Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 1553, Lawrence, KS 66044

 

November 14, 2004

 

John Haase, Chairman

Members

Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission

City Hall

Lawrence, KS 66044

 

RE: ITEMS No. 3: Consideration of the new Development Code, November 17, 2004, Edition that replaces the existing zoning ordinance No. 3500 and all amendments since adoption in 1966 (LMF); No. 4: Comprehensive revisions to the official zoning map in association with adoption of the "Development Code, November 17, 2004 Edition" (LMF/SMS); and the "Cooperation Agreement between the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the University of Kansas" referenced in accompanying staff report.

 

Dear Chairman Haase and Commissioners,

 

The Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods is concerned with the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission forward approval of the "Cooperation Agreement between the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the University of Kansas" (hereafter Agreement) along with the Commission's recommendation on the new Development Code. There is no internal evidence, either in the Agreement or the Development Code itself, that the Agreement is to be considered as part of the Development Code. There is no reason to expect that these two separate items should be heard together; therefore, it does not appear that the Agreement was legally advertised to the public prior to the November 17 meeting. Because community stakeholders may not have had adequate prior notice of this issue, we suggest that the Commission table their discussion of the Agreement until this item has been properly published.

 

In addition to our concern regarding publication, I offer some comments on the Agreement itself.

 

LAN and its KU Neighbors subcommittee, comprised of representatives from neighborhoods adjacent to the University of Kansas, have argued that it is both legal and in the interest of Lawrence residents that the City enforce zoning regulations for public institutions of higher learning, particularly in those adjacent to boundaries shared with residential neighborhoods. We were pleased to see inclusion of a University (U) zoning district in the new Development Code and thought that the 150-foot Buffer Area was a suitable compromise, balancing the needs of institutions to develop and redevelop their core campuses while protecting adjacent residential neighborhoods from incompatible development. LAN's request that development within this Buffer Area be regulated with respect to building massing, setbacks, height limits, noise and light pollution, and parking requirements, was a moderate one. For institutions other than the University of Kansas, these remain the standard in the text of the Development Code.

 

We are very discouraged that the Agreement completely excludes these important controls, leaving all aspects of development adjacent to neighborhoods up to the unpredictable results of an "ad hoc community building advisory committee," to be assembled "as a general practice" prior to the commencement of construction. The document does not state by whom such a committee would be assembled, nor does it provide indication of how conflicts over issues important to each stakeholder group would be resolved. For the record, the University of Kansas has involved community groups, in the same limited way, in reviewing development plans for both the new Student Recreation Center and the most recent scholarship hall in the 1300 block of Ohio St. To date, neighborhoods have gained little by this process and are faced with the negative consequences of development: with setbacks as narrow as about 20 ft and elevations of as much as 4 stories, the 30,000 sq ft Recreation Center dwarfs adjacent residential properties; the new scholarship hall planned for fifty residents has only three on-site parking spaces. These are the kinds of situations that LAN hoped to avoid in future developments along the campus periphery, but there is no indication that this Agreement offers the probability that even the barest minimum of standards will be met. The plain fact is that, while the statutes may stipulate that state buildings cannot be controlled by local building codes, there is no indication that the City should abandon its right and responsibility to control zoning with regard to public institutions within city limits, but this is exactly what the City would do under this Agreement. We urge the Planning Commission to consider carefully what the City and its residents stand to gain by the Agreement and whether it would constitute a substantial change for the better over the current arrangement.

 

IF the Planning Commission chooses to proceed with recommending the Agreement, however, we would suggest the following two changes:

 

[1]    There should be a careful review of University of Kansas Endowment Association (KUEA) properties proposed for inclusion in the Agreement. KUEA is an independent corporation, not an agency of the University of Kansas or the State of Kansas, and there is no guarantee that properties now held by KUEA will eventually be transferred to the University. KUEA's property holdings should not be uniformly exempt from the requirements of the City's zoning regulations as part of the "Primary University of Kansas, Lawrence, Campus". If the City chooses to grant KUEA special status with regard to some holdings immediately adjacent to the KU Campus, we recommend that it specifically exclude from the Agreement those properties held by KUEA which are separated from the Campus by streets, alleys, or other privately held properties, and whose inclusion would otherwise be considered spot zoning. These include but are not limited to 704 West 12th St, 1232 Louisiana St, 1801 Maine St, and 1031 Mississippi St.

