SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET P.O. BOX 708 LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66044-0708 FAX (785) 832-3160 PHONE (785) 832-3150
July 26, 2005
Steve Standing
1801 Learnard Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
RE: PP-06-15-05, Cypress Park Addition Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Standing:
On Monday, July 25th, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission denied the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, but encouraged the applicant to resubmit a new Preliminary Plat that more adequately addresses concerns raised in the staff report, letters, and the discussion at the meeting. The Planning Commission is favorable to infill development in this area, but would like you to explore other possibilities that would not utilize flag lots. The applicant should work with Planning Staff, adjoining Property Owners, and the Neighborhood to develop a proposed layout for the development of this property. This proposal may include rezoning to a Planned Residential Development and a Residential Development Plan per Section 20-10 (Planned Unit Development) of the City of Lawrence Zoning Codes.
Planning Staff would be available to meet with you on this project as it proceeds. You may contact me at 832-3153, or if you prefer our supervisor Sheila Stogsdill (Assistant Planning Director) at 832-3157, to arrange for a meeting.
Sincerely,
Paul Patterson
City/County Planner
C: Peridian Group, Inc. 500 Rockledge Road, Suite A, Lawrence, Kansas 66049
Page: 1 of 1
Paul Patterson
From: Sheila Stogsdill
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:25 AM
To: Todd Thompson (tlegal@aol.com)
Cc: Paul Patterson; Linda Finger
Subject: Preliminary Plat of Cypress Park
Todd
I wanted to follow up on your question last week regarding the Planning Commission's action on the Preliminary Plat of Cypress Park. This office will send a letter to the owner this week regarding the ways the submitted plat failed to conform to the subdivision regulations. The Planning Commission is scheduled to approve the minutes from their July meetings at their meeting tomorrow night.
Sheila M. Stogsdill
Assistant Planning Director Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office
P.O. Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044-0708 785-832-3157
sstogsdill@ci.lawrence. ks. Us
SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET P.O. BOX 708
LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66044-0708 FAX (785) 832-3160 PHONE (785) 832-3150
Steve Standing
1801 Learnard Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
RE: PP-06-15-05, Cypress Park Addition Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Standing:
On Monday, July 25, 2005, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission denied the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, based upon the following findings in which the preliminary plat failed to conform with the subdivision regulations:
1. Proposed lot configuration does not lend itself to the future redevelopment of the property or surrounding properties. (Re: Section 21-101(b)(3)).
2. The proposed layout does not "coordinate the development of each parcel of land with the existing community, and facilitate the property development of adjoining land." (Re: Section 21-101(b)(3)).
3. The proposed plat should be redesigned to allow for adequate right-of-way access for the further development of this and adjacent properties (north and west) in the future. (Re: Section 21-607(d)).
4. "Infill development should conform to lot size of the area in which it is proposed." (Re: Horizon 2020, residential Development Chapter 5-14, Policy 3.3(c)).
5. The recording of Lot 3 would make the accessory 2-story barn non-complying as it would exceed the maximum rear yard coverage, (Re: Section 20-1312).
Attached for your information, is a copy of the July 25th Planning Commission meeting for this item and the staff report.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Patterson
City/County Planner
C: Peridian Group, Inc. 500 Rockledge Road, Suite A, Lawrence, Kansas 66049
September 26, 2005
Mike Wildgen
City Manager
City Hall
6`h and Massachusetts St.
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
Dear Mr. Wildgen:
This letter is a request to be heard before the City Commission in the near future. The subject is an appeal of a denial of preliminary plat by the Planning Commission for a proposed subdivision "Cypress Park" located at 1801 Learnard Ave. I have met with Mayor Highberger on this matter and he suggested that I write to you in order to be placed on the agenda for a future meeting. Any date except the third week of October will be good. I will be out of town then.
We have several bases for desiring to speak to the commission. First, I would like to present the merits of the proposal to a body that can consider it fairly and independently.
Secondly, I would like to have an opportunity to demonstrate the neighborhood support for the proposal that was denied on July 25 at the Planning Commission.
There may also be a technical or legal aspect of the manner in which the preliminary plat was denied. A copy of the letter from Planning Staff is enclosed (dated July 26) in which they state the results of the meeting. However, Lawrence City Ordinance 21-202 (g) states that
"The planning department shall give written notice to the subdivider
of the action of the planning commission, If the preliminary plat has
been disapproved, or conditionally approved, the notice shall
specifically state the ways in which the preliminary plat fails to
conform with these regulations."
In reading the July 26 letter, they did not state "the ways in which the preliminary plat fails to conform with these regulations." Indeed, I have been reassured repeatedly by my land planner Peridian Group that the proposed plat does conform to the letter of the subdivision regulations in every detail. At the Planning Commission Meeting on July 25, Paul Patterson, in answering a question by Ms. Ermeling, stated that the proposal did conform to the regulations.
Subsequently, on August 31 the Planning Staff rewrote the letter citing their interpretations of Horizon 2020 to which the proposed plat did not conform, in their opinion. However this letter still falls short of finding any subdivision regulation that the proposal violates. Further, this second letter falls well after the 60 day limit from date of initial application. Ordinance 21-201(e) states
"The planning commission shall review the preliminary plat and the material submitted with it to determine conformity with the comprehensive plan and these regulations and it shall act upon the plat within 60 days after submission, stating its approval, conditional approval (stating conditions) or disapproval (stating reasons), unless the subdivider shall waive or consent to an extension of the 60 day period"
Since the Planning office did fail to follow the above procedure, it is my belief that the denial of the plat is improper, and should be approved.
