridge at Alvamar," which provided for much higher density residential development, contrary to Horizon 2020. If the Commission approves the Proposed Development as submitted, it would be furthering the evisceration of Horizon 2020 by taking that Comprehensive Plan apart piecemeal.

B. The Proposed Development would create greater density than recommended and planned under Horizon 2020. Again, the Fringe Planning Area is designated in Horizon 2020 as "very low density residential" as distinct from the "higher density residential" distinction applied to the majority of the UGA. Relying on this designation, we moved to our current residence, expecting the Commission and the City to remain consistent with Horizon 2020 by keeping the character of the area as very low density residential. Either the annexation and development plans for "The Ridge at Alvamar," approved in January 2004, followed by the Proposed Development show a clear departure from the "comprehensive plan" articulated in Horizon 2020, or there is widespread confusion on the definitions used in Horizon 2020.

Very low density residential is stated as being recommended for the fringe areas of the city, and is defined as "one-acre minimum development sites should be utilized in areas to be annexed which may have natural features that pose development challenges but do not preclude the delivery of urban services. Development of one or fewer dwelling units per acre may occur in various parts of the UGA."

Further, in considering new low density residential development between Wakarusa Drive and the SLT to the west, Horizon 2020 recommends that "new in-fill, single-family development should be of a scale and character similar to & compatible with existing homes in the immediate area." One can not reasonably suggest that the placement of

duplex residences adjacent to 10-acre residential parcels is in any way "of a scale and character similar to and compatible with existing homes in the immediate area."

C. The Proposed Development would turn E 920 into a Collector Street, not a Local Street. In September 2002, the Commission adopted a long-range transportation plan, Transportation 2025, among other things, to "balance land use, transportation, and environmental objectives to enhance quality of life, [and] minimize the effects of sprawl. Using Transportation 2025's own definitions, connecting proposed Lake Estates Drive to E. 920 Road would provide direct access from a Local Street to a Principal Arterial, Clinton Parkway. This would be in direct contravention of Transportation 2025, which specifically discourages such access. Transportation 2025 clearly anticipates that a Collector Street joining Clinton Parkway and N 1500 Road would angle away from Clinton Parkway and travel along the current SLT east frontage road, rather than traversing the current residential area.

Recommendations:

1. Deny the Proposed Development, including the annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat requests, until such time as the Planning Commission, the City and the County can agree to require development in the Fringe Planning Area to remain consistent with Horizon 2020, or until such time as the Planning Commission, the City and the County can agree on an a new comprehensive development plan for the entire area. If the Proposed Development is approved, the plan articulated in Horizon 2020 will be over-ridden. This calls into question the Commission's commitment to the Comprehensive Plan and to an orderly growth pattern for the UGA.

2. If Recommendation 1 is not accepted, then rezone the entire tract from A-I (Suburban Home) to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate), so as to be more compatible with the existing land use. Rezoning to RS-E would be far more consistent with Horizon 2020's recommendation that "new in-fill, single-family development should be of a scale and character similar to & compatible with existing homes in the immediate area."

3. Deny authority to connect Lake Estates Drive to E 920 Road until the proposed Collector Street (22^"d Street west to the SLT east frontage road north) has been completed. If proposed Lake Estates Drive is connected to E 920 Road, the through street will become a de facto Collector Street, and will eliminate the future need for the Collector Street alignment set forth in Transportation 2025. On the contrary, the Commission should require that Lake Estates Drive end in a cul-de-sac until such time as those parties seeking to develop the area can complete the Collector Street along the alignment contemplated by Transportation 2025.

Again, we appreciate the Commission's willingness to consider our concerns and comments.

Fr ncois G. Henriquez, II , 1436 E. 920 Road

Doug Garber 1445 E. 920 Road Lawrence, KS 66049

RECEIVED

DEC 0 9 2004

City County ^Planning Office
^Lawrence_, Kansas

Dear City Staff and City Commissioners:

In regards to the Development at Clinton Parkway and Highway 10 on E. 920 Road.

