Memo
To: Sheila Stogsdill
Linda Finger
David Corliss
Cc: Planning Commissioners
From: François Henriquez
1436 E 920 Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(913) 220-7301
Date: February 17, 2005
Subject: Items Z-10-50-04 and Z-10-51A-04
These items were sent by the Planning Commission to the City Commission. The City Commission took them up on February 1, 2005 and – on a 3-2 vote – sent them back to the Planning Commission saying that the area needed an area plan be created before the subject property was annexed and rezoned.
I understand that there were procedural inaccuracies in how the City Commission dealt with these items. But, the substance of their directive was clear. When clarifying their minutes on February 15th, the City Commission re-affirmed its directive.
The memo from Planning Staff to the Planning Commission, dated February 17, 2005, is clear that the Planning Commission has four choices:
1. return the matter to the City Commission without change;
2. send a revised recommendation to the City Commission;
3. reverse the Planning Commission’s original recommendation – presumably to agree with the City Commission’s recognition of the need for area plan; or
4. take no action.
Because the City Commission is clear that an area plan is needed, and the neighboring property owners are more than willing to cooperate in a planning process, I urge the Planning Commission to vote to undertake the area plan. If the Planning Commission is inclined to take any other action, I urge them to give notice to the public, and an opportunity for public hearing on the issue of why the City Commission’s direction should be ignored.
Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Day
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:45 AM
To: Amy Saker
Subject: FW: Lake Estates at Alvamar
Communications to add
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Keeney [mailto:mkeeney@peridiangroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:38 AM
To: Sandra Day
Subject: Lake Estates at Alvamar
John Haase, Chairman
Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Haase
The zoning for Lake Estates at Alvamar is scheduled to be reconsidered tomorrow night at the February 17 Planning Commission meeting under miscellaneous items. Three issues were raised by City Commissioners at last nights meeting.
1. Land Use - I did not feel this issue was critical as most of the city
commissioners agreed that the proposed land uses were appropriate.
2. Need for an area plan - I would ask that a recommendation be made by the
Planning Commission regarding the need or lack of need for an area plan.
3. Traffic - I feel that a solution can be found which addresses the
concerns of neighbors and the city commission.
I would like to have the opportunity to present a revised plan which addresses the traffic concerns raised. Also, I would like to address why I feel that an area plan is not needed for this small area. It is clear that the balance of this area will develop as residential; the only question is the density. Considering the known land-uses and traffic patterns, it is clear that residential uses which transition in from K-10 highway and the high density land uses approved to the south is a reasonable expectation.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Michael Keeney
Judy Gerling Paley
George F. Paley
1448 East 920 Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-6285
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. We have lived here for about 17 years. It is no surprise that the city is coming out here, but we hope you will consider some more comprehensive planning for this entire area. This was always envisioned as an area similar to the Reserve at Alvamar, at least that was what I was told.
We are asking that you carefully consider these proposals and our ideas
Thank you
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-1 (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 (22nd 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.
We have just gone through the rezoning of the adjacent 27 acres. At the time it was approved we were told that it would be years before anything connected to 920 Road. There were and are still SERIOUS concerns about the traffic egress on and off Clinton Parkway, from that development.
I do not feel that these traffic concerns have been addressed and now this proposal would add much more traffic. I do not object to development, but there is no overall plan here. Please let us take the time to develop a real plan for this entire area and do not add to the density until it is in place. I hope you will consider putting this entire plan on hold until the Breithaupts are ready to sell their land and ALL of this can be developed in a comprehensive manner.
Again, we appreciate the Commission’s willingness to consider our concerns and comments.
Very truly yours,
George F. Paley
1448 East 920 Road