League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County
P.O. Box 1072,
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
December 11, 2005
Dr. Terry Riordan, Chairman
Members
Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission City Hall
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM..NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CYPRESS PARK ADDITION.
Dear Chairman Riordan and Planning Commissioners:
We sent a letter on this Preliminary Plat to you in July of this year, supporting the staff recommendation for denial. The staff recommended denial, in part, because these were flag lots and would not facilitate future subdivision and continuation of the street pattern in way that would allow for connectivity. Our concerns were the precedent that this established for flag lots without proper supporting regulations. Equally important, however, was our concern that this plat corrupted the understanding of what constitutes "shared driveways," and that the configuration of the driveway to Lot 4 functioned as a private street.
Because the City Commission has "approved" this preliminary plat in a de novo hearing, we would like to emphasize the seriousness of the issue of what constitutes a shared driveway and the need for a formal definition. The generally understood definition of a shared driveway is a driveway that has a portion on one property and a portion on another, both portions of which connect directly to a public street. Lot 5 is functionally (although not technically) land-locked because of the detention storage facility. In order to obtain access to a public street, it must extend a driveway through the private property of Lot 4 to the paving shown as a "shared driveway." Moreover, because the driveway paving provides access not only to Lot 5, but also to the barn in the rear of Lot 3, the owner of Lot 4 will bear sole responsibility for maintaining his neighbors' access to the public street.
We urge the Planning Commission to require a maintenance agreement between the owner of Lot 4 and the owners of the other two lots that will ensure the proper maintenance of this driveway and, in order to make the responsibilities known to the property-buyers, that the recorded agreement be referenced on the final plat by book and page. We also urge the Planning Commission to include in the new zoning code a definition of "shared driveway" that clearly distinguishes the concept from that of a private street.
Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely yours,
Carrie Lindsey President
Caleb Morse Land Use Committee
Carol Folkmann
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:22 PM
To: cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Comments for PF-11-43-05 Final Plat for Cypress Park Addition;
To: Lawrence Douglas County Planning Commissioners
From: Patricia Sinclair
Re: Comments for PF-11-43-05 Final Plat for Cypress Park Addition; 1801 Learnard Avenue, Item No. 3, Consent Agenda, 1/23/06
Date: January 20, 2006
Cc: Planning Dept. for inclusion in public materials
It is my hope that you will consider the following material in making your decision on the Final Plat of the Cypress Park Addition.
I am submitting comments to you via email after consulting with both Planning Dept. staff and via email with Comm. Haase about the method for getting you comments without waiting until Monday for an item on your Monday, January 23 agenda. Comm. Haase was still shown as Chair on planning's website, so he forwarded my procedural questions to Chairman Riordan and Sheila Stogsdill. I have been told by staff that I could email you directly and am sending a copy of my comments to planning for inclusion in the public comments. Neither the December Planning Commission agenda nor draft minutes were on the website. The materials for this item were already sent to you on Wednesday of this week and I was told it was not clear when any written comments I submitted afterward would be forwarded to you.
I am a twelve-year homeowner at 331 Johnson Ave. within the notification zone for the Cypress Park Addition. I submitted comments opposing the current plan and plat prior to the July 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. I continue to oppose both the plat and the procedure that has ensued since that meeting.
I believe that it is within your power to deny this Final Plat if you believe that it was not properly approved, does not comply with our zoning and planning requirements and plan, is not a complete or final submission, or was brought to this point through erroneous procedures in violation of the city code and/or the Kansas Statutes.
1. This plat was reconsidered by the Lawrence City Commision on November 8, 2005 under a portion of the city code titled 21-801 Appeals.
It is my belief that this de novo hearing may not be supported by the Kansas Statutes. It comes from Ordinance 5257 dated 1981 and the Kansas Statutes on planning and zoning have been revised considerably since that time. I have been told that this piece of city code is scheduled to be removed in the revised city code.
21-801. APPEALS.