Aside from this point, we believe the proposal stands on it's own merits as the best solution for platting the 2.23 acres in question. Each of the neighbors I have spoken with and presented the plan has been in favor of it. All of them arc unremittingly opposed to a high density solution which the Planning staff favors. Enclosed is a list of abutting and nearby neighbors who have approved the Cypress Park proposal. Following that we have several letters that were written in favor of the project.
The proposal is to build 4 new homes that will emphasize efficiency, affordability, accessibility, good design and quality, and conformance with the neighborhood in terms of style. I have at the moment one such home under construction which follows these same principles at 1131 New Jersey St. I would encourage anyone who is interested in this kind of "new urban" solution to come by and see for themselves. I can be reached at 979 3939.
I will look forward to hearing back from you on this request and appreciate your attention to the matter.
S. E Standing
1801 l.earnard Ave.
Lawrence, Kansas
Copies to : Mayor Highberger
Commissioner Amyx
Commissioner Hack
Commissioner Rundle
Commissioner Schauner
Peridian Group
League Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County
P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence. Kansas 66044
July 24. 2005
Dr Terry Riordan. Chairman
Members
Lawrence-Douglas County_ Planning Commission
City Hall
Lawrence. Kansas 66044
RE: ITEM NO. 6: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CYPRESS PARK ADDITION Dear Chairman Riordan and Planning Commissioners:
We support the Planning Staff recommendation for denial of this subdivision plat. We summarize our points regarding this Cypress Park Addition as follows: (1) The flag lot configuration is not considered good planning practice in Lawrence and its unregulated use for neighborhood redevelopment would establish a detrimental precedent. (2) One lot in this plat is functionally landlocked. (3) The subdivision needs a stormwater management plan. (4) The Barker Neighborhood needs a neighborhood plan for development and redevelopment.
The following are our more detailed reasons for supporting denial of this Cypress Park Addition preliminary plat.
1. Lot configuration. Although not prohibited in the Subdivision Regulations, flag lots are not considered good planning practice in Lawrence. This substandard subdivision should not become the prototype for Barker Neighborhood redevelopment or for large-lot development elsewhere in the City and Urban Growth Area. Flag-lot subdivision, if allowed_ needs standards and regulations adopted before it becomes common practice.
2. "Shared" driveways. All of the lots have legal access; therefore, the sharing of driveways is not legally needed on any of the lots. However, one of the lots. Lot 5, will be forced to "share" access with Lots 3 and 4 because it will be landlocked by the detention pond located across its entire lot frontage. Because the so-called "driveway" frontage for Lot 4 is not a portion of Lot 5, as is the case with shared driveways_ this driveway becomes essentially a private street with frontage access along its linear boundary, not legal in the Subdivision Regulations except in Planned Unit Developments. In any event. Lot 5 would not have legal access to this driveway, there being no condition to this effect in the plat Notes. The driveway to the barn on Lot 3 may also become a problem for Lot 4 because it \sill be bearing the paving and maintenance expense (there is no access nor maintenance covenant on the plat). and again. Lot 3 has no legal access to this `driveway."
3. Stormwater management. The entire subdivision is on almost flat land relatively close to a regulatory floodplain. In order to avoid ponding and foundation flooding, there should be a stormwater management grading plan including drainage easements in any subdivision plat adopted for this property.
4 Neighborhood plan. We also urge the Planning Commission to support a study and adoption of a neighborhood plan for this area that includes concepts for redevelopment that will preserve the neighborhood character, provide solutions for stormwater management, and prevent the problems inherent in substandard piecemeal subdivision.
We would like to suggest that this subdivision. designed to save improvement costs_ could ultimately be more costly for the subdivider. and for the City than a better-designed subdivision with dedicated public streets. We urge the Planning Commission not to approve this Cypress Park Addition plat.
Sincerely yours,
Carrie Lindsey Alan Black, Chairman
President
Land Use Committ
July 18, 2005
John Haase
Chair, Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission and other Commissioners
City Hall
6th and Massachusetts
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Mr. Haase and other Planning Commissioners:
I am writing in support of the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition at 1801 Learnard, submitted by Peridian Group for Steve Standing.
We have lived on Learnard for 23 years and very much enjoy the large lots with mature trees and relatively modest houses.
The design submitted for this plat would be entirely in keeping with the neighborhood. Five houses on 2.29 acres are far fewer than allowed by zoning laws, thus maintaining the current style and feel of the neighborhood.
I have not seen the staff report, but am under the impression that staff is not supportive of putting one house behind the other and having two houses share a driveway. However there are quite a few houses just like that in our neighborhood and this plan allows the lots to remain relatively large and spacious.
It is my understanding that staff thinks that 20 or thirty years from now someone might own enough property to intensely develop this area by building a road between Learnard and Barker and thus putting many houses facing the new street. But not allowing a property owner to make a tasteful addition to a neighborhood now because of some hypothetical idea of what might happen decades from now seems unreasonable.
I urge you to approve this plat for this plan. Sincerely,
Pat Kehde
1636 Learnard Ave.
Lawrence, KS 66044
July 20, 2005
Linda Finger
Director of Planning
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan P1anning
P.O. Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044-0708
Re: Cypress Park Addition scheduled for July 25, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Ms. Finger,
I am writing, as an individual neighbor, to support Mr. Standing's request to for a preliminary plat permitting the construction of 4 "flag lots" on his property located on Learnard Avenue. I would request that this letter be distributed to the planning commissioners prior to their consideration of this matter on July 250'
I have discussed this proposal with Mr. Standing, reviewed his plans, talked to other neighbors and reviewed the Departmental Review Notes provided by city staff.
