BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way Reversionary Questions

Hello Sandra:

Thanks for taking the time on 20 September 2004 to discuss the Parnell Park PRD. As I mentioned, Mr. Belot met with the Brook Creek Neighborhood at our last meeting, and he seems to be willing to consider some of our concerns about his development plan.

While in theory, a PRD allows more City and Neighborhood control over plan elements than does RS-2 zoning, you pointed out that the guidelines are loose. Consequently, we are reserving judgment until Mr. Belot shows us his revised development plan.

Essentially, our concerns are: density, private street geometrics and maintenance, storm drainage, open green space dedication, stability of home ownership, and a preferred diversity of lot sizes, architectural styles, and home-owner income levels. But beyond that, there is an overarching issue of Mr. Belot's claim that he owns the BNSF Railroad right-of-way adjacent to his property.

His ROW ownership assumption has consequences not only to many of Mr. Belot's design elements, but also to larger multi-neighborhood issues. It obviously affects the value of his property, the density calculations, and physical elements such as grading and drainage contours. He also assumes that he has direct access to the Burroughs Creek flood plain for stormwater drainage structures, without having to transverse another party's property.

We strongly disagree that Mr. Belot (or his client) owns the BNSF right-of-way. The key fact is that BNSF has not abandoned the railroad right-of-way. In 2001, having ceased serving their last customer, the Farmers Co-op Association at 20^th and Moodie Road, BNSF abandoned the railroad service and tracks, but not the property itself. For much of the corridor the actual rails and ties still remain to be put out for salvage contract.

Secondly, City attorney, Dave Corliss, has been struggling since at least 2001 to untangle the complex legal ownership and reversionary rights of the BNSF ROW relative to both the Burroughs Creek stormwater improvement project as well as the decade long City plans for a rail-to-trail conversion of the railbed. The City did some hard bargaining with BNSF for purchase of much of the land needed for the stormwater project. Mr. Corliss has yet to untangle legal ownership issues for the balance of the rail corridor.

Much of the difficulty is that when railroad property is abandoned, it typically reverts to some previous owner. This is because much railroad property was originally a land grant from the Federal Government. Most often, there are stipulations or deed restrictions that require the land revert to an American Indian tribe or tribes. In a few cases the land is owned outright by the railroad. Some ROW is still held in ownership by the Federal Government and only an easement is granted to the railroad.

How and to whom railroad land may revert upon abandonment all depends on its prior legal status. If Indian tribes are shown to have no claim (and we want to see the proof), then as we understand it, the ROW would next revert to the incorporated government entity (the State of Kansas or the City of Lawrence as a Class I city). If the government makes no claim to the ROW, then it would revert to the adjoining landowners. Mr. Belot obviously is at the bottom of this feeding chain.

As you said, you are not knowledgeable about railroad right-of-way ownership issues, but recognize that they have implications for the Parnell Park PRD. In the very least, I would think that the Woods on 19^th Street PRD would provide us with some sort of precedent. But I appreciate that you said you would consult with Dave Corliss on this before making your staff recommendations to the Planning Commission. We look forward to learning of the City's research.

Page 1 of 2 Sandra Day

From: Patricia Sinclair

Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:57 PM

To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us

Cc: Ifinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us. cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us Subject: Re: Parnell Park PRD

Sandy,

Thanks for your email. I have five points to make at this time.

1. Mr. Belot has not met with neighborhood representatives of all affected neighborhoods. There are several people from our neighborhood (Barker) who are apparently self-appointed who went to a meeting and did not report back to residents or inform them of any impending PC meetings or anything else. They DO NOT represent our neighborhood. If Mr. Belot chooses to meet with them, then he may not_fairly state that he has met with the neighborhood. I have both called and emailed our supposed chairman of BNA about this matter and have gotten no response.

This is the same method used by the developers of The Woods last year where they gave plans to or met (often secretly) with a handful of selected residents and then unfairly claimed to have met with the neighborhood.

2. As of this afternoon, signs at the property advertise the meeting for tomorrow and the item remains on the online agenda for tomorrow's PC meeting. Presumably, abutters have had notices mailed to them. This, to me, is grossly unfair and deceptive to any neighbors planning to attend the meeting.