Being a homeowner at 1445 E 920 Road, I am compelled to explain my position in regards to the possible barricade to be located at the south end of E. 920 Road. Since I have lived at this home for nearly twenty years, I can't emphasize enough,how important it is to keep this road open to local traffic. Not only for the convenience of the new Outlet on Clinton Parkway , but also for safety issues. Because forcing all traffic to converge at N. 1500 Road and Highway 10 could create unnecessary and dangerous driving conditions. Highway 10 will only increase in traffic over time. As a planning Issue, it would seam to be in the City's best interest to keep this road open. As a long time resident of E. 920 Road, it's also positive for the whole neighborhood, weather all the resident's will admit that or not. It would be shortsighted to close a road for a few homeowners, when the neighborhood and city at large would benefit greatly with another though street.

Sincerely,

Judy Gerling Paley
George F. Paley

1448 East 920 Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66049

(785) 842-6285

RECEIV^ED
DEC 0 9 2004

City County Planning Office
Lawren^ce, K^ansas

nG GG Il1 VG 1 _ /- 2004

.-.a c%.. DELIVERED

..................... Douglas C......... Metropolitan Planning a,....................... J.,.V.. 1,r:Tll ¶Intl i'. iaES9r•nl l S I-^ArtI \Trl-n^srs

j'_-t_1_. LIOX /115

Lawrence, Kans.as 66044-0708

Snili-;ra L_. Day_,

Y%\.VaiLllY           u t

Ladies and Gentlemen:

iLliv wife and I - are, 111 VLJV1 LV ^o.t..owners aI^rL^{,4 r}VJ11LL,n LJ LALV ht.. in 111 the ¹lALLL\V Estates ⁰ V'iV ° have V ,~ ii i1^.-oYVU

.i

N iv YY ASS,                                                                                                           and 1Subdivision.

ar ^for _-ihrt ^t 7 „earl Ti- is, no sur^prise that the title i4 coming out ^I-tare hut U h ^tr p ` _"t'

V(/11.11 LL 1+ 1 .11/ (45 1y!C'_.! V.i1...1".Vll.1/11..Y•1.- . .1 ill•..Qll.._ll l 1 for _ LI^"Il^.:•.l can-ire           This e     ^..o:••.. YY Q.I "• Q( : . V^.Y^. U.,"V'.l . Lail . . .l•l..1t/Il...l... as
.11 -•",

some ;nor. /1V 1.1 1/5I ll(1ll` I                                                         QI V.                                             V

an area similar Llrl1.nJ5r..Vi Yt" .. at 1'11 - ~YU~U!- at was Vv       l -what t ¹ was .. told. ^ila.” to the, 1\              UL             ^t least ^le^a!•^t that t Vv.

We are asking 111(11 you L..1ICIIIII V cons-icier I1110%C (II llINlla1l\ .111(1 can- icie-as t ^ti u R you

A -_--1----- t`   it _          _ -1

LLyl ILIUS 111 \ f\_~f 1l1CJl.CU _'"il,L1V11),

_ _ 1-i1:1-1Ii           I-LIIIIfYY'illl^-1111Y`I<sup>-</sup>11I1.i I0[ `.lull^-lt S lY 11^-I1'Il Yllf I1 3II/11 'I(^-1r-'^'

Z-10-50-04:                                                                         ^l,..-.a _u                    ,l_- 3.634^{g l}

A •       ..J. to ..". 1. u tract ₁ ^,..^r .u...+ j..•ji:i..... lately acres ...".• L,._..__ . A ~' .

(Suburban Home) 1 .11`Trl(`t to RS-2 ^{..Snhilt`_I-•alnllll} Residential) ~~.._~v. ..v 1.~.~.~-,... ~ u~ ~J

Z-10-51-04:           request rezone tract it land appro^.:dn.-lately 9.7277 ua•.................. -r

(Suburban                                               K...•-1 fIl/111ti_Farnilt/ Residential District; anl1
Home) District ¨v ^to •^l;iv \)'•

u••.• • aa+. •••/ •1.~.~•...v••uw1 and
2.2053 =es.