The subdivider of a proposed subdivision may appeal to the governing body decisions made in the enforcement or interpretation of these regulations by the planning department, planning commission or the appropriate engineer. Any such appeal shall provide a hearing de novo. In the event the governing
body sustains such decisions, the prior enforcement or interpretation shall be final, except as otherwise provided by law. If the governing body overrules the planning commission, the governing body shall state its decision, and the reasons therefor, in writing, and submit the decision and plat to the planning commission, seeking concurrence. In case of nonconcurrence, the decision of the appropriate governing body shall be final. (Ord. 5257)
KSA 12-752 outlines the process for plat approval and states in (e) No building or zoning permit shall be issued for the use or construction of any structure upon any lot, tract or parcel of land located within the area governed by the subdivision regulations that has been subdivided, resubdivided, or replatted after the date of the adoption of such regulations by the governing body or governing bodies but which has not been approved in the manner provided by this act.
2. Even if 21-801 were a legal part of the city code, it is extremely vague and sets no timeframe for an appeal. It is my opinion that this code was intended for very specific appeals of a legal nature, challenging, for example, an interpretation such as how days were counted or places measured. It should require that the applicant submit a precise reason for the appeal which would relate to the alleged improper interpretation or enforcement of the existing city code by the Planning Commission, an engineer, or an employee such as a planning department employee. It does not appear to allow for a de novo hearing merely requesting a new hearing because it didn't like the Planning Commission's decision. As in any legal procedure, the applicant should have stated where exactly he alleges that there was an error in the interpretation or enforcement of the city code.
21-801 does not state that it is a process whereby the City Commission can overturn the decision of the Planning Commission in allowing or disallowing a proposed subdivision. When it comes to rezoning, the process whereby the City Commission can overrule the Planning Commission is clearly spelled out in the zoning section of the city code.
3. Most appeals are outlined precisely in the city code and often involve a short timeframe for appeal. An appeal to the district court seems to be the common process unless a matter goes to the BZA.
With regard to planning and zoning, KSAl2-760 states "Same; appeals to district court. (a) Within 30 days of the final decision of the city or county, any person aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the district court of the county to determine the reasonableness of such final decision. (b) The provisions of this section shall become effective on and after January 1, 1992." If this, in fact, applies to this situation, then the applicant should have appealed to the district court rather than to the City Commission.
4. In accepting and in hearing a de novo appeal, the City Commission should have required that the precise error or area of the decision under appeal be stated. Their debate should have centered on that area and their conclusions and decision should have been rendered to address the perceived grievance and error in the correct application of the city code and process. The City Commission was also required to state the reasons for their decision and submit them to you, the Planning Commission. I do not see any evidence of that in reading the minutes, only the minutes of the City Commission exist as a statement of their reasons for reversal, and they do not seem to address an error as perceived by the majority.
5. Although I am a homeowner in the notification zone, I received only a notification letter for the July 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to consider the Preliminary Plat and one for the upcoming January 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to consider the Final Plat. Thus, I was not notified and had no prior knowledge of the de novo hearing scheduled for November 8, 2005 at the City Commission. I also was not notified of and had no prior knowledge of the December 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting which considered the plat as approved by the City Commission. This lack of notification appears to be contrary to the procedures outlined in the city code for planning and zoning. How is it possible that I am required to receive notice when a subdivision request appears before the Planning Commission but not when that same item appears before the City Commission (and the Planning Commission afterward)?
6. The City Commission has approved and forwarded to you a plat with no additional conditions addressing the concerns that were expressed by the Planning Commission last July (6 to 1 to deny) or the members of the public. In fact, this plat disregards many areas required by our planning code. Does the de novo hearing allow the City Commission to decide matters ordinarily considered by the Planning Commission without regard for our code and plan?
7. One key area of concern is drainage. It is clear from the Stormwater Engineer's comments that this plan is not okay as presented. A final plat should address all of the concerns raised by department heads and should follow the city code. If there are plans to change the drainage plan, then the Final Plat should not be submitted for approval until those plans are completed.