Mr. Standing's property is located within the Barker Neighborhood. Our neighborhood contains a great diversity in housing types and lot sizes. Many of the lots along Barker and Learnard are very large. most of this size resulting from their great depth. These lot dimensions present a unique challenge for quality in-fill development that fits with the character of our neighborhood. I would also like to remind city staff and the planning commission that Learnard Avenue is still built to the dimensions of a county road, and in fact was the boundary road between the city and county until sometime in the 1960's. Learnard Avenue is a narrow street with no sidewalk and ditches for stormwater control. Although there have been several occasions when the Capital Improvement Plan has contained a request for "street improvement" with sidewalks for Learnard, the neighborhood association and residents along Learnard have consistently opposed such "improvements". We are very happy with our narrow road, ditches and mature trees.
In my opinion, the low density of Mr. Standing's proposal and overall design of his plan will maintain the best aspects of Learnard Avenue and the Barker Neighborhood as a whole that I and numerous others so highly value. I fear that with increases in lot and housing prices, there will be the temptation to purchase adjoining large lots and attempt to raze existing homes and redevelop them with the maximum density possible. What is proposed here will prevent that exploitation of our neighborhood and will instead provide four single-family, accessible houses. These will serve as an example as to how best to preserve the character of our neighborhood while still permitting infill development on our larger lots. The proposed development will have minimal impact on the overall character of the neighborhood and will negligible impact on traffic currently handled by Learnard Avenue.
A review of the Departmental Review Comments raised more questions in my mind than were answered. Comments from Public Works/Engineering indicate some design questions, but I seen nothing that can't be resolved without a little imagination. I understand the reason that the city does not want gravel drives, but anyone that has driven down Learnard Avenue will have had to notice that the majority of driveways there are gravel. Drainage is into drainage ditches which are much more easily cleared of debris than enclosed pipes.
The recommendation for a five foot wide sidewalk is nonsensical for our street under current circumstances. I am all in favor of 'walkability' and sidewalks, and will be a Lawrence Area Neighborhood representative on the Traffic and Safety Commissions' walkability task force, but this sidewalk would connect to nothing. We have no sidewalks along Learnard and unless the City is willing to construct sidewalks without widening the street itself then we will not have them in the future. Many would like sidewalks along Learnard Avenue, but the majority will not support the city's conditions for building these sidewalks. We do not want to see Learnard Avenue widened, with curbs and gutters with the sacrifice of several hundred mature trees to gain these sidewalks. We would no longer then have the street that we love.
Finally, the recommendation that any plan include an "Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Street and Storm Sewer Improvement to Leanard [sic] Avenue" as a condition of approval is offensive.
As stated above, the Barker Neighborhood Association and residents of Learnard Avenue have consistently opposed efforts by unknown persons [we assume the inclusion on past proposed Capital Improvement Plans to have arisen from City Staff and not neighbors] to set into motion efforts to "improve" this road. It is not the place of a city department to attempt to undermine the current desires of the neighborhood by insisting on such "agreements" that can only set neighbors at odds with each other. There is not now, nor will there be in any foreseeable future, the necessary number of Learnard residents in favor of a benefit district to widen Learnard. Attempting to hold up Mr. Standing's request based on such a condition under the current situation I have just described is not appreciated.
Several of the "Planning Comments" included in this report are most perplexing and seem to miss the point of what Mr. Standing, as a good neighbor, is trying to do. He is attempting to make use of his property in a way to support his retirement, while at the same time providing quality accessible single-family homes on larger lots consistent with the character of the rest of our neighborhood. He intends to maintain his own home there and to welcome four new neighbors around his existing house.
Comments which miss the point include: "A revised layout could possibly result in 9 to 10 lots on this property"; the "proposed layout does not appear to `coordinate the development of each parcel of land with the existing community, and facilitate the property development of adjoining land"', and; `"the proposed plat should be redesigned to allow for adequate right-of-way access for the further development of this and adjacent properties". These comments seem more appropriate for new developments and not in-fill development within an existing neighborhood. I would be much surprised if you received even one protest from an adjacent property owner about Mr. Standing's request. No one that I have spoken with has any interest in seeing more, rather than fewer houses built on the large lots in our neighborhood.
There are also two comments, numbers 8 and 9, which appear neutral and require your interpretation. Number 8 restates Horizon 2020, Residential development 5-14, Policy 3.3(c), "Infill development should conform to lot size, housing type, scale and general architectural style of the area in which it is proposed." In response to this policy, I would argue that Mr. Standing's proposal meets this criteria. The lot sized proposed will neither be the largest or smallest size found in our neighborhood, the proposed architectural style matches existing housing stock in the neighborhood, and the fact that they will be single-family residences of course fits the overall housing type found in our neighborhood.
The principles listed in comment number 9 are also met by Mr. Standing's proposal as demonstrated by existing properties throughout the Barker Neighborhood. Not all houses in the Barker Neighborhood face the main streets. Mr. Standing, in a previous letter listed several properties where there are properties sharing driveways in our neighborhood already.