 

[2]    Staff's assessment that "[t]he one unknown about the Agreement is how well it will work in actual practice" is telling, and we support the recommendation that it be reviewed jointly after one year. Such a review should be stipulated as an additional section of the Agreement itself. Moreover, criteria should be enumerated whereby the Agreement may accurately be evaluated after the designated period of time. We are generally concerned that the Agreement lacks standards by which its effectiveness could be measured. In reviewing it for criteria for evaluation, if the City and University cannot find adequate benchmarks, we recommend that they amend the current language to include them.

 

Finally, in light of the fact that Section 12 of the Agreement allows either party to terminate its participation for any reason, we urge the Commission not to recommend approval of a special U(UK), University of Kansas zoning district designation, either in the Code or on the Official Zoning Map. This would amount to creation of a zoning district without any regulations at all, as no regulations are stipulated in the Development Code for this district and the few voluntary regulations afforded by the Agreement may be terminated at any time.

 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely,

 

David Geyer

President, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods

December 2, 2004

Dear Mayor Rundle, Commissioners Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner:

 

I am writing on behalf of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association Steering Committee. On October 3rd we sent a letter to each of the owners of property along 29th Street Terrace (between Missouri and Bellehaven streets), requesting that they attend a meeting which was held on the 18th of October at the Indian Hills Church of God, on the south corner of 29th Street Terrace and Louisiana. Our intention was to inform them that we planned to request that their properties be "down-zoned" so that the current use reflects the current zoning.

 

The property owners who attended the meeting were concerned primarily about two issues:

o           If their properties were to be redeveloped, they would be permitted to rebuild duplexes; and

o           The amount and height of the fill being placed on the land immediately adjacent to them to the south. One of the owners mentioned that he observes standing water now where there was none previously.

 

IHNA Steering Committee members responded by assuring the owners that it was not our intention to prevent duplexes from being rebuilt. As to the fill problems, because the land to the south is in the county we have been told that the city has no jurisdiction regarding the areal extent or the height of the fill.

 

At the meeting with the property owners, a member of the planning staff was present and we learned that under the proposed new zoning codes, duplex-type zoning will be absorbed into a new district that permits a variety of more dense development. Thus, our original intention to request to "down-zone" would become moot under the new proposal.

 

We believe duplex-type zoning provides for a smooth and compatible transition between multi-family and single-family dwellings. When we look at the Indian Hills neighborhood, we are concerned that several areas at the fringes would come under this new combined, mixed-use, multi-family zone. Future redevelopment of these areas under the new provisions provides little assurance to near-by single-family residents. The flexibility of the new zoning ordinance promotes little in the way of stability and predictability that are critical to the long-term health and sustainability of neighborhoods.

 

The duplexes mentioned below currently "fit" nicely with our neighborhood. We believe it is imperative that duplexes be redeveloped as duplexes.

o           24th Street between Arkansas and Alabama,

o           25th Street between Alabama and Louisiana,

o           the west side of Alabama from 24th to 25th Streets,

o           the southern-most parts of Alabama, Missouri, and Bellehaven streets, and

o           29th Street Terrace from Missouri to Bellehaven.

Our Steering Committee members have expressed their concern that if duplex zoning as a unique category is abandoned, future redevelopment may not be visually or aesthetically compatible with adjacent single-family homes. In other words, we would not want to see dwellings with three or more stories immediately next to or across from single-family homes. We are concerned that this would be entirely possible under the proposed grouping of RM-type dwellings. Furthermore, it is entirely likely that this situation is not unique to Indian Hills, but that it is applicable to the entire city as well and should be addressed before the new zoning categories are adopted.

 

In your deliberations on the proposed zoning regulations, we trust that you will take these comments into consideration and make any needed changes to ensure that duplex-zoning will either be maintained or structured in such a way that future development or redevelopment will be compatible with near-by single-family homes.

 

Perhaps at a later date, the issue of annexation of the property to the south of 29th Street Terrace should be considered in order to provide greater oversight/control regarding the fill being placed there. This would surely provide our residents with the comfort that our City's stormwater engineer would be involved.