There needs to be some reasonable timeframe in which a developer must either attend the PC with their plan as scheduled or inform residents of a deferral. As we discussed last year, although the code penalizes a developer for a withdrawal, there does not seem to be any such mechanism. They were allowed to postpone their meeting dates as late as the day of the PC meeting and they are allowed to submit new plans right up to the last minute, even past the public comment period.

I note that your 2004 table of submission dates and deadlines under Item F. shows a deffered item with revised plans needs to be submitted to the Planning Dept. according to these dates. Therefore, to appear at the Oct. 17 PC meeting, the revised plans needed to be in your office by Sept. 10.

In my opinion, this developer has withdrawn their application since they have not met requirements for submission deadlines and have notified residents of a public meeting for which they did not adequately prepare their submissions. I attempted to see plans in order to make comments, and neither the plans or a staff report were available.

3. Please explain the exact status of this application, both for rezoning and building. You met this morning with Mr. Belot and yet last week you stated his plan needed to be in your office by yesteday at 5:00 p.m. Per the above, the submission date should have been Sept. 10 instead.

4. I now note that you said last week that the PC would have to do something to have this on the Oct. agenda. I do not understand just what that is. Are you suggesting that an exception to your rules be made? And, if so, have I now missed the deadline for comment to the PC about this? If you have revised rules, why is your office not following them? It would certainly not be fair to expect me to attend a PC meeting to wait for an item that is to be deferred and then not be able to make informed comments. Just what do you propose to do about thisitem and what can a resident do?

5. I object to the proposed name of this development. Parnell is only a mini-park, but it is our neighborhood's only park. This development will not enhance, but rather detract from the park. I believe that it is also confusing to use the Park's name for a housing development.

Patricia Sinclair

re: Item 14 11B - Parnell Park PDP restrictions

Chairperson Haase & Commissioners:

I have participated in two meetings between the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association and Mr. Allen Belot, architect for Mike Edmondson, the intended builder of the Parnell Park PRD.

While it is awkward addressing issues for a PRD proposed by two individuals, one of whom we can meet with directly, while the other is yet to speak with us, we nevertheless seem to have a good working relation with Mr. Belot. We can only hope that the modifications and concessions made by Mr. Belot at our meetings will carry through the process when Mr. Edmondson and his banker crunch the numbers.

So far, Mr. Belot has committed to:

1) Dedicate their portion of the BN SF ROW that they now seem to own as part of the rail/trail conversion from 12^t1iStreet to 23^rd Street.

2) Include connecting trails from the development to the rail/trail.

3) Dedicate a 40ft.X 40ft. triangle of land at 15^th & Haskell Ave. for a future traffic circle.

4) Reduce the number of lots from 35 to 33 on the current plan.

5) Create a pocket park at the S.E. corner of the two streets.

6) Combine driveways on the cul-de-sac in an attempt to allow more on-street parking.

7) Create a Homeowners Association.

Not reflected on the revised plan (because it was submitted to you before Mr. Belot's meeting with our neighborhood on 11 Oct. 2004) are verbal commitments by Mr. Belot. He shall:

1) Reduce the number of lots from 33 to 31 (Mr. Belot claimed at our 15 Sept. meeting that

30 houses was their financial threshold).

2) Eight lots backing up to the rail/trail on the west of Parnell Drive and south of Park Court shall be reconfigured into seven lots. The point of this is to create larger, more valuable lots and homes in the most desirable, secluded part of the development, with direct access to the trail and park and with a pleasant and private view to the west.

3) Parnell Drive south of Park Court shall be shifted eastward about 35 feet to add to the depth of those seven prime lots west of Parnell Drive.

4) One 42 foot wide lot immediately east of the pocket park shall be dedicated instead to park use. Personally, I am suggesting that 22 feet of this lot be dedicated to park use, and the remaining 20 feet be utilized to widen and shift the lots on the Park Court cul-de-sac, so as to eliminate the combined driveways (which create de facto duplexes).

Item #11B - Parnell Park PDP restrictions page 2

Because these four verbal agreements with Mr. Belot are not currently on the Preliminary Development Plan, I am asking you to recommend that the number of lots be reduced to thirty one total, and that the reconfigurations be done as indicated in the four agreements, plus my suggestion for eliminating the combined driveways.

I am also asking you to recommend the following restrictions:

1) Add the "No more than three unrelated individuals living in one house" stipulation.

2) Require covered front porches on all units.

