Dear Planning Commission:

We do not support an increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II.

We are concerned for the safety of the children walking and riding bikes to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness.

The increased density is not supported by Horizon 2020. Nor was the original plan abided by.

We are also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhoods.  We paid alot for our house in the neighborhood and do not wish to see it overrun by apartment complexes.  There are plenty in the city now.

Sincerely,

William W. and Patricia I. Roberts

4316 W. 26th Terrace

Lawrence, Kansas 66047

 

 

 

Kevin B. Wickliffe

Lori L. Wickliffe

4424 Gretchen Court

Lawrence, Kansas 66047

kwick@columbiacapital.com

 

August 23, 2004

 

Planning Commission

City of Lawrence, Kansas

Lawrence Douglas County

Metropolitan Planning Office

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

 

Re: Planning Commission Meeting – August 25, 2004

Agenda Item No. 6A

Preliminary Development Plan for the Legends at KU, Phase II; South of

24th Place Between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive (SLD)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are writing to formally express our objections to the above-referenced request

by the Peridian Group to rezone Phase II of the Legends at KU project located South of

24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive (the “Project”) from PRD-2 (with

restrictions) to PRD-2. We object to Peridian’s request because we are concerned with the increased traffic from the development, the potential density permitted in this request is not supported by Horizon 2020, and we are concerned with the integrity of our neighborhood. The following is a more detailed discussion of our objections.

 

Increased Traffic

Representatives of the developer for suggest that residents of the Project, when completed, would enter and exit and 24th Place via Crossgate Drive rather than Inverness Drive. The rational being that the majority of the Project’s residents would be KU students and that the general traffic flow would be to the East. However, we believe that as the occupancy of Legends Phase I and Phase II increases, residents will tend to take the path of least resistance resulting in significant traffic diverting to Inverness Drive.  Any increase in traffic at the intersection of 24th Place and Inverness Drive will only add to the safety hazards of grade school children attempting to negotiate the roundabout at that intersection. We believe that residents of Legends Phase II will find Inverness Drive more convenient for ingress and egress because the layout of most of the other new development in the Inverness Park Addition encourage the residents to use Crossgate rather than Inverness to access Clinton Parkway. The traffic from the Inverness Park Addition development, coupled with the traffic from the Legends Phase I and from residents East of Crossgate would make Crossgate a less convenient option for accessing Clinton Parkway for residents of the Legends Phase II. In addition, we believe that a greater problem (although not reflected in traffic studies for the Project brought to our attention) is the effect any increase in density of developments West of Iowa will have on traffic at Clinton Parkway and Iowa. During morning and evening “rush hours” traffic at Clinton Parkway and Iowa is often untenable. Until completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway, permitting or encouraging any significant increase in density of residential projects West of Kasold seems irresponsible.

 

Horizon 2020

The change in zoning also is not supported by Horizon 2020. Chapter 5 of Horizon 2020 recommends that new housing options within Lawrence should be designed to help avoid major and abrupt changes in density or use. The potential increase in density in this request would permit maximum units per acre that would be a drastic change in use from the single family residences West of Inverness. Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.3(b) and (e) provide that City officials should utilize development regulations to ensure compatibility of different housing types within neighborhoods and also discourage concentrations of high-density multifamily infill within neighborhoods. Similarly Goal 1, Policy 1.2 of this chapter recommends that the City integrate housing types so that uses are of compatible density and scale and are appropriately mixed in a given area.

 

The developers would argue that the comprehensive plan for the entire Inverness Park addition integrates an appropriate mix of housing types consistent with Horizon 2020. On a micro level this may be true. However, on a macro level any additional multi-family development in the broader area bounded by Crossgate to the East, 27^th Street to the South, Wakarusa to the West and Clinton Parkway to the North, tighten the noose of non-permanent, multi-family housing on the surrounding stable single family residences in this area. Any proposed or permitted increase in density in developments in this area will further deteriorate the character of the existing neighborhoods and will also begin to tip the property mix in the general area to multi-family housing.