I would urge the planning commission to view Mr. Standing's proposal in the context in which it is presented. Mr. Standing, a long-term resident of the Barker Neighborhood, desires to build four additional single-family homes on his 2.5 acre lot on Learnard Avenue. Could he make more money by razing his existing home and present a plan to squeeze in fifteen or more homes on this same property? Yes, he could. But Mr. Standing desires to do what is best for himself, his neighborhood , and his community. He desires to supplement his income while at the same time making sure that his property will remain an asset to our neighborhood. This is the very type of infill development that we, as a community, should encourage and work to promote. The fact that it will require variances and creativity should not count against this proposal. Every proposal for infill development is unique in time, space, and circumstances and should be treated as such. They should not be held to the same requirements as development of large open spaces. Mr. Standing should be complimented for thought he has put into this project, and the fact that he is determined to go forward with a plan that will enhance, rather than detract from the overall character and charm of the Barker Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Is/ Jim Carpenter
Jim Carpenter
1845 Learnard Ave. 979-5713
jecarpen@earthlink.net
July 20, 2005
Director of Planning
City County Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office
P.O. Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044-0708
Re: Cypress Park Addition scheduled for July 25, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Ms. Finger,
I am writing, as an individual neighbor, to support Mr. Standing's request to for a preliminary plat permitting the construction of 4 "flag lots" on his property located on Learnard Avenue. I would request that this letter be distributed to the planning commissioners prior to their consideration of this matter on July 25th.
I have discussed this proposal with Mr. Standing, reviewed his plans, talked to other neighbors and reviewed the Departmental Review Notes provided by city staff.
Mr. Standing's property is located within the Barker Neighborhood. Our neighborhood contains a great diversity in housing types and lot sizes. Many of the lots along Barker and Learnard are very large, most of this size resulting from their great depth. These lot dimensions present a unique challenge for quality in-fill development that fits with the character of our neighborhood. I would also like to remind city staff and the planning commission that Learnard Avenue is still built to the dimensions of a county road, and in fact was the boundary road between the city and county until sometime in the 1960's. Learnard Avenue is a narrow street with no sidewalk and ditches for stormwater control. Although there have been several occasions when the Capital Improvement Plan has contained a request for "street improvement" with sidewalks for Learnard, the neighborhood association and residents along Learnard have consistently opposed such "improvements". We are very happy with our narrow road, ditches and mature trees.
In my opinion, the low density of Mr. Standing's proposal and overall design of his plan will maintain the best aspects of Learnard Avenue and the Barker Neighborhood as a whole that I and numerous others so highly value. I fear that with increases in lot and housing prices, there will be the temptation to purchase adjoining large lots and attempt to raze existing homes and redevelop them with the maximum density possible. What is proposed here will prevent that exploitation of our neighborhood and will instead provide four single-family, accessible houses. These will serve as an example as to how best to preserve the character of our neighborhood while still permitting infill development on our larger lots. The proposed development will have minimal impact on the overall character of the neighborhood and will negligible impact on traffic currently handled by Learnard Avenue.
A review of the Departmental Review Comments raised more questions in my mind than were answered. Comments from Public Works/Engineering indicate some design questions, but I seen nothing that can't be resolved without a little imagination. I understand the reason that the city does not want gravel drives, but anyone that has driven down Learnard Avenue will have had to notice that the majority of driveways there are gravel. Drainage is into drainage ditches which are much more easily cleared of debris than enclosed pipes.
The recommendation for a five foot wide sidewalk is nonsensical for our street under current circumstances. I am all in favor of 'walkability' and sidewalks, and will be a Lawrence Area Neighborhood representative on the Traffic and Safety Commissions' walkability task force, but this sidewalk would connect to nothing. We have no sidewalks along Learnard and unless the City is willing to construct sidewalks without widening the street itself then we will not have them in the future. Many would like sidewalks along Learnard Avenue, but the majority will not support the city's conditions for building these sidewalks. We do not want to see Learnard Avenue widened, with curbs and gutters with the sacrifice of several hundred mature trees to gain these sidewalks. We would no longer then have the street that we love.
Finally, the recommendation that any plan include an "Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Street and Storm Sewer Improvement to Leanard [sic] Avenue" as a condition of approval is offensive.
As stated above, the Barker Neighborhood Association and residents of Learnard Avenue have consistently opposed efforts by unknown persons [we assume the inclusion on past proposed Capital Improvement Plans to have arisen from City Staff and not neighbors] to set into motion efforts to "improve" this road. It is not the place of a city department to attempt to undermine the current desires of the neighborhood by insisting on such "agreements" that can only set neighbors at odds with each other. There is not now, nor will there be in any foreseeable future, the necessary number of Learnard residents in favor of a benefit district to widen Learnard. Attempting to hold up Mr. Standing's request based on such a condition under the current situation I have just described is not appreciated.
Several of the "Planning Comments" included in this report are most perplexing and seem to miss the point of what Mr. Standing, as a good neighbor, is trying to do. He is attempting to make use of his property in a way to support his retirement, while at the same time providing quality accessible single-family homes on larger lots consistent with the character of the rest of our neighborhood. He intends to maintain his own home there and to welcome four new neighbors around his existing house.
Comments which miss the point include: "A revised layout could possibly result in 9 to 10 lots on this property"; the "proposed layout does not appear to `coordinate the development of each parcel of land with the existing community, and facilitate the property development of adjoining land, and; "the proposed plat should be redesigned to allow for adequate right-of-way access for the further development of this and adjacent properties". These comments seem more appropriate for new developments and not in-fill development within an existing neighborhood. I would be much surprised if you received even one protest from an adjacent property owner about Mr. Standing's request. No one that I have spoken with has any interest in seeing more, rather than fewer houses built on the large lots in our neighborhood.