3) Require a minimum of 1.5 foot soffit roof overhang on all sides of houses.

4) Require a minimum of R-19 walls and R-30 roofs and R-9 windows (low-E, argon filled).

By so doing, the HVAC systems can be downsized, thus offsetting the increased cost of

insulation, and also reduce utility costs, making more affordable housing.

5) Require planting two native species shade trees on each lot in addition to the street trees. This will help re-establish the wooded tract so wantonly destroyed by the current owner, will increase the buyer appeal, and will greatly reduce AC utility costs during the Summer. All trees shall be a minimum of 2.5 inch caliper, and maintained for three years until well established.

6) If the perimeter boundary is allowed to remain in the existing tree line, require that these trees be replaced by homeowners if any suffer disease, wind or ice damage.

This list of recommended restrictions are Smart Growth considerations. If implemented, they will not only enhance the salability of the development and assure a healthy profit for the builder, but will also assure long term value of the homes and stability of the neighborhood. If you as a Commission, or the builder himself, are not convinced of this approach to success, at least implement these restrictions for the 13 or so larger high-end lots, thus adding amenities that will attract the more sophisticated buyer.

Thank you for your interest,

Sandra Day

From: ba mansur [bamansur2@hotmail.com]

^—wit: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:56 AM

`,,: sday@ci.lawrence. ks. us

Subject: neighborhood issues

Belot letter.doc (42 KB)

Hi Sandra,

I have read Michael Almon's letter to you on the rail spur and feel he has captured the points that we have discussed as a neighborhood. I am attaching a letter I sent to Allan Belot, signed by myself and the presidents of Barker and East Lawrence neighborhood associations about his plans to develop the Shepard lot at 15th and Haskell.

In addition to the items in the above mentioned letter I would like to include concern over the width of the streets so as to make sure emergency vehicles can get through if necessary.

Sandra, we are very concerned about the makeup of the infill (being a lot of mulch and then placing houses and roads on it)and the drainage situation on that property as we have the Salvation Army going in close by. Both these properties drain towards private homes that already get flooded in times of large downpours.

We are meeting again with Allan Belot next week to talk over a revised plan.

'le police storage facility seems to be a reconciled issue at least from our eighbrhood's perspective. The city seems more than willing to work with us and now as I understand it they are working on a landscaping plan. We like the idea that they are not going to store any weapons or drugs, the lighting will be pointed dowwards, and that the property will tie in greenspace-wise to the rails to trails project.

If you need further information or clarification please feel free to call me.

Thank you for your effort in contacting the neighborhoods, Beth Anne Mansur

Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special..msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

Text Box:
Sept. 3, 2004 Brook Creek Neighborhood Association

Beth Anne Mansur, President
Mail Address: 1217 Prospect Ave. (66044)
Telephone: 785/ 843-0103
e-mail: brookcreek@msn.com; bamansur2@hotmail.com

Mr. Allen Belot, AIA

Belot / Hartronft Associates, LLC 708 West 9^`hSt, Ste 205

Lawrence KS 66044

Re: Parnell Park PRD 15^`h & Haskell

Dear Allen,

Thank you for providing to us the August 6, 2004, site layout and landscaping plan for the Parnell Park Addition (PRD-1) Preliminary Development Plan.

We have met together and reviewed your plan. We offer the following which you might consider incorporating into the Plan before it is presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 22. We also invite you to present your ideas to our individual neighborhood meetings:

v Brook Creek– Wednesday, Sept. 15^`h, 7:00 pm East Lawrence Recreation Center

v Barker – Thursday, Sept, 16th, contact Emily Wellman 841-3263

v East Lawrence - Monday, Sept. 13 contact Ed Tato 550-6367

1. Stormwater drainage. We will be interested in the Storm Engineer's analysis of the drainage from proposed new impervious area in this plan and its impact on the existing storm drain system and upon downstream property and adjacent properties to the south.

2. Abandoned BSNF railroad right-of-way incorporated into the Plan's greenspace. We object to any railbed property being appropriated at this point. We are pursuing a comprehensive plan for railbed development through our neighborhoods and would prefer that parcels conform to the overall use.

3. Greenspace. We would prefer more greenspace and that the greenspace be located within the interior of the development, as well as a buffer zone on the exterior of the property.

4. PRD waivers. We would prefer that no waivers from PRD zoning requirements be allowed unless offset by provided amenities, such as greenspace, playground/park areas and storm shelter.

