Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Scott McCullough, Director
CC:	Cynthia Wagner, Assistant City Manager, Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager, Charles Soules, PW Director
Date:	January 26, 2010 City Commission Agenda
RE:	Briarwood Addition – Vacation of Easements

While the procedural vehicle to revise the subject access easement is through the Public Works Department, this essentially is an issue related to the development plan for the Briarwood Planned Residential Development project. The request seeks to vacate an easement that allows utility, pedestrian, and vehicular access and replace it with an easement that allows only pedestrian, utility, emergency vehicle access, and vehicular access for owners located adjacent to the easement, restricting full public vehicular access through the easement.

History:

April 9, 1996: Briarwood preliminary development plan was approved depicting a main entrance located at Folks Road and Briarwood Drive and a secondary access, ultimately provided via easement, located to the north where Catalina Drive would extend to Folks Road. This easement is the subject of the request. The easement was written in a way to permit vehicles, as well as pedestrians, to use the way unrestricted. The record indicates that this north drive was a secondary access point for the subdivision, but staff understands that its use has been represented, and actually used, as a private drive intermittently throughout its history.

May 10, 2007: Lot 7 of Briarwood Addition was replatted to permit the renovation of the existing maintenance facility located to the north of the easement drive. A residence was always contemplated to the south of this drive, but prior to the replat the property to the north was represented to be a maintenance structure for the project. The easement location was adjusted at this time to account for the actual constructed location of the drive. It was apparently constructed outside of the legal boundaries and so the easement legal description was adjusted.

July 23, 2007: A permit was granted for a residence to be constructed on Lot 7B, on the south side of the drive. Three residences exist adjacent to the subject drive.

September 2009: Two of the three owners approached staff with an inquiry as to whether the existing easement could be revised to alleviate impacts that have been created with the construction of the new home on Lot 7B. They cited head lights, reckless driving behavior, unreasonable proximity of the residences to the drive, and privacy and safety issues as impacts of the easement location.

October 28-29, 2009: City staff performed a traffic count and analysis of the two access points into Briarwood in order to determine the effects of modifying the north access point to prohibit vehicles from using it. The conclusions are as follows:

AM and PM manual peak-hour traffic counts were obtained on 28-29 October 2009 at the intersection of Briarwood Drive & Folks Road and at the intersection of Folks Road & the Access Easement connecting the intersection of Catalina Drive & Pasadena Drive with Folks Road.

A Synchro analysis of the existing traffic at the intersection of Briarwood Drive & Folks Road found a Level of Service A, both AM and PM, and an Intersection Capacity Utilization of 30.1% in the AM and 37.4% in the PM. A similar analysis with the traffic using the access easement added to the intersection of Briarwood Drive & Folks Road resulted in a Level of Service A, both AM and PM, and an Intersection Capacity Utilization of 33.2% in the AM and 37.7% in the PM.

Therefore, it appears that closing the access easement to through traffic would not have a significant affect on the intersection of Briarwood Drive & Folks Road.

November 23, 2009: Staff met with the owners’ attorney to discuss options, which included submitting a request to revise the access easement. The submitted easement prohibits public vehicular access on the easement, except for emergency vehicles and vehicular access for the three properties that touch the drive. Pedestrian and utility use has been maintained.

Staff understands that there have been periods where the access point has been blocked or the residents of the subdivision have believed that the easement was for private use, which leads staff to believe that closing the north access point would not substantially harm the convenience of the residents of this subdivision; however, it is also fair to state that staff has not heard from other owners in the subdivision at the time of this writing.

In any event, all parties acknowledge that the easement must remain open to emergency vehicles and understand that the proposed language secures this aspect of the easement. This could take the form of leaving the drive open and posting a sign notifying residents that vehicular traffic is prohibited, or prohibiting traffic could be restricted through more physical means, such as an emergency access gate. Any such barriers would need the approval of the Fire/Medical Department and would be at the owners’ cost.

Based on the traffic count, the history of the drive acting as a private drive, and the physical impacts the drive has on the adjacent residences, staff is of the opinion that the access should be restricted as proposed in the modified easement attached.

Action Request:

Hold hearing and vacate the existing easement and accept the dedication of a revised easement as proposed, if appropriate.