There are also two comments, numbers 8 and 9, which appear neutral and require your interpretation. Number 8 restates Horizon 2020, Residential development 5-14, Policy 3.3(c), "Infill development should conform to lot size, housing type, scale and general architectural style of the area in which it is proposed." In response to this policy, I would argue that Mr. Standing's proposal meets this criteria. The lot sized proposed will neither be the largest or smallest size found in our neighborhood, the proposed architectural style matches existing housing stock in the neighborhood, and the fact that they will be single-family residences of course fits the overall housing type found in our neighborhood.
The principles listed in comment number 9 are also met by Mr. Standing's proposal as demonstrated by existing properties throughout the Barker Neighborhood. Not all houses in the Barker Neighborhood face the main streets. Mr. Standing, in~a previous letter listed several properties where there are properties sharing driveways in our neighborhood already.
I would urge the planning commission to view Mr. Standing's proposal in the context in which it is presented. Mr. Standing, a long-term resident of the Barker Neighborhood, desires to build four additional single-family homes on his 2.5 acre lot on Learnard Avenue. Could he make more money by razing his existing home and present a plan to squeeze in fifteen or more homes on this same property? Yes, he could. But Mr. Standing desires to do what is best for himself, his neighborhood , and his community. He desires to supplement his income while at the same time making sure that his property will remain an asset to our neighborhood. This is the very type of infill development that we, as a community, should encourage and work to promote. The fact that it will require variances and creativity should not count against this proposal. Every proposal for infill development is unique in time, space. and circumstances and should be treated as such. They should not be held to the same requirements as development of large open spaces. Mr. Standing should be complimented for thought he has put into this project, and the fact that he is determined to go forward with a plan that will enhance, rather than detract from the overall character and charm of the Barker Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Is/ Jim Carpenter
Jim Carpenter
1845 Learnard Ave. 979-5713
jecarpen@earthlink.net
July 19, 2005
Dear Members of_ the Planning Commission.
I've lived in Barker Neighborhood at 342 Johnson Avenue located on the NW corner of Johnson and Learnard for almost 29 years. The architectural design is a bungalow style built about 1923. Instead of alleys which run behind our back yards as they do in East Lawrence, most houses adjacent to 1801 Learnard find most of their lot located in a long back yard. The end of my back yard abutts the 2.23 acres at 1801 Learnard. For almost three decades, I've had the pleasure of looking out into a frequently mowed field dotted with trees. The "field" as well as the former county road (Learnard) which runs N and S gives the East side of Barker Neighborhood a rural flavor. Its semi-rural location and the diversity of older housing styles were characteristics which drew me to this locale.
I've known Steve Standing at 1801 Learnard for about 25 years. During this time, he and I frequently discussed Steve's future interest in building houses on his 2.23 acreage. So when he showed up at my door several months ago to show me his rendering, I was not surprised Steve had decided to move forward. As we're aware, our bodies are not getting any younger. It seems time to take action.
I was delighted at what I saw on his rendering for a number of reasons.
1. I like his tasteful mission-style houses designed primarily for empty nesters interested in giving up space they no longer need--fewer rooms and less yard. Given Steve's construction standards, simply because the houses are smaller does not mean quality will be diminished. Each house has the potential of being a Cypress Park jewel.
2. I particularly like the flag lot concept--a house behind a house with a shared driveway. Because of the lifestyle Steve seems interested in creating, increasing "busy-ness" with too many driveways for a relatively small number of vehicles seems unnecessary as well as making the houses more affordable. By avoiding the flag-lot concept, the idea of connecting Barker with Learnard somewhere toward the middle of his parcel becomes obsolete. Barker and Learnard are connected with Johnson (18.5th) and Forest (about 16th) if they were numbered streets. Because of the narrow width of Learnard, those of us with ROWS on Learnard assuredly do not want to increase the volume or speed of vehicle traffic due to the high number of bicylists and pedestrians who travel the road in their attempts to lead healthy lifestyles.
3. I especially appreciate my neighbor's apparently high standard of ethics. Although he has the option of building many more houses than four, he's chosen to avoid the cookie-cutter colony type concept and go for older home style aesthetics--the kind of thinking which surrounds us here in Barker Neighborhood. Steve has also avoided the McMansionstyle concept which we see out in Nouveau West Lawrence. Do the inhabitants actually use all that space? If so, how frequently?
4. I assume one reason Steve may need to spend money on a water retention pond is the fact that Chad Voight is unwilling to trench out annually the ditch in my Learnard ROW? Because the level of the "ditch" is approximately 50% above the bottom of the culvert on the S end of my ditch and because of the sand that flows down Johnson into the "ditch" during a torrential rain, water overflows at the culvert just N of the end of my property and backs up onto Steve's property. His culvert seems too small and dirt and debris may have accumulated in front of it; I don't know. I haven't taken the time to examine his culvery lately. My experience with Chad Voight is that, not only is he unwilling to trench the "ditch" to recover its functional shape, he has no apparent interest in solving our larger water problem. I doubt installing a multi-million dollar storm water sewer system along Learnard is necessary to resolve our issues.
Bottom line may be: if you're not willing to work with us on regulating our water flow during/after rains, Steve will probably need to spend his money on a water retention pond, thereby increasing the cost of his houses.
5. Responding to the affordable housing issue. Building more houses on smaller lots is one strategy. Other ways of creating affordable housing: having fewer children and building smaller houses; sending fewer children to colleges with escalating tuition costs; and maintaining older vehicles for 10-15 years--all these options have the power to create lower living costs, thus making housing more affordable.