5. Traffic. We are concerned about the impact of all those homes' entry and exit onto 15^th Street, since there are other existing access points adjacent to this property (e.g., Asbury Apartments have two parking-lot driveways on the north side of 15^`h St. for 26 housing units).

We would also be interested in the Planning Commission's analysis of the proposed streets in terms of fire and police access concerns. Cul-de-sacs do not seem the safest in this regard and we would like to see a continuous road through the area.

6. Housing Cost. At what affordability levels do you anticipate to sell these homes? We would prefer a mix of home sizes and styles that would foster a community of various income levels.

7. Geology. It is our understanding about 40,000 cubic yards of fill dirt from the city's drainage improvement project has recently been moved to this site, mixed with crushed trees from the drainage project and from the Addition site's former wooded cover. We will be interested in the structural engineering analysis of this as a basis for the foundations of housing stock and new streets.

8. Density. 35 houses are excessive for what we want to see in our neighborhood. If there must be 35 homes they need to be 3-story homes. We are looking for homes that will withstand the test of time in that they will start out being nice starter homes and in 20 years they will still be attractive as starter homes.

We appreciate our early involvement with this plan. Sincerely,

Beth Anne Mansur

Brook Creek Neighborhood Association

Ed Tato

East Lawrence Neighborhood Association

Emily Wellman

Barker Neighborhood Association.

cc: Lawrence / Douglas County Planning Commission Linda Finger

Text Box: TO: FROM: CC: Date:
RE: Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Sandra Day, Planner

David L. Corliss, Assistant City Manager & Director of Legal Services

Linda Finger, Sheila Stogsdill, Mike Wildgen, Scott Wagner October 8, 2004

Parnell Park — Former Railroad Property Interests

You have requested that I provide a written opinion concerning certain property interest issues related to the Parnell Park Preliminary Development Plan (PRD). The applicant is indicating on their proposed PRD that the applicant owns the former BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe a/k/a ATSF "Railroad") railroad right-of-way (to the centerline) to the west of their property. I have reviewed the title information provided by the applicant and I agree that the applicant provides sufficient justification to claim the appropriate property interest from this former Railroad right-of-way. The documentation supports the applicant's contention that the Railroad (or predecessors in title) : 1) acquired the property adjacent to the PRD as right-of-way; and 2) that by operation of Interstate Commerce Commission abandonment order issued in 1988 and K.S.A. 66-525, the abandoned right-of-way reverts to the adjoining property owner in this instance.

Please advise me if you have questions.

James W. Grauerholz

1100 E. 19th St., Lawrence KS 66046 U.S.A.
tel: 785-841-1814 / FAX: 785-841-7640
email: <Seward23@aol.com>

October 20, 2004

Allen Belot

Belot-Hanrtronft Assocs LCC

708 West 9th St., Ste. 205

Lawrence KS 66044

and by FAX to 843-4843

re: Z-08-38-04 and PDP-08-10-04 (Parnell Park Addition PRD) Dear Allen,

Thank you very much for participating in recent meetings of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Ass'n. (Sept. 13), the Brook Creek NA (Sept. 15), and an inter-neighborhood group including the chairs of Brook Creek and Barker NAs and the outgoing chair of East Lawrence NA (Oct. 11), to discuss your proposal for a planned residential development on the land at 1503 Haskell.

As you know, I am a member of Brook Creek NA, and am involved with inter-association efforts to promote a new revitalization effort for the entire East Side (north of 23rd St.), acting as an independent policy consultant, researcher and historian. In this letter, though, I speak only for myself.

I have enjoyed getting to know you at these meetings and in several phone calls since mid-September. I hope you'll agree that overall I have been supportive of your project, and have tried to help guide the neighborhood discussions forward in a constructive way.

In my opinion, these frank, detailed meetings, and your willingness to consider and implement citizen input, will contribute not only to the neighborhoods' acceptance and encouragement for you and your developer, but also to the quality of the final result.

You shared your initial development plan with Brook Creek NA (Aug. 6 letter), and then, after considering comments you received from East Lawrence and Brook Creek NAs at the September meetings, you requested deferral of the item from the Planning Commission's Sept. 22 agenda, in order to revise the plan.