 

Similarly, Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.4 provides that the character and appearance of existing low-density residential neighborhoods should be protected to maintain the property value of and quality of life in the neighborhoods. The potential for increased density in the Legends Project would adversely affect the property value and character of adjacent neighborhoods as it would add to the concentration of “transitional” residents in the area.

 

Chapter 5, Goal 3, Policy 3.4 of Horizon 2020 recommends that development projects should minimize traffic impact through neighborhoods. The increase in density permitted by the zoning change requested would not achieve this goal as discussed in detail above.

 

Integrity of the Neighborhood

We understand that the purpose of this meeting is to address whether the change in zoning requested by the Peridian Group should be approved. We admit that we make our technical objections (which we believe to be true) because raising such objections is our only procedural resource to have any substantive input on the development of the Inverness Park Addition at this stage of the development. While, we understand Planning Commission’s scope on this item is limited to the request for rezoning, we would be remiss not to take this opportunity to integrate this issue with what we perceive to be the larger issue at stake with respect the proposed development.

 

The reactions to neighbors to the Project are similar to objections by members of other neighborhoods in the City. As reflected in an article in the Lawrence Journal World (Interior Growth Often Tricky – July 11, 2004) infill projects in the City often run into neighborhood opposition. On its face, such neighborhood objections may appear as pure “NIMBYism”. However, we believe that a more accurate assessment is that the residents of Lawrence recognize a phenomenon that the City planners may not. It is obvious that available property for any housing construction in the City proper is limited.

 

In addition, the City lacks sufficient affordable single-family residences. The Tenants to Homeowners and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing in a Lawrence Journal World Article (“Rising Prices Make Owning Home Increasingly Difficult- August 17, 2004”). According to this article, the average sale price for a home in Lawrence exceeds the federal guidelines for a home for a four person family in Lawrence by almost $17,000. Further evidence of the lack of property for single family dwellings is reflected in the Fox Chase subdivision. A total of 119 lots in the Fox Chase South subdivision were recently made available to builders. The developer of the subdivision received lot purchase requests for 140 lots in one week's time.  The lack of affordable housing and the escalating cost for the houses available are in part caused by the propensity of developers in the City to turn any available undeveloped property into an apartment complex. All things being equal, the natural assumption is that the housing market in Lawrence would demand that available land be used for residential units. However, all things are not equal because the cash flow from rent on multiple tenants in multiple units on a parcel far exceed the lump sum developer would receive for selling a lot for single family residence. In addition, as evidenced by the generous incentives offered by apartment managers to attract residents, many of the units remain vacant. Given the high vacancy rate, it would appear that principles of supply and demand would “self regulate” the number of units built since if the units are vacant the project would not generate sufficient cash flow to sustain the project.  However, tax laws provide investors an incentive to build multifamily developments even at high vacancy rates. This causes an incongruence in the goals of the community and the goals of investors. This practice will continue as long as the City leaders allow investors to implement their estate and investment planning strategies by building housing that the community neither needs or wants to the detriment of housing that the community wants and needs.

 

Conclusion

It was brought to our attention that the developer for the Project plans to build dwellings with less density than would be allowed if this zoning request is approved.  However, if Peridian’s request for rezoning is approved, we would have no recourse to object in the event the developer decides to change the plans for the Project. That is why we have focused on the potential density allowed with a rezoning rather than the proposed density for the Project in this letter. After all, these developers originally represented to the neighborhoods that the parcel in question would be used for a nursing home. In relying on the developers representations, the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods gave up an opportunity to object to the initial development plan.  We understand that this is not the appropriate forum to push for a moratorium or restriction on multi-family construction in Lawrence. We also understand that we cannot prevent multi-family development in the Inverness Park Addition. However, in an effort to protect the integrity of our neighborhood, we will continue to pursue any option available to reduce the density of property affecting our neighborhood even if that reduction is a single dwelling unit.