In closing, I, as well as most of my neighbors, support Steve Standing's scaled back and aesthetically pleasing approach to developing Cypress Park.
Sincerely yours,
glenda hewlett,
7/20/2005
Carol Folkmann
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:35 PM
To: cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: PC Comments Item 6 PP 06-15-05
To: Members of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission
From: Patricia Sinclair, 331 Johnson Ave.
Re: Item 6, PP 06-15-05
Date: July 20, 2005
As a close neighbor of 1801 Learnard, and homeowner at 331 Johnson Ave. for almost 12 years, I have serious concerns about the proposed platting (with parcels without frontage on Learnard and shared drives) and I'm sure that many of my neighbors will share these concerns once they are aware of this proposal. I plan to write comments to you all directly via email after today's deadline and hope that you will read them before your meeting on Monday, July 25. This will enable me to read the staff report first to add to the research I have done already, limited by my need to be out of town.
As time and weather allow, and if I find people at home on a July weekend, I will circulate a petition to at least some of the neighbors in the notification area. This I will turn in to the Planning Office on Monday a.m. and it will not be presented to you until Monday evening just before your meeting. I urge you to look at any further documents from residents at this time. This is not a public hearing item, yet it can have a major impact on the lives and homes of many neighbors.
Here are a few comments submitted in haste for inclusion in your packet. I believe that this development does not follow the pattern of development in our nice older neighborhood. It will negatively impact traffic and safety as well as stormwater drainage (which is already a major problem for some). It will change our landscape through the loss of mature trees and open space. Our established homes on Johnson and Barker will have new noise, headlights, etc. in unexpected places.
These are just a few of the highlights of our concerns. Perhaps the worst is that this platting does not give any reassurance that this is as far as this division of land will go. We are being asked to accept it because things could be worse if we don't. Yet, there is no guarantee that things will not be worse (more dense development) if this plat passes. And since this is being done in stages, we are not even allowed to have a protest petition or speak at the PC meeting.
As to the current usage of the property, Mr. Standing's complaint of taxes seems unreasonable. His entire property, land and outbuildings, is valued by the county at about twice what my little place is (700 some sq. ft. house and about 6,500 sq. ft. plot, I think) is. Although we appreciate the open space and trees, we also look at what appears to be his commercial contracting company run from this residentially zoned location. What is termed a barn in the plan is, in fact, a building erected in 1992 that appears to have a large garage underneath and some sort of finished space (?living, office, work?), above. His construction vehicles come and go and are routinely parked on the grass.
So, it appears that Mr. Standing's proposal is not entirely accurate and his concern about the cost to him of ownership of this property is without merit.
I will research this more for the future, but the issue of stormwater drainage is paramount. The city's work on the Burroughs Creek area was NOT designed to provide relief for stormwater west of the project. In fact, I believe that it was stated that this area west of the project might even have worse stormwater problems. Stormwater races east along Johnson, which has no stormwater drains, frequently reaching and topping the curb. When it reaches Learnard, it accumulates in open ditches on either side of the street and frequently stands there. People on the deadend of Johnson east of Learnard are particularly affected by this. When the city redid E. 19th St.'s water line last year, they could not locate the pipe that canted stormwater under 19th St. City code requires that a copy of this project's stormwater study be on file at the Planning Dept., but it was not there when I visited the office last week.
Mr. Standing's list of neighbors in support of this project is suspect as he has not done any kind of a canvass. Many of them are in the building trades or contractors, one who owns a large parcel across the street and may be contemplating doing the same. I will later respond to his statements about particular addresses being the same as his proposal. The notification list includes 37 names.
Our neighborhood streets are already overburdened and Learnard and Johnson and Forrest cannot safely accomodate additional cut-through traffic.
Although we hear over and over that infill traffic will help to prevent sprawl, I see no evidence of that and do not feel that older neighborhoods should have to continue to bear the burden of growth through the loss of the characteristics that defined them in the past. Homeowners in these neighborhoods have a reasonable expectation that the circumstances of their neighborhoods will not change after they have settled there.
The Peridian Group developed "The Woods" property in our neighborhood through rezoning and against neighborhood wishes. The resulting development does not conform in many significant ways to the Preliminary Development Plan or to what was promised in this first meeting. The homes are twice as close together as was required without receiving permission on the PDP, the neighborhood accessibility was eliminated except for a inaccessible entrance at LaSalle St. to the east, the plans were redrawn, making the lots much smaller than those shown originally, the "parkland" is only a drainage creek with most of the trees taken down and not a park at all, the handicap accessibility discussed at the PDP meeting never became a reality (in fact, at one point, against code, the one-story homes were changed to two-story), etc. In short, I do not trust the Peridian Group to follow through on any promises or suggestions given at this time.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope to give you more specific remarks and, hopefully, a partial petition by Monday's deadline.
Carol Folkmann
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:04 PM
To: Iharris@ku.edu; D-BURRESS@KU.EDU; Ermeling@myvine.com; sus@jerickson.com; TRiordanmd@hotmail.com; geichhorn@earthlink.net; jhaase@sunflower.com; thomasjennings@hotmail.com; holly@ kinetikos.net; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; wrimere@ku.edu
Cc: ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: New Comments Cypress Park Plat 06-15-05
To: Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission
From: Patricia Sinclair
Re: Additional Comments -- Cypress Park Addition Preliminary Plat, PP-06-15-05 Date: July 24, 2005
I hope that you can find the time to read these additional comments sent directly to you. If I send them via the Planning Dept., they will not arrive in time for you to read before your meeting.
