Page 1 of 1

 

Sandra Day

From: Steve Glass [sglass@Irmindust.com]

Sent:       Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:32 PM

To:          Sandra Day

Cc:          Howard Hasler

Subject: PDP-07-06-05

Sandra,

I have briefly looked at the drawings for the referenced request and my immediate reaction is that there is no benefit to us to have a street running along the common property line between our property and the Mt. Blue property. The traffic flow and use layout on our property was not designed with the idea of having such access and it would be both costly and inconvenient to make the necessary charges on our site to accommodate access from the west.

In addition there is a force main that serves the pump station by the jail and a sanitary sewer line that run on each side of the joint property line. I am confident that the Utilities Department would not want these lines under the pavement so the street would need to be offset from the property line or the sewer lines relocated.

Finally we have no desire to dedicate a portion of the right-of-way so our position would be that any such street should be entirely on the Mt. Blue property.

My thought on the best solution would be to run a new street south from the existing cul de sac to 25th. Street. This would allow the existing lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 to take access from the new street and eliminate the need for further driveways onto 25th Street.

Thanks for furnishing me with the drawings and briefing me on the issues.

 

Steve

LAW OFFICES

BARBER EMERSON, L.C.

1211 MASSACHUSETTS STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 667

August 22, 2005

Via Email

Ms. Sheila Stogsdill

Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Office 6 East 6^th Street

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

 

Re:      Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3

 Dear Ms. Stogsdill:

 

I am writing on behalf of Mt. Blue, L.C. and Bluejacket Ford, LLC, two of the owners of a part of the Mt. Blue Addition to comment on the Staff Report we received this morning. We understand that this matter is set as Item No. 7 on the consent agenda this evening.

 

First, the Staff Report states that the Revised Preliminary Development plan was submitted by Mt. Blue and Bluejacket Ford, among others. This is an incorrect statement of fact. Neither Mt. Blue nor Bluejacket Ford (nor George Paley as we understand) submitted the Revised Preliminary Development Plan. However, Mt. Blue and Bluejacket did consent to the revised development plan for Lots 2 and 3, Mt. Blue Addition No. 2 by letter to you dated June 29, 2005. This was done in accordance with Lawrence Municipal Code Section 20-1011(e) and does not constitute a submission by the landowners and we would appreciate your correcting this item on the report.

 

Second, because the revision to the approved development plan only pertains to Lots 2 and 3 of Mt. Blue Addition No. 2, the requirement that all property owners of the Pm, including Mt. Blue and Bluejacket Ford, must sign an agreement not to protest a benefit district is overreaching and unreasonable. Neither Mt. Blue nor Bluejacket Ford will agree to execute an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district. Any agreement by Mt. Blue or Bluejacket Ford will lack consideration as the City will have given nothing of value to either Mt. Blue or Bluejacket Ford in exchange for this agreement. The agreement not to protest should only pertain to the owners of the two lots who are seeking approval of the revised preliminary development plan.

Third, Mt. Blue and Bluejacket Ford object to the inclusion of any reference to a drawing of a "future cul-de-sac bulb" or notation that Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be rebuilt at some future, unspecified date. The inclusion of the drawing of a future cul-de-sac bulb will result in a taking by the City of Lawrence and the City should be required to pay the owners affected by this drawing reasonable compensation for the taking. I understand that nothing definitive has been set as far as improvements to Franklin Road, and it is simply premature to include a drawing of a taking that has not yet occurred for a project that may or may not proceed sometime in the future. As the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, of Mt. Blue Addition No. 2, Mt. Blue and Bluejacket Ford strenuously object and do not consent to the City's requirement that the cul-de-sac bulb be shown on a revision to the development plan pertaining to Lots 2 and 3, Mt. Blue Addition No. 2. Showing the cul-de-sac bulb of the development plan negatively affects the value of Lot 1, Block 1, and the City's requirements essentially amount to a taking without payment of just compensation.

 

Fourth, the City is requiring that the owners of Lots 5-8, of Mt. Blue Addition No. 2 grant a "30' wide public access easement" from the end of Thomas Court to 25' Street. There is no need to grant this easement since all lots in the development gain access to Franklin Road through Thomas Court or directly onto 25^th Street. Again, Mt. Blue and Bluejacket Ford is not a party to this revised development plan and is receiving nothing from the City for its taking of a 30-foot public access easement and therefore, they object to and do not consent to the requirement that a 30-foot public access be granted across their land, when all Lots currently have access to public streets and roads. Because Lots 5-8 of Mt. Blue Addition No. 2 are not involved in the revision to the preliminary development plan for Lots 2 and 3, Mt. Blue Addition No. 2, the City's requirement is again overreaching and unreasonable.

 

I would appreciate your including this letter with the packet to the Planning Commission members in time for the meeting tonight, and either your telephoning me or having the planner responsible for these requirements telephone me at the earliest possible time. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Very truly yours,

TEL:tel

cc:      Ms. Linda Finger (by email) Ms. Sandy Day (by email) Mr. John M. McGrew Mr. Roger D. Johnson Mr. C.L. Maurer

BARBER EMERSON,

L.C. Terence E. Leibold

 

Lawrence Douglas

County Metropolitan

Planning  Office

Memo

To:       Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission

CC       Roger Johnson, Dean Penney, C. L. Maurer, Dave Corliss

From: Planning Staff

Date: August, 24, 2005

Re:       Agenda Item No. 7, PDP-07-06-05 Preliminary Development Plan Mt. Blue PID

City Staff met with the applicant and their representatives to discussion conditions of approval as directed by the Planning Commission. The following revised conditions are submitted with concurrence from the applicant regarding the above referenced item.

 

  1.      Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future public improvements to Franklin Road.

  2.      Revisions to the PDP to include labels for top of the wall elevations for the wall around the detention basin.

           3.        Revisions to the PDP to include two additional notes on the plan, to read:

a.            "Per City Code Section 9-903(b), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be re/eased for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation, shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained."

b.            " The intersection of Thomas Court and Frank/in Road will be altered or eliminated when necessary for the improvements at the intersection of E23rd Street,/K-10 Hwy and Franklin Road."

c.             "For planning purposes, a future cul-de-sac is conceptually shown on the western end of Thomas Court, east of the intersection of Thomas Court and Frank/in Road. Exact location and determination of the responsible parties to construct and pay for development of this road improvement shall be determined at a later date as part of any consideration to close/remove the existing intersection of Thomas Court with Frank/in Road"

           4.        Revisions to the PDP to include the following revisions and an additional note on the plan:

a.            Show a 30' wide future public access easement, using dashed lines that extend from the existing Thomas Court cul-de-sac south, to a connection with E 25^th Street. Note on the plan: "This future road easement is shown for planning purposes only. Dedication of the easement will be required when a final development plan for any of the lots adjacent to this easement is submitted for approval."

b.      Correct the required parking annotation on the PDP to correctly list the referenced parking group as ¹17'.