 

We believe that if the current construction trend continues, Lawrence will become little more than a bedroom community. A 13.7 bedroom per acre community at that.  We respectfully request that you deny the above referenced request for the reasons stated above.

 

 

Sincerely,

/s/ Kevin B. Wickliffe

Kevin B. Wickliffe

 

/s/ Lori Wickliffe

Lori Wickliffe

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pam [mailto:pkb718@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:06 PM
To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: multi-family development at 24th Place and Inverness

 

Dear Sandra Day,

     As a homeowner in the area, I am extremely concerned about the integrity of our neighborhood.  I DO NOT support an increase in density for the Legends at KU - Phase II.  This increased density is NOT supported by Horizon 2020.

     I cannot believe that the Planning Commission even considered this increase especially with the schools so close by.  I am extremely concerned for the safety of the children walking and riding bikes to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness.  I myself am a bike rider and have encountered near mishaps in this area.  There are great bike paths and walkways across streets are clearly marked but not always adhered to by college students as witnessed in other areas of town.

     Please, please DO NOT approve this increase.  More apartments than originally planned means many more cars in this area!  Please, please don't do it!  Save our kids and our neighborhood!

Pam Barnett

Sunflower Park homeowner

856-1088

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: GGrigoriy@netscape.net [mailto:GGrigoriy@netscape.net]

Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:55 PM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: Legends at KU, Phase II

 

Dear Ms. Day:

The plan to increase density for the Legends at KU does not make any sense to me, it will benefit only the owners of that complex. There is a real concern for the safety of the children in our neighborhood, as a result of the increased traffic. Original decision on the density was made by smart people, and there is no reason to change it. I do not support the density increase. Thank you, Grigoriy Gannushkin 4220 Helianthus Dr. Lawrence, KS 66047

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wljsbarn [mailto:wljsbarn@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:51 PM
To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: NO to higher density

 

Dear Planning Commission:

*We do not support an increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II.

*We are concerned for the safety of the children walking and riding bikes to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness.

*The increased density is not supported by Horizon 2020.

*We are also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhoods.

Sincerely,

         JAMES S. and WANDA L. BARNETT   (owners of property located at)
          4108 W. 26th Terrace
           Lawrence, Ks.  66047
                                                                 Dated      August 20, 2004

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Charlene Hu

Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:19 PM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject:

 

Dear planning commission,

 

We do not support an increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II. We concern about the safety of the children walking and riding bike to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness. The increased density is not supported by Horizon 2020. We are also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhood.

 

Sincerely,

 

Xiaolin Hu and Xiaodong Jian

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Wes Ryan [mailto:wryanfamily@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:06 AM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: Legends apartment complex

 

Dear Ms. Day,

 

I am emailing you regarding the  rezoning of the

Legends apartment complex located at 24th and

Inverness. I absolutely do not support an increase in

density for the complex.  I am, along with my entire neighborhood, which is located directly west of the development, vehemently opposed to increasing the density of the complex because of the close proximity to our elementary/jr. high schools.  Sunflower and Southwest Jr. high are located 1 block South of the complex and hundreds of children walk/ride bikes down Inverness to the schools.  The increased density proposal would only further increase the traffic along our children's path to school, thereby increasing their safety risk.  I am also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhoods with this project.  I am aware of Horizon 2020, and this development is definitely in contradiction to the plan. I appreciate your consideration and attention to this very important decision.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carol Ryan

2405 Jacob Avenue

842-8133

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Rick Bell [mailto:rickbell@tdl.com]

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:43 AM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: Legends at KU Phase II density change

 

Ms. Day,

 

As a property owner at 4417 West 25th Place, Lawrence, Kansas I need to inform you I do NOT support the proposed density increase for the apartments at Legends at KU, Phase II.  It is responsibility of you and the entire Planning Commission to represent the wishes of the public, and not the developer.

 

The safety of the children walking to Southwest and Sunflower schools will be decreased with this propose increase in density.  Please listen to us, the home owners in the area, and represent our wishes.

