Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 18

Home Browse Search

Wood then discussed the Open Space/Parks component of the application. The total amount of dedication is 82.2 acres, exclusive of all detention ponds. Wood noted that the 23% is a significant dedication it should be noted that the density of other development is greater than typically allowed in the City. Wood also stated that the Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) met on July 7, 2003 to review the STK comprehensive plan amendment, annexation and rezoning applications. Wood read the following into record: “The Board approved several motions regarding the STK proposal, as follows. th 1.OSAB opposes the proposed highway exit ramp at 88 Street, which runs through the Scriffny open space. 2.OSAB strongly recommends the City of Louisville obtain all 160 acres on the north side of StorageTek property for open space to maintain meaningful continuity with existing open space. 3.OSAB is opposed to new residential development on this property due to increased crowding on current open space and trails, a concern expressed by citizens in the recent open space survey. They further oppose any residential development as said development would be discontinuous from Louisville’s existing residential areas and near to ecologically sensitive open space and will therefore result in resource damage to this open space. 4.OSAB opposes The Campus Drive collector in its current alignment because it will fragment any additional open space from existing open space. 5.OSAB opposes the current linear configuration of the open space, as it will be very difficult and expensive to maintain. This configuration also makes it of insignificant value as open space. The next item reviewed by Wood was the Environment Analysis. A copy of the analysis was provided in the Planning Commission meeting packets. Wood pointed out that the study recommends further study in the area of mine subsidence and preservation of plant and animal habitats, including Ute Lady Tresses Orchid, Black Tailed Prairie Dogs and Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. Wood reminded the Commission that the typical place for those to be addressed is during the subdivision plant and PUD process. Wood stated that the Planning Commission does not typically review annexation agreements, subdivision agreements or development agreements because they are largely administrative in nature. However, in this instance, based on the format and content of the agreement as proposed, there are various policy issues to review, which have a substantive impact on the GDP. Wood limited the discussion to only those items in the Agreement that pertains to the Planning Commission’s review of the zoning portion of the annexation/zoning request. Wood noted the following six items for the Commission to be aware of: 1.Vested Property Rights. 2.Residential Building permits. 3.Public Improvement Financing. 4.Parks, Open Space and Trails, specifically Section 4.3 5.Maintenance, specifically Section 4.5 9