I still hope to have some neighbor's names to submit to you in opposition to this plat, but have not been in town to collect them yet, even from people who have told me they are opposed.
I continue to be concerned about this platting just opening the door for a large housing development as well as setting a precedent for future development. The way this is being done does not give neighbors any way to protest by petition. I share the Planning Dept.'s concern that shared private drives are the equivalent of private streets with all of their problems.
Neighbors with existing stormwater/drainage problems
Andrea McMurray is the owner and occupant of 336 Johnson Ave., one lot west of the northeast corner of Johnson and Learnard. Her backyard would adjoin the proposed stormwater detention. She told me Friday p.m. that a significant portion of her backyard already floods with stormwater which does not run off promptly. She is opposed to this development and hopes to write to you, although she has to work all weekend.
I previously had a conversation with the resident of 406 Johnson Ave. (this is the deadend portion east of Learnard) who expressed real concern about further development as they already have flooding/stormwater problems. The owners of the house furthest east on this block were determined to be most likely to flood by the stormwater memo of Chad Voigt regarding The Woods development; however, they are outside the 200 foot buffer zone of notification.
Stormwater Report and Stormwater improvements
Although city code requires that a copy of the stormwater report be available for viewing in the Planning Dept., none was available. As previously noted, none of the city's recent stormwater projects were designed to be beneficial to the area in question per the city stormwater engineer.
Neighbors in support of this project
Please note that Mr. Standing did no systematic notification or discussion with abutting neighbors for this proposal. Those at 1845 and 1636 Learnard are not even within view of or within the 200 foot zone of this proposal. Russell Livingston owns a deep lot across the street from Mr. Standing's, larger, I believe, and may be planning his own housing development in the future.
Addresses Cited by Mr. Standing as being comparable to his proposed project
The addresses cited by Mr. Standing as existing in the neighborhood and having a comparable design are not comparable and perhaps not all even registered non-conforming. The Planning Dept. was unable to tell me the zoning status of these addresses, but here is what I know or observed.
1724 and 1724 Barker - As far as I know, this property is the only place within our RS2 neighborhood with "grandfathered apartments surrounded by RS2. This consists of a long narrow building behind a ranch house with a shared drive. I've heard that this was once a farm outbuilding that was converted. It certainly is not a visual asset, and does not adjoin the space that Mr. Standing is talking about.
The Learnard addresses are all south of 19th where development was a little different and later, for the most part. Again, many homes have deep lots. 2016 and 2016 '/z Learnard are actually on the corner of Learnard and Liberty St. and on Liberty St. Other properties that I could view appeared to have a garage or outbuilding that was converted to possible living/working space with a drive shared with a house.
Access to biking trail
Mr. Standing proposes residents who will use the proposed biking trail. Although the original design of The Woods showed neighborhood access from the west to the promised park and proposed hiking/biking trail along the Santa Fe ROW, the western and northern access were eliminated from this project. In fact, per county maps online, there is no longer even city-owned land at the end of Johnson Ave. across the creek (unless maps are wrong). The only known access to a trail would be from LaSalle St. west of Bullene, or from 19th at the RR tracks.
Proposed Neighbors
Mr. Standing proposes marketing to empty nesters who want to live small. Why then the large lots? This seems to indicate a plan to have many small dwellings rather than four larger homes on large plots. In fact, one cannot deny home sales to buyers based on age or children.
Future development of this and adjoining properties/character of the neighborhood/traffic
Horizon 2020 does not support the dense development of this or the adjoining properties. It would also not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Generally speaking, Barker and Learnard contain the larger homes with deep plots. Forrest and Johnson had more modest 1920's bungalows and old farmhouses and smaller parcels. It is this mix that gives the neighborhood its unique feeling and enough breathing space to offset the increasing realities of city living.
The orientation of the future houses on these proposed lots would disturb or be in conflict with existing established housing patterns, constituting a real problem for homeowners.
Only Forrest, Johnson and 19th go east/west between these streets (between 15th and 23rd). Forrest and Johnson cannot support additional vehicular traffic and existing pedestrian traffic will be endangered. The corner of Learnard and 19th is a dangerous intersection.
Trees
This project would appear to result in the loss of many mature trees and the benefits that they bring - oxygen, wildlife, beauty, shade, etc.
Taxes/Appraised Value
According to the Douglas County Appraiser's office, the most recent appraised value for Mr. Standing on his entire 2acres, house, new and old outbuildings, was only $154,300 total (of which the land is $46,970). By contrast, my small 6,500 sq. ft lot with a house of less than 800 sq. ft. on Johnson Ave. is appraised for a total of $76,270 (of which the land is $22,250). Any claim Mr. Standing may make about not being able to realize the value of his land or the burden of taxation is not supported by his appraisal.
Barn/Outbuilding
The outbuilding referred to as a barn by is neither a barn nor an old building. It was built in 1992, according to the appraiser's office. City building permit records are unavailable. It appears to have several bays for large vehicle parking at the bottom and what appears to be some sort of finished space with windows upstairs.
History of the Property
It may be of interest to the Commission that this property was in the hands of one family for many, many years. Originally they occupied an older dwelling. Mr. Marckley was a carpenter and, I am told, built the existing house in the 1920's very close to the site of the older home.