Allen Belot 20 Oct 04 p. 2

And you brought a revised plan version to the Oct. 11 inter-neighborhood leaders' meeting, and discussed it again, receiving new comments.

On the assumption that the plan version submitted to Planning is the same one that you shared on Oct. 11, and noting that the agenda-item language (Z-08-38-04 and PDP-08-10-04) remains unchanged from the Sept. agenda—i.e., not reflecting changes shown in the Oct. 11 plan version, nor any other changes discussed at that meeting—I'm writing this to memorandize the changes you have already made, and other changes you have agreed to consider, since the date of the plan drawings that Planning has reviewed.

On Sept. 3 the three NA chairs (BONA, BNA, ELNA) responded to your Aug. 6 submission with a first letter, itemizing suggestions and concerns which we later discussed. I'll use the bullet-points of that letter here.

1. Stormwater drainage.

This was discussed in detail at the Sept. 15 BONA meeting. Residents personally familiar with past (and recent) flooding along Burroughs Creek and at Ward St., immediately south of your lot, offered accounts and expressed concern. But I think we can have faith in the Stormwater Engineer to make sure the plan is good.

2. Abandoned railroad right-of-way ownership.

This has been extensively discussed and studied. Your consultant's affidavit, filed in September by Mr. Shephard at the Courthouse, helps to clarify the likelihood that this 0.74-acre strip is legally reverted to the current owner. Your open-space land dedications, and your incorporation of the future Rail-Trial extension into your design, are welcome.

3. Greenspace.

In your revised plan you showed one lot at the intersection of the two inner streets, from which you removed one house and substituted a walking track and a gazebo, as a pocket park for the development's residents. This was a welcome response to our suggestions, and gratifying.

I did suggest, on Oct. 11, that you consider removing a second house next to that park—or alternatively, freeing up about half of that lot for more park, and distributing the remaining street frontage gained thereby to the nearby cul-de-sac driveways, so that the three shared-driveway curb cuts might be eliminated.

Allen Belot 20 Oct 04 p. 3

4. PRD requirements (and covenants etc).

One suggestion that seemed acceptable to you on Oct. 11 was that the PRD's terms specify that the same unrelated-tenants cap (three persons) now applied by ordinance to RS-2 lots, apply here also.

5. Traffic flow impacts.

This was generally discussed, and the only pending suggestion I remember is that the southern two-thirds of the north-south inner street might be redrawn as a curve, swinging more to the right, rather than an obtuse angle leading to a straight street. The idea was that the three lots east of the street there have extraordinarily deep backyards (due to the odd geometry of the parcel's boundaries), and that the lots along the western edge of the plan might thereby be further enlarged by some increment.

As with stormwater, I think we can trust Planning's specialist staff to ensure that the final traffic plan is workable

6. House price range.

Your initial proposal indicated a range of $150,000 to $180,000, and on Oct. 11 you explained your developer's reasons for hesitating to widen that range, or to move it up, or down.

Whether $150,000 is truly "affordable" (and I note that "affordable" is part of your PDP's formal title), is debatable, but considering the value inflation of Lawrence housing today, it may turn out to be "affordable" by the time your project is ready to sell. The amount does correspond to house prices in the new Villo Woods (Woods on 19th St.) project, just south of your land, and I understand those have been selling well; certainly, most of those houses are built now.

The suggestions you have heard are based on the concept that, despite the relative lack of "comparables" for appraisal (with the significant exception of Villo Woods), the East Side of Lawrence should be seen as an area with a brighter future and increasing values for newer homes, and your development should look ahead to that future.

Neighborhoods like Brook Creek face a Catch-22: "You can't build expensive houses there, because there aren't any comparables; and there aren't any comps, because you can't build nicer houses there." To reach a better neighborhood future, we all must push the envelope of this paradigm.

We realize, however, that definite limits are imposed by real-world appraising and financing factors; that buyer psychology can only approximately be predicted; and that real capital will be at risk in this major improvement.

Allen Belot 20 Oct 04 p. 4

Ed Tato, Michael Almon and I met with banker Ed Samp and appraiser Ron Aul yesterday, simply to educate ourselves further about these factors. One idea that came from that meeting was the concept of organizing a small consortium of local lenders who could commit to making available equal loan capital shares, and would keep buyers' mortgage loans in portfolio, thereby loosening the borrowing qualifications slightly beyond what the secondary mortgage market strictly requires. Outreach by neighbors and encouragement from the City could help. Submitted for your consideration.

