Date: September 9, 2005

From:

James D. Williams, owner, 432 Eldridge St., Lot #86, Monterey Way #1 Neighborhood Subdivision.

To:

Douglas County Planning Commission

Re:

Agenda Items Z-07-46-05 and PP-07-17-05

I'm writing regarding the property at 515 Monterey Way, the rezoning and platting of which are items Z-07-46-05 and PP-07-17-05 on the Metro Planning Commission hearing agenda for 9/28/05. The following comments refer to both agenda items:

(1)       Eldridge runs in an essentially straight line-of­sight from 6th Street to Trail. Since drivers can see when there is no oncoming traffic in the distance they speed up, disregarding the possible entry of cars or pedestrians into the road from the homes along Eldridge. The hazard presented by this speeding problem will only be exacerbated by the addition of 41 homes exiting exclusively onto Eldridge via Selee Way, as proposed in the preliminary plat.

(2)       There is an outlet onto Eldridge from the west side of the commercial area which contains the Hy Vee food store. It connects to Eldridge to the north of the Commercial Federal Bank building. Since it allows them to avoid the traffic of 6th Street and Monterey Way, this entrance makes Eldridge St the most desirable route from home to the Hy Vee for many households living to the north and west of Hy Vee. This includes the homes on the following streets and areas:

Nancy Court, Terri Court, Jane Court, Eldridge Lane, Sharon Court, Sharon Drive, Saddlehorn Drive, Spring Hill Dive, East 1100 Road north of Trail, and the Briarwood Subdivision off of East 1100 Road.

The addition of the 41 homes in the proposed Dolittle Development, which will exit exclusively onto Eldridge St. at Selee Way, will increase this concentration of traffic on Eldridge St. Eldridge St is taking on the character of an arterial street, a role for which it was neither intended nor designed.

(3)      There are two tracts in the proposed plat which are intended to be maintained by a neighborhood association which is to be created in conjunction with the Dolittle development. These tracts are at the NW and SE corners of the area under consideration for rezoning. When the adjacent Monterey Neighborhood No 1 to the west was platted in 1990, it too was intended to have had a neighborhood association. This association has never been created, leading to a total lack of enforcement of the neighborhood covenant for that subdivision. A high percentage of rental properties in Monterey Subdivision #1, operated by management associations, adds to the difficulty of operating a neighborhood association in a neighborhood with a significant number of non-vested, transient residents. If the creation of the neighborhood association for the proposed Dolittle Subdivision were similarly neglected, these two tracts of common property would be consigned to unpredictable, ad hoc maintenance by adjacent property owners.

(4)          The proposed plat for the Dolittle Development has provided only one access path for the 41 homes in the development. All traffic would have to pass through a "T" intersection at Eldridge St and Selee Way. This would create a dangerous intersection. By the use of Eminent Domain, the city could create additional outlets to Trail Road, Monterey Way, or Overland Drive to alleviate this problem.

(5) It would be desirable to have green space between the back yards of the properties which are adjacent to the proposed development and the back yards of the outer ring of Dolittle tracts. An alley between the back lines of those outer-ring lots would provide access to those back yards for heavy equipment. For strictly aesthetic purposes, fencing or privacy screening would be an alternative to a greenspace buffer.

 

August 22, 2005

 

 

 

 

Lisa A. Pool

City/County Planner

Lawrence/Douglas County

Metropolitan Planning Office

 

Dear Ms. Pool,

 

In response to your July 29 letter to property owners adjacent to the Doolittle Subdivision, I would like to make the following four comments.

 

-I live at 4020 Overland Drive.  Many, if not most, of the trees in the properties that abut the southern edge of the Doolittle Subdivision are right on the “dividing line,” practically touching the barbed wire fence in many cases.  Only a careful surveying of the land could determine whether these trees “belong” to the developed property owners or to the Doolittle owners, with easements and all, but this would be my request:  regardless of whom the trees actually belong to, please remove none of them.  In my particular case, the only two trees in the back yard are right on the back line.  Ultimately, I don’t really care if they’re “legally mine” or not, I just don’t want to lose them.  If you were to stand in my back yard (you’re invited to do so at your convenience!) and look up and down the block, east and west, you will see that the cumulative effect of all of these trees is an esthetically pleasing defining line between us and the subdivision.  If the area must be developed, please leave the row of trees.

 

-Having reviewed an earlier development plat of the area, I became aware of the odd, one-way access road to Monterey Way that was part of the plan.  This is obviously an unfortunate “retro-fit” that the city now feels stuck with.  Since a) apparently access to both Eldridge and Monterey is necessary for housing development on the site, b) a substandard “one-way driveway/alley” seems to be the only way to get the necessary access to Monterey, which would cause 1) lesser quality road construction, and 2) frequent headaches for residents as people try to “cheat” and go the wrong way on this fairly long one-way road, and c) this would place considerable traffic against the back yards of those properties abutting this odd corridor, I would like to consider this less-than-adequate access a deal breaker for housing development on the site.  Perhaps a “land-swap” of some sort could be negotiated with the church on Monterey Way, such that they would cede a “standard road size” corridor (one that would equal the access currently pending on the Eldridge side) through their property, perhaps placing the road between their building and their parking lot.  If this land-swap were to occur, I would find the housing development less objectionable.

 

 

(continued on Page 2)

 

 

Doolittle Subdivision

Page 2

 

 

 

-After heavy rains, standing water develops in my backyard and others adjacent.  Knowing that new housing lots tend to be “built up” to keep water away from the new houses’ foundations, I am curious how the city plans to make sure that none of the development’s run-off water ends up in my back yard.

 

-I love the old barn.  Once again, come stand in my back yard, and you’ll see what a pretty picture it makes, almost directly across from my house, framed by the two trees!  I don’t know the condition of the barn—perhaps it is unsafe, and should be torn down, but I would be sad to see it go.  Still, I wonder if jamming more housing into the area is the best decision.  The city talks about needing more “green space,” and this might be a great opportunity.  Since it is an area with a “name” already, developing “Doolittle Park” seems like an “easy sell.”  A little parking lot could be accessed with the existing “run-in” off of Eldridge.  Maybe then there could be a zigzagging walking path just inside the perimeter of the park, some playground equipment and basketball goals, picnic tables, and access to a restored “Doolittle Barn” (downstairs only, of course, for safety).  This park might be just the “friendly touch” that’s needed in the area.  The neighborhood kids could play there, instead on in the street, as they currently do.

 

Thank you for inviting my comments.  I plan to be present at the hearing on Wednesday evening, August 24.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Michael J. Boring

4020 Overland Drive

Lawrence, KS  66049-4121

785-842-0767

mjb@ku.edu