 

Thank you for your help in these matters.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Joyce Wolf,

IHNA Immediate Past President

2535 Arkansas Street Lawrence, KS 66046

749-3203

 

P.S.      Would it be possible that we be notified when this item will be on your agenda, so that we can plan to be present to answer any questions or offer added comments. Thank you.

League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County

P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044

 

November 14, 2004

 

John Haase, Chairman

Members

Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission

City Hall

Lawrence, KS 66044

 

RE: ITEM NO. 3: CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 EDITION.

 

Dear Chairman Haase and Planning Commissioners:

 

We would like to support adoption of the new Development Code with six revisions.  We believe that problems we have noted in past reviews that have not yet been corrected will ultimately be found to be problems and will be changed.  However, there are four provisions that we believe require immediate attention and revision, because they will cause serious problems now.  They fall into these general categories: [A] Issues of unpredictability for home buyers; [B] Lack of clarity with respect to where Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed; [C] Need for further definition of regulations; and [D] Missing regulations.  (There are regulations regarding permits that should be added.)

 

A.  Unpredictability for home buyers.

1.  Page 1-6: Sec. 20-110 Transitional Provisions, Zoning District Names, (e).  The RMD and RM-1 districts are both converted to RM12.  The RMD district currently allows only duplexes and single-family dwellings and is increasingly being developed with townhomes as entry-level housing.  The expectation of homeowners who have bought into these areas is that the housing types will remain as they are now.  If RMD districts are converted RM, these homeowners have no assurance that this will continue to be the case.  All RM districts allow any residential housing type, from single family to three-story apartments.  To rezone the RMD district to the same type of use in a more predictable district, we suggest that those RMD districts that are being used for townhomes be rezoned to RS3 and be given the Special Use Permit for attached housing.

 

2.  Page 4-3, Table 20-402, and Page 7-6, Cluster Housing Projects, 20-706, (c), Where Allowed; Procedure.  In the table 20-402, we suggest that cluster housing be allowed in the RM and RMO districts only with a Special Use Permit.  Cluster housing is single family detached housing and is currently allowed by-right in the RS districts.  Allowing cluster housing by-right in RM districts would give home buyers the expectation that their immediate neighborhood will develop with single family housing.  This is unrealistic, of course, because RM districts allow any multiple family housing type by-right.  Allowing cluster housing as a special use in RM districts would not create substantially more difficulty for developers.  Moreover, it would help to ensure that home buyers would have a better understanding of how their neighborhood will eventually develop.  Page 7-6, 20-702(c) should read “Cluster Housing Projects are allowed by-right in all single family residential Zoning Districts [etc].”

 

B. Lack of clarity with respect to where Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed.

Page 5-30, Sec. 20-502(c)(1)(i).  Accessory Dwellings Units.  Because they are required to be owner-occupied, accessory dwelling units have the potential to provide a wide variety of housing needs that cannot be met now, from granny units to affordable housing for families.  However, the present phrasing does not make it clear that accessory dwelling units may also be allowed in RS5 and RS3 zoning districts, if adopted as part of an urban conservation district.  We suggest that Section 20-502(c)(1)(i) be amended to read: “(i) create new housing units while preserving the look and scale of these single-dwelling neighborhoods and are allowed in other RS zones, only as part of an adopted Urban Conservation District, for a defined neighborhood;”

 

C.  Need for further definition of regulations.

1.  Page 13-26, Sec. 20-1304,(f)(4)(v)  Planned Developments, Final Development Plans, Major Changes.  Following “Building type”, please add “or bulk, or substantial changes to the location of buildings.”  These are requirements for the university district buffer areas and are also appropriate for determining major changes in the final development plans of existing and future planned unit developments.

 

2.  Page 16-3 Sec. 20-1605(b) Approval of Permits & Approvals with Conditions.  This section allows staff to approve a permit “…if adequate assurances are in place to ensure correction of the violation...”  The phrase “adequate assurances” requires a reference and/or definition stipulating what guarantees are expected in the process in order to prevent misunderstandings from arising and to allow fair administration of the zoning ordinance.

 

D.  Missing section.

There are no sections on Building Permits and/or Occupancy Permits.  Because these are the enforcement mechanisms for this ordinance, we believe they should be added as separate sections.

 

We hope that you will make these changes.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

Caleb Morse                                         Alan Black

President                                              Land Use Committee