7. Geology.

There is a question of whether, or how much, downed-tree debris is present in the earthfill already on the lot. Neighbors' comments to you suggested that much bulldozed-tree material IS present, from clearing the site and from crushed trees in fill-earth accepted from the 13th & Oregon stormwater project contractor. You noted that your soil engineer might want to take more core samples than usual, in that case.

8. Density.

As noted, your first plan had 35 single-family homes; in the second version you had removed two houses, i.e., the one near the center (for the pocket park), and one at the east end of the street, enlarging nearby lots slightly.

The Oct. 11 discussion of the eight lots on the western edge (hillside houses with walk-out basements), between the two Rail-Trail access paths, turned to whether those lots could become seven lots, each one slightly larger—with the idea that the upper-range houses might be concentrated area, with its scenic view of the future Trail and Parnell Park and the creek valley to the west.

You posed the hypothetical question: if you were to re-draw those eight lots as seven, and if the upper-end lots failed to sell for house building, could you expect our community's support if you returned later for a replat back to eight lots?

I was quick to accept that good-faith proposition, and I think the others agreed. We didn't get as far as a specific time frame for this joint market experiment, but I assume that might be about one year ...

Finally, there are two other points that have not been directly addressed in the three meetings, so what follows are two personal suggestions, respectfully submitted:

9. Landscaping.

I am sure you know this site has an ugly recent history, as to preservation of stands of mature trees and natural open-space (both of which are explicit City policies for all new development, and they are in the spirit, if not indeed the letter, of the law).

Allen Belot 20 Oct 04 p. 5

In mid-March the owner suddenly bulldozed most of the dense woodland coverage from the lot, without having filed any public plan at all. Prompted by planners to comply with the Code, he filed only a site-grading plan and a temporary usepermitted-upon-review application.

On May 5, 2004, the City Commission discussed this application, and the record shows that they had misgivings about the situation; Mayor Rundle, for example, asked "why there was not a requirement to [gain new] plat [approval] before the property owner could start developing a site."

The Parks Dept. had entered a request in the grading-plan staff review (TUPR-04-09-04), that the owner "Please consider creation of a conservation tree plan to two existing groups of trees to be saved and utilized in this project and tree root protection zones with no grade changes in these areas. [...] How will lost vegetation be restored?"

Addressing this on May 5, Mayor Rundle asked "the Parks Department request for creating a conservation plan, was moot because most of the trees were gone. [City Manager Mike] Wildgen said yes [the request was moot]."

I mention this background only to illuminate some of the emotional reasons behind the neighborhood's initial suspicion and resistance. Community trust is NOT fostered by actions undertaken on the principle of "It's better to apologize than to ask permission."

Personally I would urge you to devote extra attention to the site's landscaping plan, and to offer to go beyond the bare minimums required for street trees and landscaping.

10. History and naming.

Your plan is titled "Parnell Park Addition," and it names the two inner streets "Parnell Drive" and "Park Court." But who was "Parnell," and why is this little park named after him?

Andrew Jackson ("A. J.") Parnell was a Douglas County Commissioner in 1902-1903 when the County courthouse was built; his name is on the cornerstone with the other two commissioners' names. It's not clear if this Andrew Parnell was born in 1842 or in 1864; census records show both men in Douglas County in 1920, the elder living with in-laws in town, the other (presumably his son) living in Wakarusa Township, i.e., where your land was until after 1950.

Much more noteworthy than the little-remembered A. J. Parnell is the original owner of your land: Oliver A. Hanscom, a member of the "second party" of emigrants from New England, who arrived in Lawrence in September 1854.

Allen Belot 20 Oct 04 p. 6

Born in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in October 1831, Hanscom was just 22 years old when he came to Kansas. He took up a 160-acre claim (the NE 1/4 of Section 6, Township 13, Range 20 East), at a time when that area was grassy meadow, with no trees, and defended it against the Missourians who were trying to pre-empt the anti-slavery settlers from the East.

Oliver Hanscom was a founder of the Plymouth Congregation Church in September 1854, and the next month, he helped to found the "Kansas Athenium," Lawrence's first library and reading-circle project. In 1857 he married Anna Tappan, the daughter of a fellow emigrant in the "second party" and considered to be the first unmarried white woman to arrive in Lawrence.

