September 04, 2005
Quaker St., Redefined, Resurfaced and Renegade
Boom! Big news for a handfull of downtown property owners who each get to ante up about $5,000 for the "special assessment" needed for the "Quaker St. Redevelopment". DDA funds will be used for some of the work, another $86,487.00 collected from these 23 poor souls who just happen to have invested in the downtown.
City Council has it on their Tuesday agenda to approve the work, the assessments and the bid award. It's a public hearing on the topic, yes, yet the public has never before seen any of the plan. It's quite impossible to decipher on the city's website too.
This came today from Don Bemis, Chairman of The Planning Commission, sent to City Council and Planning Commission concerning an item on Tuesday's Council agenda, "Quaker Street Redevelopment".
"The Planning Commission has never been shown the Quaker Street redevelopment plan. The first definite information I saw was in the City Council agenda package for the September 6 meeting, which shows the Quaker Street parking lot reconfigured and the Quaker - Williams Street intersection eliminated. Maybe this is a good idea. Quaker Street will change from a through street into a parking lot entrance, and buildings on Quaker Street will face a parking lot instead of a thoroughfare. If there is any question about this interpretation, note that the new western end of Quaker Street will not be wide enough to be a legal street. The three westernmost parking spaces and aisle do not meet Zoning Ordinance dimensional requirements. Neither do the four parallel spaces on Quaker Street, and possibly not the two parking lot driveways onto Williams Street. Any change in parking capacity is not shown. Street width and parking space dimensions were major factors in three recent PUD site plan reviews, including one recommendation for denial. If the City violates its own laws, it risks lawsuits from others who are forced to abide by them.
A Special Use Permit, public hearing and site plan review are required to construct a municipal off-street parking lot in the CBD (Zoning Ordinance 601.6.b). At the very least, the west end of Quaker Street will be replaced by a new off-street parking lot. (Ref. 1801.3: "...Backing directly onto a street shall be prohibited.")
The City and DDA again are making major plans for the heart of the city without review or input from the people that were appointed to review plans, or the public that owns the property. Additional examples have included the Dyckman Park/Huron Lot redesign, the Baseline Road bicycle route that doesn't connect to any other bike route, and authorization of a pavilion for the Huron parking lot without a legally required special use permit. I am disgusted that some people involved in these efforts seem to think that other interested parties should be left out.
Why should the Planning Commission be involved? Partly to help identify and repair potential issues before they become embarrassments. The Huron Lot project violated the Master Plan goal of a thirty-foot wide greenbelt along Huron Street. When I drove in the Huron parking lot on Saturday, I was again reminded how badly it is laid out. What is wrong with letting people with reviewing experience review City plans? Why is it important that we review private applicants' plans but not the City's plans? Why does the City complain about the school district not having to conform to zoning laws and then disregard the planning process itself?
Some members of the City Council have said privately that the City should follow the same plan review process as the private sector. Now is the time to start. I believe the City Council should vote to submit a Special Use application for reconfiguration of Quaker Street and the parking lot. If the plan satisfies legal requirements, the Planning Commission must approve it. If it doesn't, maybe the City should think twice. After review and approval, THEN the City Council would vote to authorize the surface reconfiguration. Utility assessment and replacement could proceed in advance if necessary, but surface reconstruction would have to wait for special use approval. This presents a risk that assessed property owners may face a construction zone longer than desired. The City might instead find it advisable to obtain approval for the street and parking plan before assessing property owners and digging up the area.
If the process is onerous to the City, it likely is onerous to the private sector as well. This will help the City Council determine whether the planning process should be streamlined."
Donald A. Bemis
Posted by Elaine at September 4, 2005 07:10 AM
Comments
Letter to Don Bemis in appreciation of his diligence:
Don,
Thanks for continuing to hold City accountable to it's own standards and for speaking for the City residents who are the employers of City staff and the electorate of City Council.
It is sad and distressing to see the chasm widening between residents and City government. Any ideas on how to create the space where we could really listen to each other?
I keep hearing from City Council "We ARE listening, we just don't agree with you!"
Well, there is listening and there is listening. One manner of listening is to have the posture of hearing while figuratively tapping your fingers on the table, "Yeah, yeah, yeah... OK, we listened. Now where were we?". Then there is listening when all parties consider that they might not have the TRUTH undergirded by infinite wisdom. In this type of listening the possibility of change is not viewed as flip-flopping but is rather understanding that getting more information or greater understanding may lead to a change in plans. This is exactly why I don't think Council and Staff are listening. They virtually never veer from the plan or goal as originally expressed. Real listening leads occasionally to a change in plans or methods.
The sole reason that I hear for the City continuing to work so diligently with developers to bring them into compliance with City regs is increasing the tax base. I understand that is one important reality of City government, but it is not the only one. If there is a City employee working with developers to bring them into compliance, I think there should be another employee that looks at the effect of that development on the community at large. There is no one currently doing that as far as I can tell. Something like a Citizen's ombudsman is needed.
At any rate, thanks again. I hope you can find some allies on other commissions or boards that share your concerns.
Julie Ludwig
Posted by: Julie Ludwig at September 4, 2005 11:16 AM
Elaine,
Now I understand why the City Council was so oppossed to have Don Bemis'letter read to the public. I will make sure every body I know in town has a chance to read the letter and make up their minds about the City Council despotic way of governing the town. Thanks for bringing this matter to the public.
Posted by: Leonor Murphy at September 8, 2005 09:14 PM