CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Sharon Ferguson | 12/23/2011 11:36:59 AM |
| Mr. Helms, Thank you for your comments. I was not able to respond to your concerns directly because you left no contact information. Many share your frustration with the flyer and the fact that there is not enough information on it to describe the project. The reason for this is that the flyer is produced from an old computer program that does not have any flexibility to add any information beyond what is shown. A lack of financial resources has meant the delay of the purchase of a more up to date program. However, this is something our IT Department hopes to rectify in the near future. In the meantime, we can only offer residents the opportunity to see the plans at our office. Staff reports are typically available on-line a week prior to the hearing. The staff report for this project will be available on-line by the end of the day. It will contain material describing the project and includes the plans. The problem with the map (zoom to parcel) is known to the IT Department and they are working to fix it. Please contact me with any other questions or comments. Sharon Ferguson Senior Planner Planning Division 343-7938 | |
| R Helms | 12/23/2011 9:26:17 AM |
| Perhaps we should start with some procedural comments and questions. What does the plan call for - what would be done at the park? No information in the flyer at all - no notice at all of what actually is to be done under the plan. Called the planning office. Was told if people want to know what would be done they have to call the office and can come in to the office and look at the plans. So, each citizen has to call and rely on the planner to give them the full story on their plan. I know the planning office has lots of staff (no seriously it really it does) but is this really an efficient use of their time? Does a citizen working during the day really have to rush to midtown on their lunch hour and glean information from the lunch time counter staff? A few lines on the flyer that was mailed December 21, 2011 would have been good notice. According to the planning office their plan calls for removing the bathroom building, removing the tennis courts, building a play area for children and paving the parking lot and providing for some curbs. No other information such as size or other details as to location within the park was provided. No speed calming was mentioned. For those who note the speeding vehicles in the park and out on to Pine that prompted makeshift speed signs and then more permanent ones will attest to the need to address that issue. The drinking in the parking lot after many softball games of course continues unabated maybe that has something to do with it. Noise buffers? Security? If you want to provide comments for circulation for commission members prior to the meeting one only have about nine days to respond (through the holidays) as comments have to be in ten days prior to the meeting on January 11, 2012. Of course one has to go to the offices during business offices and look at the plans because there is nothing of substance on line. Why can't this be placed on line? There is no "staff report" anywhere to be found, clicking on the plan map shows an error and no information at all. So again there is not much information. I am told this was addressed at community council meetings over a period of time, but as a citizen I expect notice from the planning department that is adequate to determine what the plan calls for after citizen recommendations have been taken into account leading to plan/landscape review etc.. Is it really that hard to have a working and correct map and a small drawing or two and a single paragraph online for those many residents that did not make it to a community council meeting? The process I am told included what recommendations citizens had, but was fairly lean on notice of what was decided. It is the latter that people do not know at this juncture. A bit hard to comment on matters you have not been informed of. The commission should postpone this matter until the department posts adequate information about this project for review by interested citizens. An argument that by doing so favors form over substance, but in this case there has been no substance provided. | |
| Susan Klein | 12/15/2011 9:38:40 AM |
| I'm subscribed to the UACC council and this should also be posted there. This is a regional park so all community councils surrounding it should know about it. We have had no knowledge of this site plan review. What is it for? Also, when you zoom to the parcel it goes to Northwood Park, not Russian Jack Springs Park. Is this deliberate misdirection? | |
| Marc Grober | 10/28/2011 7:31:48 AM |
| There has been nothing offered to anyone, nor anything posted, on which to comment. Moreover, the submission indicates this is before the UDC while the website indicates it is before the P&ZC.... We understand that the MOA has trouble being upfront with the public, but that doesn't mean the public would not appreciate a bit more effort. The public would also like to know whether the UDC will continue to ignore the amendments to Title 21 impacting this review which did go into effect, which the UDC has heretofore ignored. Lastly, though MOA ordinance requires the agency to seek comment from specific community councils, and the agency is aware that in order to accomplish same they must present any issues to community councils sufficiently in advance so as to properly place matters on their agendas, no agency has as yet provided any material to be presented to the UDC to the councils. | |