I respectfully request that you and your developer consider naming those two streets "Oliver" and "Hanscom."

Also, it seems to me that—as with Bo Harris' Hobbs-Taylor Lofts downtown—a project name more redolent of Lawrence history might add to this development's appeal and community context, especially in this our Sesquicentennial Year. "Settler's Heights," for example, is one idea that occurred to me.

Thank you, Allen, for allowing me and other neighborhood leaders to participate in the planning process for this residential development.

James W. Grauerholz

cc (fax):

Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office, 832-3160

cc (email):

Beth Anne Mansur / Brook Creek NA Emily Wellman / Barker NA

Timothy Morland / East Lawrence NA

September 27, 2004 Belot / Hartronft Associates, ac

Architects & Planners

708 West 9th Street, Suite 205, Lawrence, KS 66044 Tel 785-843-4793 Fax 785-843-4842

Ms. Sandra Day

Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office

6 East 6^thStreet P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

RE: PARNELL PARK Dear Sandy:

I just wanted to update you on the changes to the Parnell Park Preliminary Development Plan that have occurred as a result of my meetings with the Neighborhood Associations.

I met with the East Lawrence Improvement Association on September 13^th and Brook Creek Neighborhood Association on September 16^th. I had also contacted the Barker Neighborhood Association and Emily Wellman contacted me to say that they were not scheduling any meeting in the near future but thanked me for including them in the review process.

My personal opinion is that the Brook Creek meeting was very helpful in that several members of the ELIA that had been at the meeting on the 13^th also attended this meeting. In summary, the issues that were consistently expressed between the two groups were:

1. What element will anchor this development to encourage neighborhood unity and offer some assurance this development will still be single family, owner occupied, in 20 years.

2. Concern was expressed about how little curb space on Park Circle was available for on street parking.

3. There was an expressed desire for a wider range of housing prices (income levels) to be represented in this development with most of the discussion focusing on providing +200K townhomes.

4. Some discussion was also devoted to balancing the open space between the western border and the center of the development.

I believe I have been able to address all of the above issues in the revised Preliminary Development Plan that I am submitting as follows:

1. We eliminated the dwelling unit on what was Lot 18. Now a centrally located park has been designated for this area. We propose that a picnic shelter be built with the neighborhood mailboxes as an accessory use be included in this structure. We are also proposing to build a "Tricycle Track" around the border of the park to give smaller children a safe place to ride away from the street traffic. We have also included a "toddler play area" adjacent to the Picnic Shelter to allow parents to interact in and around the shelter while their small children play close by. The southern half of this park area is devoted to greenspace, which could be used for touch football, volleyball,

$Text Box: staO1kc-\ docs\protects100416PARN \Rev isLtr. doc$ croquet, etc. by the residents of the development. The concept for this park is to provide a vehicle for a variety of informal activities to occur among all age groups throughout the day and thus, serve as an activity focal point for neighbors to meet casually during the day or through organized neighborhood events.

2. By eliminating an entire lot in the Park Circle cul-de-sac_. distributing that area for additional width to the remaining lots and then sharing driveway entrances between two houses has created 5-6 additional on-street parking spaces around this cul-de-sac.

3. I have consulted the builder for this project and a local residential real estate appraiser on this issue. The ultimate determinate for $200,000+ homes in this development would be the difficulty in obtaining an appraisal from comparable sales in the area to support a loan in that price range. The consensus was that it would be difficult to support a value that high in this area and thus difficult to get financing.

I did develop a plan that included some townhomes within the proposed development and asked staff to review this concept. As you know, staff was not supportive of putting townhouses in a predominately single family development.

However, in respect to the neighborhood's desires I was able to reconfigure the lot lines around the proposed development to create three lots with larger buildable areas to accommodate a larger higher end home should a buyer with financing desire such a home.

4. We have not changed the open space along western border of the development and have added a neighborhood park centrally located within the development. Additionally, by reconfiguring the lots throughout the development we were able to realign the pedestrian link to the western open area to occur directly across Parnell Drive from the Neighborhood Park creating a much stronger access connection between the two areas.

Although, we are submitting this Preliminary Development Plan today, we are also in the process of scheduling meetings with the Brook Creek, ELIA and Barker Neighborhood representatives to present the ideas that I have described above.

pc: Parnell Investors, LLC File