-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 11:21 AM
To: sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Cc: lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Parnell PRD comments for Planning Commission
Please
see that these comments are given to members of the Planning Commission
today. Please note that I was unable to fully comment given the fact that
I was not emailed the staff reports until almost 9 a.m. today. Since they
were not going to be available until sometime after Oct. 20 or 21, I could
hardly have gotten them earlier myself and I had previously requested that they
be emailed to me.
Please do NOT state that the developers met with the Barker neighborhood as
this is not true and I informed Allen Belot of this last month. A few
people attended a few meetings and the neighborhood as a whole was kept in the
dark. Those attending do not speak for Barker. They can only speak
for themselves.
Here is the text of my remarks. I'll attach them as a zip file as well.
To: Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioners
From: Patricia Sinclair
Re: Rezoning and Site Plan Proposed for "Parnell" Development,
15th and Haskell
Date: October 25, 2004
I am writing to you in opposition to the rezoning of this parcel of land and to
the very dense proposed building on it. I am a resident of the Barker
neighborhood which begins on the property's western boundary. My comments
address the history of the property, some concerns such as flooding, density,
and traffic, the lack of neighborhood participation by the Barker neighborhood,
and problems with the Planning Dept. and the process regarding this project.
Objections
To approve such a plan would reward the owner (or former owner) for years and
years of neglect and misuse of the property. It served as a dump,
literally, with a falling-down house, a lack of compliance with the weed
ordinance, etc., and has been the reported site of criminal activity, I
believe. Then most of the mature trees were bulldozed, I believe without appropriate
approval or in a manner not appropriate. It has been rumored that the
site might also contain unsafe substances dumped there over the years.
Furthermore, the city is spending millions of dollars in stormwater
improvements along "Burroughs Creek.," on the western edge of the
property. The dense development and paving of this property will cause
more stormwater problems in an area that already suffers from them. The area
between 15th and 19th Streets is not having the stormwater channel widened or improved,
only cleaned out in some areas. The subject property is at a higher
elevation than the creek..
Barker's only mini park, Parnell, would be adversely affected by this
development. It will put a dense and therefore noisey development next to
the park, thereby detracting from its parklike nature. Parnell also
serves as a stormwater overflow area. Its western boundary had to have a berm
added as the neighbors across the street to the west were being flooded.
I suggest that flooding will be worse if this development is approved.
Both Haskell and 15th Streets have serious traffic problems which are only
going to get worse with the new development in the southeast part of town and
with the possibility of the South Lawrence Trafficway with a Haskell exit.
Neither street can safely absorb an exit or exits for such a large development.
Neighborhood Participation
There has been no serious neighborhood participation by the Barker Neighborhood
in this planning process. A few self-appointed neighborhood people went
to a few meetings with the developer or at other neighborhood group's
meetings. The neighborhood as a whole was not invited and plans were not
shared with them.
I notified the developer via email that this should not be construed as
neighborhood participation or approval of any plan, but got no reply.
This token consultation of a few hand-selected people by a developer should not
pass as meeting with the neighborhood.
No plans have been available to the neighborhood at large. To view a
plan, I must go to city hall during a weekday and pay $5 to have one of my
own. I tried to find out about the plan in September, but it was told it
was going to be redone.
We had a neighborhood meeting Sept. 30 and were supposed to discuss this, but
were told that a copy of the new plan had just been received, so it was not
presented.
There was a meeting of the Brookcreek neighborhood group recently, but only a
few people in Barker were notified of this meeting via email, and then only a
few hours before the meeting took place.
Planning Process Concerns
This item was deferred from September, although it seems to me it should have
been moved to November as a new plan was not submitted in a timely
fashion. Additionally, it was not clear if public comments would be accepted
at the September meeting, except at the end of the meeting.
In September, I requested copies of the staff reports for this project from
Sandra Day, as it was on the agenda for the Sept. Planning Commission
meeting. I was told that this item was going to be deferred to the
October meeting as Ms. Day had told the developer that he risked a denial by
going forward with the existing plan.
(Although I had requested that I be emailed the staff reports, I did not
receive them until this morning in response to my email, so therefore my
comments must be last-minute and general in nature, as the deadline is this
noon.)
In Sept., once I looked up Planning's deadlines for submission for deferral, I
realized that the deadline for the October Planning meeting had been
missed. I contacted Ms. Day, asking why it would be allowed to be
deferred to October, not November, with a new plan not yet submitted. She
then told me that I could have submitted written comments on this matter, but
now had missed the deadline. She also told me that if I attended the
Sept. meeting this item would be deferred. Later she told me I could have
spoken, but I don't know when or if public comments would have been taken on
this item before it was deferred.
In the meantime, the item continued to show up on the September agenda and the
required signs posted at the property continued to show a September meeting
date. Even after I had commented on this to Ms. Day, the signs and the
agenda remained unchanged. This is unfair to people planning to attend
the meeting.
The Planning Dept.'s website has a new section about the Planning Commission's
policies. It does not seem to be inclusive. I found it very
confusing to see when public comment would be taken if not in written form.
It seems that these policies and the practices of the Planning Dept. limit the
ability of citizens to participate in the planning process.