1

1111.Ji L.V•UIJLJ i(4 1.11 LV tel. iltl.'l- were JU Vlllllll.'ll to le tüVII_ If IIIJJLVLL by L1:LLVL CL[ L VLVUU 1116..• for 11

¹(L.L\V Estates 1 L`-1 the IWI-/1lVCtLL.t1 mid VVLLLVL~ ltl,L LL         _.riVo'LL1 L_U •

a Ut L <ⁿ11 YLLL.11LiL₁ üUl~ 4 Ji11~11111V arid duple residential s u.b/Y1visirin together ^_.Yth certain _ ro ement41 (the ed Vlo V loll%l/(I Ilo11 L^" t

YY^'c Itavl. I(1;1 LIIIIC iiitiI(1L.11 Ilili Il.i,llllIIIL of 1111. AltIA1.1.111 27 At.it' tti lilt Illc 11 41~[Il <llttll41.11 \ffc

1.1 <sup>that`s</sup>                                                          `'t.+l-I ..             ,         ...1 to ^11'Ill Road.         ~^{^t} arid      still

1'Y VlV told that It would VV YVCllJ V~.2 V1V ClllY tlllll~ VVlllI~.V II.LL lV !LV 1LV2V W V2G CU1V arc J1111

~' N U II it' concerns nho.i+ the ?Taff: ⁿ egress on nr{ _.+t ! 'I,.,+nn v.Tk........ +~.~rn ^th.t+ `'IF+ elnn.r1.,+

1 ^{I do} Ul/ not ` tGG traffic 1 ~~a L{Idl 4 these CIIG.IG ~_._l.!lV .. .. 1.i / 11 l.Glll1 IIVG and .- have been I/GGiI _ ^addressed dLL111G11G1i dt '' now this ^l proposal ¹ would BULL

^ad-' mueb_. more traffic_{, I} do not ^object _to do c! '+} but there _, no _ _ _-tI i_.- here_. lot us p tt1AY. flit" 11111(' Ili tli'Vl hill :1 ref.:11 111:111 till 1111\ ('11111(- area :111{1 111111111 ^'.11111 iii Liir (la'il\IIV iliiilt it 1\ 111

VS[ileai, I tins _ entire plan LrSdS1 L_lll! ³ until ^l the lS1C ^Tl L~._.._15=!411 .L_ ~I__._.._11V1? are rF1G ^,.__.l_ to

ready .._

hope you will consider Li1FU11S~' IS V1S 1SV

place,

1l._i._r lan .1 and A 1 ! of this can be developed in a _eL ₃...

Again, 1>/Y aTlllil'f'1`AIY` We Co! T111111: i.'i1 -.. \A/ll ilTllTTl till Il) 1'11)1V1(iF'1 1111T I'- _..-F'1711 :11111 t^'(11 T 11T1Y)IIV

/

L' l

George F. Paley                             RECEIVED

December 22, 2004

1448 E. 920 Rd.                                 DEC 2 7 2004                           (785)865-5466 office

PO Box 842                                                                                      (785)842-6285 home

Lawrence, KS 66044                     City county Planning 01

~CP^IP

il:naturalway@mindspring.com

Lawrence, Kansas ~₄y

Lawrence City Commission                                           UpcominECity Comm. Meeting

RE: Lake Estates Rezoning 13 Acres                             January 4 Meeting January 4, 2005 Meeting

Dear Mayor Rundle;

It was about two months ago that we came before you to re-zone 27 Acres into a combined development of commercial and residential. This was at the intersection of Clinton Parkway and the SW Traffic Way At that time I spoke of concerns

about the traffic on and off Clinton Parkway into the development.

Last night I attended the Planning Commission meeting for the adjacent 13+ Acres which I thought would not be rezoned until we had a master plan, especially when it came to the issue of traffic. It passed the Commission and it is now scheduled to attach to 920 Road. The argument was made that the traffic would almost all go out on to Clinton Parkway. I truly do not believe that will happen, as it is human nature to take the shortest route.

The purpose of this letter is to ask two favors of all five members of the Commission:

1. Please take the time to drive out to 920 Road (see-enclosed directions) and see what you think of the road and the idea that the traffic will ALL go to Clinton Parkway. Subdivision Regulations and Laws require roads to be adequate to handle the traffic, please drive on this road and see for yourselves.
2. Please consider deferring this matter until we can develop a master plan that will route traffic to the service road of the Traffic Way service road in a straight line from this development. We need to develop an area plan like Oakley or the SE area of Lawrence. It is time to stop and make a complete plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.