 

Regards,

 

Richard A. Bell

4417 West 25th Place

Lawrence, KS

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shirley Patterson [mailto:shirleypatterson@cbmcgrew.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:19 AM
To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Question of Increased Density-24th Pl & Inverness

 

Please note the following in regard to increasing the density from 12 apartments to 13.7 per acre at 24^th Pl and Inverness:

 

I do not support an increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II.

 

I am concerned for the safety of the children walking and riding bikes to school with the increased college student car traffic on Inverness.

 

The increased density is not supported by Horizon 2020.

 

I am also concerned about the integrity of our neighborhoods.

 

An increase approved by the Planning Commission to allow such expansion would be a great disservice for those who pay taxes in this neighborhood.

 

Thank you.

 

Shirley M. Patterson

4209 Tamarisk Court

Lawrence, Kansas  66047

 

8/23/04

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lickert, Mike [mailto:mlickert@ku.edu]

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:18 PM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: I oppose strongly the increase in density for legends at KU

 

This expansion will negatively impact my neighborhood and want to voice my opinion against this measure.

 

Mike Licker

4309 Helianthus Dr.

Lawrence, Ks  66047

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Cindy Hadl [mailto:chadl@kumc.edu]

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:37 PM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: Higher density Multi-family close to sunflower

 

I am unable to attend the meeting Aug. 25th regarding whether to

increase density at 24th Place and Inverness.  I do not support an

increase in density for the Legends at KU, Phase II.  I am concerned for

the safety of my children who walk to Sunflower grade school and the

round-abouts which already do very little to SLOW drivers during

before/after school hours.  The increase in college students/transients

in the neighborhood is also a concern of mine.

 

Thanks,

 

Cindy Hadl

4126 Teal Dr.

Lawrence

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Bump [mailto:bbump1945@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:42 PM
To: bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: legends at KU, Phase II

 

Dear Brad--

 

We are writing in opposition to the zoning request change for the now vacant 12.55 acre tract at the SE corner of 24th Pl. and Inverness.  We live in the neighborhood, at 4214 Tamarisk Ct., and Iwe desire to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood.  We are NOT in support of the higher density levels that are being requested.

 

Bill and Marcy Bump

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Corliss
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:22 PM
To: Linda Finger
Cc: Sheila Stogsdill; Mike Wildgen; Debbie Van Saun
Subject: RE: new hearing on legends at KU phase II

 

I think it is an open legal question whether information presented at the original hearing could be used or cited at the 2nd hearing, but my advice is to refrain for use.  Arguments against the use of the information would point to the statutory requirement that certain property owners be notified of the hearing, in this case that did not happen, therefore the content of the 1st hearing is tainted (This statutory defect does, in my opinion, necessitate the 2nd hearing).  Arguments for the use of information include those set out by Commissioner Burress, the testimony followed City procedures (sworn, etc.), and is part of the minutes and available to all participants in the 2nd hearing to reuse, dispute, etc.  (See City website containing the June 23 PC minutes http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/bc-pcagendas04.shtml).  The legal response (and natural tendency) is to conservatively weigh in against reliance on the 1st hearing information/minutes because of the procedural defect in notification.(See Tri-County Concerned Citizens v. County Commissioners of Harper County http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040820/90988.htm decision by Kansas Court of Appeals, August 20, 2004, Syl 5. :  "Quasi-judicial proceedings must be fair, open, and impartial, and if such requirements are denied, the resulting action is void.")  In providing this advice, I believe the possibility of procedural defect outweighs the inconvenience/awkwardness of rehearing the same information a second time without using the earlier information.  A fact/opinion at the 1st hearing did not have the benefit of an appropriately noticed hearing to challenge or support such fact/opinion, perhaps questioning the fairness of the reliance on such fact/opinion.  My opinion is that if a fact/opinion was asserted at the 1st hearing, it should not be included in the decision making in the 2nd hearing unless it is asserted again. 

 

Dave.

