City Council Minutes 2003 04 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting April 1, 2003 Page 11 of 22 DISCUSSION/DIRECTION - SOUTH SUB-AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Council member Brown stated that based on discussions with Council members and other members of the community, he suggested Council terminate the South Sub-Committee and allow the applicants to move forward with their development plans. Van Pelt asked for clarification on the necessary procedures for receiving development plans and voiced her confusion with accepting development plans that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Brown stated his understanding the City has procedures in place for accepting development proposals, and an ordinance, which sets out the procedure for amending the comprehensive plan by five different entities. Sisk reported that Council member Keany noted there was an amendment to the Comp Plan in 1998, which allows houses as part of the comprehensive plan. He stated the City is in the position to allow the applicants to move forward with their development proposals. Keany confirmed the 1998 Comp Plan did not exclude housing in the South Sub-Area. Wood stated the current South Sub Area Plan provides entitlements, and the City has a process to accept applications and the ability to create entitlements based upon the comp plan foundations. He voiced his concern with the uncertainty of the current comp plan. Marsella voiced her confusion with the procedures. She asked if a proposal is not prohibited in the comp plan, is it approvable. Wood stated the 1998 South Sub-Area Comp Plan identified StorageTek to be an industrial manufacturing facility. Marsella stated the South Sub-Area Comp Plan give parameters on how houses could be approved. Wood stated his opinion, the South Sub-Area Comp Plan provides general goals, but in terms of a fundamental shift in land use, there is not enough certainty in the language for Staff to make a recommendation of approval of such a significant land use change. City Attorney Light explained the comp plan is a policy document, and by statute is advisory only. He stated one issue of changing the comp plan, is at this time a landowner does have the right to submit an application for development or rezoning. If submitted now, any application for rezoning is under the context of the existing comp plan and must run the course through the current procedures. Brown stated his understanding that it is Staff's belief the comp plan is not flexible enough to go forward with a housing. He stated if an applicant files an application, which included houses and Staff determines it was not compliant, at some point, the Council, the applicant and Staff would have to address that specific comp plan change that would be well defined. Wood agreed that the process could be paralleled. 11