Planning Commission forwards contentious New Boston Crossing plan amendment after hours of testimony; critics warn of wetlands, floodplain and cultural impacts

The Lawrence Planning Commission on Oct. 22 voted to forward Comprehensive Plan amendment AMDT‑25‑00006 — a request to change land‑use categories in the Revised Southern Development Plan for the New Boston Crossing area (corner of K‑10 and US‑59) — to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. The decision followed more than two hours of public comment and sustained opposition from residents, conservation groups, Haskell and Baker affiliates, and other stakeholders.

Staff summary: Planner Sandy Day told commissioners the sector plan for the southern development area has not had a comprehensive update since roughly 2007 and that the applicant’s request would change the plan’s future land‑use map to increase the amount of commercial land and introduce an explicit high‑density residential designation in the plan area. Day said the applicant’s property is annexed and currently zoned; staff concluded the policy review questions in the comprehensive plan amendment process were met and recommended forwarding with approval. She also noted the area includes floodplain and wetland features mapped as open space in prior plans.

Applicant proposal and mitigation: Applicant representatives described a multi‑component development concept centered on a regional sports complex (Kaw Valley), associated commercial uses, hotels and a senior housing component, plus a landscape restoration and a network of bioswales and wetlands restoration on parts of the site. The project team presented proposed mitigation measures including native‑species planting, bioswale water‑filtering infrastructure, a multi‑use trail network and lighting specifications intended to reduce nighttime spillover.

Public comment and concerns: Dozens of speakers urged denial. Opponents—farmers, Haskell/Baker affiliates, conservation organizations (including the local Sierra Club and Lawrence Bird Alliance) and many residents—argued the amendment would convert roughly 52 acres of open space and floodplain to high‑intensity commercial and residential use, harm Baker and Haskell wetlands downstream, increase light and noise pollution, create runoff and groundwater contamination risks, and jeopardize migratory‑bird habitat and university research and teaching functions. Several speakers invoked prior planning guidance (Horizon 2020 and the Revised Southern Development Plan) that historically constrained commercial expansion south of the South Lawrence Trafficway, and asked for a staff‑led, community‑driven sector‑plan update rather than an applicant‑driven map change. Several speakers raised procedural objections alleging prior appeals and floodplain permitting steps had not been fully resolved.

Support and staff response: Applicant team members and some planning staff argued the proposal included a large area held as open space and committed to restoration; they said the drainage study had been reviewed by city and county engineers, that native planting and bioswales were included, and that some commercial uses mirror previously permitted or annexed zoning nearby. Staff and applicants said many technical concerns would be addressed at the site‑plan and floodplain permitting stages; staff recommended forwarding the amendment for legislative consideration by both the city and county.

Commission deliberation and vote: Commissioners discussed the tradeoffs: potential regional economic activity and housing capacity versus the policy question of converting open space in a mapped floodplain and the need for a broader sector plan review with greater community involvement. Commissioners asked county staff to explain the fifteen‑page technical environmental and drainage materials and said the county’s floodplain and easement issues needed detailed answers. After deliberation the commission voted to forward the amendment to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.

Next steps: The amendment will be heard by the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; subsequent rezoning, preliminary plat and site‑plan applications would be required for any specific development. Opponents asked both bodies to scrutinize floodplain, wetland and cultural impacts and to require substantive mitigation and enforceable easements before any approvals.