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Finger
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:50 PM
To: Dave Corliss
Subject: FW: new hearing on legends at KU phase II

Commissioner Burress expressed his comments below in response to staff’s advice that the item on Wednesday’s agenda is a totally new request and therefore testimony given at a previous public hearing is not admissible to make a decision because the public hearing process was not valid. I did indicate that the same testimony could be given again tomorrow night, at which point PC could consider it as public testimony for the item before them.

Can you help clarify this for David B?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: scott carlson [mailto:kumpa@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:21 AM
To: d-buress@ukans.edu; jhaase@sunflower.com; lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: NO to Kegends at KU

 

I live at 4324 Helianthus Drive immediately south of the proposed Phase II of the Legends at KU.  I am NOT in support of the higher density levels that are requested by the developers.  Our part of town is saturated with multi-family units that erode the character of our neighborhoods. We have invested significant financial resources in home ownership and pay significant property taxes. 

We are here to stay and take pride in our neighborhood.  Please deny any request to increase density in the area. 

 

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Scott B. Carlson 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Linda Finger

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:41 AM

To: Amy Saker; Sandra Day

Subject: FW: Legends at KU Phase II

 

Another for Monday's study session packet.

 

Linda

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Don Cushing [mailto:Don.Cushing@FHLBTopeka.com]

Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:34 PM

To: D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU; jhaase@sunflower.com; TRiordanmd@hotmail.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com; Suserikson@jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.net; thomasjennings@hotmail.com; lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dguntert@ci.lawrence.ks.us; jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us; lzollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Subject: Legends at KU Phase II

 

To the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission Members and Planning Staff,

 

I along with several neighbors located on and around Red Cedar Drive (just South of the zoning change request) would like to maintain what is left of the integrity of our neighborhoods and are not in support of the higher density levels that are being requested for The Legends at KU, Phase II.

 

Maybe this is a little harsh but I feel like this was the plan all along and that the developer just gave you the plans that they felt you would agree too and now that they are well into the development are now trying to change the plans to what they really wanted in the first place - I feel like we are being lead on a leash.  You are the people that are supposed to make sure the developer follows the plan as originally designed.

 

To give you an example, we bought a nice house that was not supposed to have any two story houses behind it but because of a zoning change my property value is not as it should be because I now look out the back of my house and see a two story duplex - as you can imagine, I'm not happy that you have let me down.

 

My main concern is traffic and the speeds these new residents will be driving around my neighborhood.  We have over 25 children under the age of five within a block of my house and we are constantly seeing kids, from Phase I, driving too fast on Inverness, Crossgate, 24th place and 27th.  I know this from walks, bike rides and from driving in the area every day.  Also, please keep in mind this traffic will also be around and affect the Sunflower Elementary and Southwest Junior High.

 

This higher density request will add approximately 56 to 90 more people into the development if you take 28-30 units times two or three residents per unit.  This does not include friend, parties and other such gatherings.  Anyway you slice it, I truly believe this would be too much for the area and we are not in support of the higher density request.

 

Respectfully Concerned Citizens,

 

Don Cushing

2620 Red Cedar Drive

Lawrence, KS  66047

dcushing@sunflower.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Finger
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:00 PM
To: Amy Saker; Sandra Day
Subject: FW: Rezoning of Legends apartments

 

Apparently another one that John H. received this AM. It was before noon so please copy for PC packets tonight. Thanks.

 

Linda

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Haase [mailto:jhaase@cbl-nca.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:49 PM
To: Linda Finger (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Rezoning of Legends apartments

 

Here's another.