Paul Patterson
From: James Kreider [jkreider49@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:24 AM
To: jhaase@sunflower.com; TRiordanmd@hotmail.com; D-BURRESS@KUEDU;
ermeling@myvine.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com; sus@jericksoncorn; holly@kinetikos.net;
dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.net; thomasjennings@hotmail.com Cc: ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
I am writing in support of the preliminary plat for Cypress Park Addition (PP 06-15-05). I feel the plan is in keeping with the directive of Horizon 2020 policy 3.3(c): "Infill development should conform to lot size, housing type, scale and general architectural style of the area in which it is proposed".
Mr. Standing's intent to provide infill while keeping the rural character of our street is appreciated and supported by the neighbors on Learnard Avenue. As a long time resident of an East Lawrence neighborhood, I realize infill is necessary, and I am very happy to support a plan such as Mr. Standing is proposing. I would not support efforts to develop the plan with a higher density. Higher density would not be in keeping with the intent of Horizon 2020 and
would cause a negative impact on the Learnard Avenue neighborhood. I hope you will
consider and approve the Cypress Park Addition Preliminary Plat.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Denise Pettengill RN
1706 Learnard Ave
Lawrence, Ks 66044
841-8976
Mary Miller
From: Faye Watson [gfwatson@sunflower.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:29 AM
To: jhaase@sunflower.com
Cc: mmiller@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sestanding@sunflower.com
Subject: Item Noltem #6: Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, 1801 Learnard Avenue
I am an interested citizen of Lawrence requesting your approval in the passage of Item No. 6 for the following reasons:
These type homes in an established neighborhood are exactly what a number of senior citizens (including myself) are seeking. The projected area is well planned in providing a home-like atmosphere that many of us senior citizens are seeking. It will provide individual homes, surrounded by neighbors in a well established neighborhood with the ability to take walks and interact with people. This is absent in many present building sites, and is a vital link that should be established in more projects.
Mr. Standing is an exceptional builder/contractor and will do a wonderful job in building this area around his personal home. His work is always unique, detailed, and complete and this project will confirm his abilities to make a beautiful area more so.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
G. Faye Watson, 1516 Crescent Road, Phone 842-6925
June 26, 2005
Linda Finger, Director
Planning Department City of Lawrence, Kansas
Dear Ms. Finger:
I am the Owner of 1801 Learnard Ave.in Lawrence for the past 23 years. This is a 2.23 acre parcel zoned RS 2 which has an existing 1930's bungalow home (my residence) roughly in the center of the frontage along Learnard Avenue. The dimensions of the property are 343' in the north south direction and 283' in the east west direction. There is a large, deep, vacant area on each side of the existing home.
For various reasons I am now attempting to have the property platted. The property is a bit more than I can properly maintain, and the taxes have become higher each year. I have considered selling the property, but realized that a buyer would probably attempt a higher density proposal than I think is appropriate for this neighborhood of large spaces and rural feeling. So I have engaged Peridian Group to help me plat this parcel in a way that I can feel good about. Thus my proposed subdivision, named "Cypress Park", comes up initially on the July Planning Commission meeting.
I have studied the Horizon 2020 long range planning guidelines in my attempt to properly plat the property. After much consideration and discussion with Peridian Group, we feel the best use of this area, which is close-in to the center of the city, is with low density residential homes. Since the land is so deep, (the block between Learnard and Barker is about 600' deep) it seems wasteful to set homes along the street and let the rear 200' go unused. So we are applying for permission to do a flaglot solution which would place one building lot behind the other on each side of my existing home. The two on the north would share a driveway and utility easement and the two new lots and one existing home on the south would share one driveway which exists now but would be upgraded to present standards. So the net result would be one new driveway added but four new homes, each averaging about one half acre.
In talking to my neighbors about this, I have so far gotten unanimously favorable approval of the idea. (See accompanying letter) They like the low density solution and when I have asked people whether they would prefer the front home or the back one they say they prefer the back one about 4 to 1. Furthermore, the idea of houses front and back is not a new one in this neighborhood as there are 5 or 6 similar conditions within several blocks. (See item 5 in June 13 letter enclosed).
The homes that I am proposing to build here would be in the bungalow /craftsman style, which is predominant in the neighborhood now. There will be an emphasis on landscaping and plantings. The homes will be accessible, with one level and no stairs, wide doorways, wheelchair turning radius', grab bars, etc.
In proposing a subdivision of any kind or size, my observations have been that concerns are usually about traffic, density, flooding and storm water, and the character of the neighborhood. If this is approved, there would be potentially an increase in traffic from four homes that currently do not exist, however such a low number would not excessively contribute to a traffic problem on Learnard Avenue, in my opinion. Also, I intend to market this to people who are aiming to live in a smaller, smarter way, which means less house but more efficiency. Such people are likely to desire Cypress Park for it's proximity to a bus route, and the future bike trail that we hope to have just to the east. Hopefully, it will allow this neighborhood to be less dependent on cars for transportation.
Density has already been discussed, with these lots averaging about a half acre each, which is between the designations in Horizon 2020 of "Low Density" and "Very Low Density".
Peridian Group has done a storm water study of the property and it is included with the proposal. Furthermore, there has recently been extensive improvements to Burrough's Creek drainage downstream and some improvements nearby relating to the ViloWoods addition which drains into the same tributary.
As for keeping within the same character of the neighborhood, I plan to do this with the style of the home and the large spaces surrounding them. However the flaglot concept is key to being able to accomplish this spacing, as the same number of narrow strips lined along the street (which may be allowable without special permission) will result in a crowded feeling up front and a waste of space in back.
My hope is that this letter and the supporting materials will be considered by the Planning Department staff and included in the packets that are sent to the Planning Commissioners for the July meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steven E. Standing
1801 Learnard Ave.
979 3939