Lawrence Douglas County Planning Office

Memo

To:        Planning Commission

From:    Planning Staff

CC:       Allen Belot

Date:     November 10, 2004

Re:        Agenda Items 11 A & B; Public Comments from Patricia Sinclair

This is a response to comments provided by Ms. Sinclair regarding the above referenced items.

1. Previous history of property violations:

The history of violation of the property is not typically a pertinent review element for redevelopment purposes. Therefore they are not covered in these staff reports. The property owner did in fact begin grading and cleared the site prior to approval of a temporary use permit for such activity. The activity was stopped the property owner executed the necessary land use requests along with a grading plan reviewed and approved by the City Stormwater Engineer.

The new plan revises the grading plan and requires additional review and approval by the City Stormwater Engineer as a normal part of any review.

2. Unsafe substances:

Planning Staff has no knowledge of any unsafe substances being dumped on the property. Neighborhood Resources is checking their records to verify if there has ever been such a complaint addressed by the City.

3. Density of Development and the Burroughs Creek Improvements:

The proposed development density is discussed in both the rezoning and development plan staff reports. The proposed net density is 5.59. Low-density is defined in Horizon 2020 less than 6 dwelling units per acre.

The subject property is “upstream” and there is no channel widening or improvements for that area between 15^th and 19^th Street. The proposed downstream improvements are designed to eliminate existing problems. On site detention is not recommended for this site according to the City’s Stormwater Engineer.

4.    Relationship of subject property to Parnell Park:

The subject property abuts the abandoned railroad right-of-way which abuts the park. The residential activity will be separated from the park by the future rails to trail improvement and by individual rear yards. Similar park /lot orientations are found throughout the community with varying degrees of separation. The site was actually designed to provide links between the development and the abutting park areas. The reference to density is as a low-density development.

5.      Traffic Problems:

Development of the property includes the requirement to provide a traffic study. This study was provided and found that additional improvements to the abutting street are not warranted. Re-development of the property will include the dedication of additional right-of-way for future street improvements including sufficient right-of-way for a future roundabout at the intersection of 15^th and Haskell.

6.   Neighborhood Participation:

The review process does not require applicants follow any adopted neighborhood involvement process. The subject property is located in the Brook Creek Neighborhood. The applicant has provides sufficient documentation to demonstrate contact with at a minimum of one neighborhood representative. A copy of a communication on behalf of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, and the Barker Neighborhood Association is included in the staff reports. Furthermore, staff contacted each Neighborhood Association to assure information about the project was provided by the applicant and to solicit any comments that they might wish to be forwarded with the staff reports. Planning Staff is not directly involved in the function or format of individual neighborhood meetings.

Plan availability: The office policy is to make all applications available to the public upon request. Copies of plans are subject to a copy of fee of $5.00 per sheet.

7. Planning Process Concerns:

In preparing for the September meeting, the applicant discussed several options in reponse to neighborhood association meeting comments. Staff recommended that to address these revisions additional time would be needed and staff recommended to the applicant that the consideration be deferred to the October meeting as we continued to discuss various alternatives and give them due consideration. This decision was made prior to the planning commission staff reports being completed.

Provision of staff reports: No staff report was available and therefore none was forwarded to Ms. Sinclair from the September meeting. Copies of the staff report were forwarded to Ms. Sinclair upon request when received this morning.

Ability to provide written communications: Ms. Sinclair has been advised through the process and through several email communication how and when she may participate.

Sign Posting: Ms. Sinclair provides an excellent suggestion about providing notice of items deferred. This suggestion was forwarded to the applicant. There is no established policy or requirement regarding posting of signs for deferral. Sign posting is the responsibility of the applicant unless the item is initiated by the Planning Commission or City Commission (for properties in the city limits only).

Web site notice: Feedback is always welcome regarding how to improve our communication with the public and Ms. Sinclair’s suggestions will be taken into consideration for future changes and updates.

Public Participation: Ms. Sinclair’s comments reflect the need for staff and the department to continue public education regarding participation. Again, these issues are on-going concerns for the office and are genuine concerns of the Department and are specific goals of the Departments Mission statement (see attached document).