-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Hoffman [mailto:melj@sunflower.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 10:11 AM
To: D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU; jhaase@sunflower.com; TRriordan@hotmail.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com; suseerikson@jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; ggeichhorn@earthlink.net; thoomasjennings@hotmail.com
Subject: Rezoning of Legends apartments

We are writing to express our concern in regard to the zoning request for the area located at 24th Place and Inverness.  We do not support the higher density levels that are being requested.  We are upset at the proposed addition of up to 172 housing units to the existing Legends apartment complex. We find it hard to believe that there is a need in Lawrence for additional units, when there are consistently vacancies in the existing complexes.  However, our main concern in the expansion of the Legends apartment complex, is the safety for the families and children of our neighborhood.  There are a great number of children in this area, and that number increases significantly during the school year when numerous children walk and ride bikes to Sunflower Elementary and Southwest Junior High School.  The expansion of the Legends apartments toward Inverness would increase the amount of traffic in this area and put our children at risk.  We urge you to please consider this as you look at this zoning request.  It is our hope that we can maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and stop the expansion of the Legends apartment complex. 

Thank you for your time,

Melissa and Chad Hoffman

melj@sunflower.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Finger
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:28 PM
To: 'John Johannes'
Cc: Sandra Day
Subject: RE: Legends at KU

 

Mr. Johannes –

Thank you for your email on the Phase II Legends at Ku project.  Staff reports will be completed on Friday, and I will as Ms. Day, the planner on this item, to send a copy to you.  Until then, I’ve attached a copy of the Planning Commission agenda for next week’s meeting for your information.

 

Linda

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Johannes [mailto:mucomix@sunflower.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:59 AM
To: lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject:

 

To Panning Staff:

 

Given the opportunity I would like to voice my opposition to any increase in dwelling unit density in regards to “The legends at KU phase II”

 

Unlike some in Lawrence I personally I do not embrace high density projects. There is a good chance of creating a number of oversized rat holes in 40yrs.

 

 

John Johannes

4205 Tamarisk Ct

Lawrence KS 66047

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Finger
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:31 AM
To: Sandra Day; Amy Saker
Subject: FW: Ledgends at KU, Phase II Zoning Change Request

 

For Monday packets, please. Thanks.

 

Linda

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Hulse [mailto:falcons284@sunflower.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:54 PM
To: Troy and Andrea; thomasjennings@hotmail.com; geichhorn@earthlink.com; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; suserikson@jerickson.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; TRjordanmd@hotmail.com; jhaase@sunflower.com; D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us; rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dgutert@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us; lzollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Re: Ledgends at KU, Phase II Zoning Change Request

 

We have been asked to send this email to you on behalf on our Neighbor, Jim Long.

My name is Jim Long.  I live at 4428 W. 25^th Place.

I have seen your info on the request for change of density status for the property just across Inverness. I have also seen the notice posted on the property in the bright yellow sign. I’d like to submit my opposition for the increased density for the property but I’m not sure I’m technologically advanced to email all the folks on the list. Can you get this to them for me?

I barely type worth a darn. It would probably take me 2 months to get all those sent.

 

I’d just say I feel the current density is adequate for the area and the traffic that already exists and I’d thank them for their time and consideration in the matter.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Jim Long

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob and Jamie Hulse [mailto:rjhulse@sunflower.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:57 AM
To: lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; lzollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dgutert@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU; jhaase@sunflower.com; TRjordanmd@hotmail.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com; suserikson@jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.com; thomasjennings@hotmail.com; Troy and Andrea
Cc: Mike & Beth Burghart; Chris and Megan King; Dennis & Marsha Odgers; Dennis Odgers; Kueser; Peter Chenouda; DEBORAH THOMPSON; Kevin Wickliffe; Maggie Fieger; Don Cushing; Michelle Muiller; Steve Muiller
Subject: Legends at KU, Phase II

 

To:        Planning Commission Members and Staff of Planning and Zoning Office.

From:    Rob and Jamie Hulse

Date:     6/20/04

RE:        The Legends at KU, Phase II

 

 

We recently received a notification of the requested zoning change for the development of The Legends at KU Phase II.  We are strongly opposed to the request for additional density in this area and ask that you "do not approve" the developer's request as it has been proposed. 