In part, his remarks which you have state in part: "1. Please resubmit the drainage study matching the current proposed development layout. Verify that the proposed detention concept works with the road crossing elevation downstream. Verify that the controlled area actually will reach the basin. 2. The downstream neighborhood does not have adequate drainage paths. It is critical that this development provide control of runoff. The proposed detention concept should be modified to also direct the Learnard Avenue northwest roadside ditch through the detention basin. 3. The final plat dated 11-17-05 cannot be reviewed based on the status of drainage study." There is more, including a concern that utility lines and services will not cross the proposed drainage easements.
As of yesterday, these concerns had not been addressed with planning.
Drainage is very fragile in our neighborhood. The open ditches on Learnard are not maintained and do not tie in to a total drainage system. Rain water rushes down Johnson to Learnard, at least at curb height, with nowhere to go but these ditches or property. Often water stands along the roadside where no ditches exist. The floodplain is very close and the land flat.
8. There is a nonconforming building on the property, euphemistically called a barn. This oversized structure appears to have finished space above and large truck bays below and seems to have served the property owner's construction business which has operated, contrary to code, in this residentially zoned neighborhood. This is not an old quaint structure. Last summer Neighborhood Resources was unable to furnish me with details about this building and any building permit that might have been furnished for its construction. I have not been able to find anybody who has inspected this building or has specifics about it, yet it appears it will be allowed as a nonconforming use.
9. I concur with those who have raised concerns about flaglots. It seems that the requirement for a boundary on a public street is being met by what is essentially a driveway with ROW on each side. These drives are shown as the property of one lot and yet must be shared in order for all properties to access Learnard. This seems to be the equivalent of a private road and not allowed.
This entire project appears to ask for exception after exception to the required planning procedures, rules, and the city plan itself. This does not seem like good, or modern, planning.
10. The developer's claim to have contacted and met with the neighbors is false. He has never contacted me about this project and only neighbors or Lawrence residents in favor of this plan spoke at the City Commission hearing. Of those, a number were not in the notification zone and cannot see the project. Another lives in another neighborhood where she reportedly opposed an expansion of the Lawrence Catholic Center according to the Lawrence Journal World "It is an imposition into our single family-zoned neighborhood," said Faye Watson, who lives a block down the street. "This is not a matter of religion. It's a matter of zoning, neighborhood integrity."
I am particularly concerned with the lack of the developer's contact with Andrea McMurray whose property backs up to the retention pond and already floods from runoff. She sent her opposition to you in July and I assume she continues to oppose this project as Steve Standing did not show her in favor of it.
11. As a homeowner who was drawn to the Barker neighborhood for its country like feel and mix of modest and large lots, I am saddened by the prospect of increased infill development which changes the very character of our neighborhood. Perhaps this plan will be the best that we can get and others might be worse. That seems to be the threat that is often used to get neighbors to agree to a plan.
That was used in our neighborhood by this same developer, the Peridian Group, to try to get agreement to rezoning and the development of "The Woods" on 19th Street. That project was built, much more densely than agreed at the time of the Preliminary Plat, with promised pedestrian access routes blocked, with most woods leveled, and with no public park as promised. These same developers talked of building homes there that would be suitable for disabled owners, but that never took place. Again, we hear talk of being "handicapped accessible" which merely means that a person in a wheelchair can gain access, not that it would be designed for wheelchair or other disabled living.
There just seem to be too many oddities, non-conformities, and a lack of addressing the drainage problems or really meeting with the neighbors. I also find no reassurance that five lots will not become 10 or more on an ad hoc basis.
It is my hope that now and in the future, the Planning Commission will consider trying to preserve our very unique Barker neighborhood. It is fragile and is being chipped away with increased commuter traffic, changing residential streets from collector to arterial, new zoning pending, closure of schools, depletion of natural resources, and the lack of public recreational or natural areas. Infill development may seem attractive, but it can be the death of an inner city neighborhood as we know it.
Thank you.