League of Women Voters of
Lawrence-Douglas County
P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044
April 24, 2005
John Haase, Chairman
Members of Planning Commission City Hall
Lawrence, Kansas
RE: ITEMS NO. 10B and 10C: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CROWN CHEVROLET/TOYOTA; AND FINAL PLAT FOR WAL-MART ADDITION NO. 3, A REPLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 3 IN WAL-MART ADDITION NO. 2.
Dear Chairman Haase and Planning Commissioners:
During the widening and improvement of Iowa Street from 23`d Street to the south, the Kansas Department of Transportation apparently acquired by fee simple the land for the right-of-way of the frontage road from 33rd Street to Armstrong Road. This meant that this property was public land, acquired by public funds. There are now only two property ownerships of land being given access by this frontage road, and it seemingly is not needed under this new plan. The Final Plat of a subdivision is the instrument, by State Law, that can automatically vacate a public easement or right-of-way. These two planning documents, the Final Plat of Wal-Mart and the Final Plat of Crown Chevrolet/Toyota, propose the vacating of the Iowa Street frontage road from 33r1 Street to Armstrong Road. The Final Plat shows the frontage road already vacated, and the Final Development Plan indicates the intention to do so.
The vacating of this public access way concerns not only future planning for this area, but also the issue of equitable public policy, and should not be taken lightly. Once the final plats have been recorded with the Register of Deeds for both of these properties, the publicly-owned Iowa Street frontage road right-of-way will be irrevocably lost for public use or purpose. However, it is difficult to foresee future planning needs; therefore, it seems ill-advised to abandon a public right-of-way which, although not needed now, may be needed in the future. We believe it is unwise to allow a valuable public asset such as this to be relinquished without any public return, especially when its replacement cost will be many times what its initial cost was to the taxpayers of the state and local government.
The justification for vacating this land without reimbursement to the state or local government was based on the precedent that had occurred earlier with the Pine Ridge Plaza property. We suggest that this past circumstance was an error and should not be considered a precedent. We suggest that you and the City Commission should attempt to find a better solution for the current property owners that does not involve irrevocably giving up this public land, land which may be needed in the future for a public use. Certainly it should not be given up automatically and without compensation.
There are ways of granting temporary use without granting permanent ownership. Please consider alternatives to vacating this public land.
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely yours,
Alan Black, Chairman Jennifer Dropkin, Board
Land Use Committee League of Women Voters