 

It seems that the original passing of the zoning was in favor of a site plan for a retirement community.  The retirement development seemed appropriate at the time because much of the development would be for assisted care living, with those residences for independent living to live in one-level patio townhouses similar to the ones at Brandon Woods.  The one-level townhouses were positioned to create a single family buffer to the neighbors immediately to the West in Stone Meadows South #2.  It was argued that the residents of this development would be less mobile, not be a traffic burden to Inverness, and live more quietly.  The retirement community would be a nice compliment to the large multi-family development to it's East, The Legends at KU.  A retirement community would add diversity to the area and still allow the developer to get the units per acre needed to make their project economically feasible. 

 

We know that time has come and gone......but, now we learn that The Legends at KU can present for approval a site plan of additional Multi-Family rental housing, and that the plan is in compliance with the PRD-2 zoning for the ground.  We're told that as long as they stay within the 12 units per acre that was originally passed for the retirement development it would be approved.  We would challenge that not only should the request to increase the density be denied, we feel the site plan for the development be further reviewed to ensure that the surrounding neighborhoods not be adversely affected.   The creation of over 25 contiguous acres of high density, student oriented, multi-family housing would be a burden to this area. 

 

Furthermore, after reviewing the site plan for Phase II of The Legends at KU, the Westernmost part of this plan has 2, Two-Story 8-Plexes backing up to a single family (RS-2) neighborhood to the West.  How can it be determined that a cul-de-sac of one-level patio homes, as was originally proposed for this site, be similar to 2, Two-Story 8-plexes?  There is a huge difference between a cul-de-sac of two-unit duplexes and a couple of 8-Plexes!  Additionally, although Inverness Drive is now a boulevard, it is in no way enough of a buffer to differentiate the transition between the proposed high density multi-family of PRD-2 and the single family RS-2 that is accross the street to the West.  Additionally, if it is argued that Inverness is a collector or main arterial type street, why did the City of Lawrence include two traffic calming devices (roundabouts) as a part of Inverness Drive's widening just two years ago?   And last, we are surprised that despite the amount of children from ages 5 to 16 who attend both Sunflower Elementary and Southwest Jr. High (many of which walk to and from school), that you would approve of over 25 contiguous acres of high density multi-family in the immediate area.  Unbelievably, the School District is actually on the list of property owners within 200 feet who are to be notified of this public hearing.  THE SCHOOL GROUNDS ARE WITHIN 200 FEET!!!!  

 

Why is it that in our community we can do studies to determine the amount of needed Commercial Space for Retail and Office, and then restrict areas of Lawrence to certain amounts of developable square feet based on the community's need for such space; but we will not curtail unnecessary growth of additional multi-family when we have an abundance of apartment space available with vacancy rates higher than they have been in years?

 

We stand opposed to not only the request for additional density, but to the proposed development site plan as well.  Many people spend a lot of time in our community talking about maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods - Our parks, our neighborhoods, our downtown, etc....  We ask that you consider the impact that the scale of this plan (again, 25 continguous acres of multi-family) would have on the neighborhoods of Stone Meadows South #2 and Sunflower Park, especially so close to 2 schools.  We feel strongly that there is a BIG difference in impact to our area between the originally proposed and approved Retirement Community using two-unit duplexes as a buffering transition and the proposed site plan of Phase II of The Legends at KU.   

 

Thank you,

 

Rob and Jamie Hulse

785-841-7653

4403 Gretchen Ct.

Lawrence, KS  66047

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Finger
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:34 PM
To: 'Sue Hack'
Cc: Sandra Day
Subject: RE: Legends at KU Phase II Request for Increased Density

 

Sue –

 
Several planning commissioners got the same email from Rob and Jamie Hulse.  I’ve divided my response into several segments for you so you can use what you need/want in response to the Rob and Jamie Hulse.

 

BACKGROUND:

This was the project that had an invalid property ownership list from the County Clerk’s office. The error in the list wasn’t identified until a protest petition had been filed by adjacent property owners.  It was when we were proofing the petition that it came to our attention that the GIS database staff uses to produce maps was more current (complete) than the certified list submitted by the applicant with the application.  The list is required to come from the county clerk’s office (by code).  Staff brought this to David Corliss’s attention and he ruled that improper notice had been given and we needed to redo the entire public hearing process from the beginning.  

 

To make this a more concise response, the development project, the Legends at KU Phase II” included a rezoning request and a revised preliminary development plan.  Because notice on the rezoning was determined to be invalid, the development project must be processed again as a new application. The public hearing for this project is scheduled for August 25^th.   

 

CURRENT STATUS:

This Legends at KU Phase II is a public hearing item and the hearing has not been held for this item. 

The Planning Commission’s ex parte rules in their by-laws prevent any of them from discussing a current issue outside the meeting and public hearing forum.  The purpose of these rules is to avoid tainting or prejudicing the hearing or the perception of acting in a preconceived way before all the facts (that are presented at the formal public hearing) are heard by the Commission.  The City Commission is the legislative body that will make the final decision.  The same concerns about prejudging an issue or the perception of this can occur if commissioners discuss and item before receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation and minutes of the official public hearing.   

 

RESPONSE TO THE ROB AND JAMIE HULSE:

Staff understands the need to be responsive to the public within the framework of what can and cannot be said by commissioners (City and Planning).

Last Wednesday, when I first became aware of the emails from the Rob and Jamie Hulse to Planning Commissioners (Haase and Burress forwarded their copies to me as have others), I asked Amy in my office to do two things.  Email the Rob and Jamie Hulse the section of the June PC minutes relevant to Legends at KU, Phase II. That is the official record of why they voted to recommend approval and their revised findings of fact should indicate why they recommended differently than staff.  The second thing I asked her to do was to print the email from the Rob and Jamie Hulse to include in the August PC’s packets. That way, all the commissioners will have the same information at the same time.

 

Sue, if this still leaves questions in your mind please call or email and I’ll try to answer your questions. Sandra Day is the planner on this item. For detailed responses to questions, she is who you should direct your questions to. Her phone number is 832-3161 and her email is sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us.

 

 

Linda

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Hack [mailto:suehack@sunflower.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:26 AM
To: 'Linda Finger'
Subject: FW: Legends at KU Phase II Request for Increased Density

 

Hi - Can you help me out with some information here?  I told Rob that we are in the process of moving our son to St. Louis, so I will be gone for a while and it would probably be the end of next week before I could work on this.  Don't rush with a response.  I won't be able to get around to "gathering my thoughts" until the end of next week.  Thanks a bunch..sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob and Jamie Hulse [mailto:rjhulse@sunflower.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:02 PM
To: suehack@sunflower.com
Subject: Legends at KU Phase II Request for Increased Density

 

Dear Sue,

 

The request to increase the density from 12 units per acre to 13.7 units per acre for the Legends at KU Phase II was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission in June, and was on the City Commission Agenda a few weeks ago, but was removed due to problems with the notification process.  The request will now go before the Planning Commission again August 25th.

 

We live within 200 ft. of the proposed Legends at KU Phase II at Inverness and 24th, and would like to see the request be denied due to concerns regarding increased traffic on Inverness where kids K-9 walk and ride bikes to school.  

 

We have been told by Planning Staff that Staff recommended a denial for this request.  We also have been told by Planning Staff that a Senior Citizen development requested increased density when the area was originally annexed into the city, and their request was denied, then the Senior Citizen development subsequently went away.   

 

We are in the process of contacting Planning Commissioners to try to understand why the Planning Commission would unanimously approve the request after Staff recommended denial, a previous request was denied by a previous Planning Commission, and the neighbors are also opposed.  It seems like we must be missing something...and would truly like to understand the PC's position.

 

 

The school district is a property owner that received the notification because Southwest Junior High is within 200 ft. of the property.  Since you taught at Southwest, and are familiar with the student foot traffic, and because you will most likely be voting on this request soon, we are interested in your position on this request.  If you could please email us with your thoughts on the request for the increased density, we would greatly appreciate it.  We can also be reached at the numbers listed below.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rob & Jamie Hulse

393-2943

393-2942

841-7653