Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 01 24

Home Browse Search

Introduction Louisville,Colorado,from its beginnings as a mining PURPOSE 1. Community Form,Character,and Urban Design Development issues and concerns of an expanding town in 1878 to today as one of the most livable small 2. Neighborhoods and Housing greenfield community are quite different than those of a towns in the United States and through its future,has The Comprehensive Plan is the City's tool intended to 3. Community Heritage redeveloping infill community. Louisville's revious oli- been and will continue to be influenced by change in guide,integrate and align governing regulations,infra- 4. Parks,Recreation,Trails and open Space cies generally align with those of an expanding green- (reference factors;economic conditions;social and structure investments,and City services with communi- (reference-Parks Recreation Open Space and field community. Previous policies focused on measur- Trails Master Plan(PROST-2011)) demographic profiles;and physical influences occurring ty values,needs and civic priorities. Louisville's Compre- ing,accommodating and mitigating the impact of new 5. Transportation,Mobility,and Accessibility in Louisville,neighboring jurisdictions and the greater hensive Plan provides everyone a voice in envisioning 6. Public Infrastructure development on the capacity of the City's infrastructure, Denver metropolitan region. and guiding the City's continual evolution. 7. Energy services and quality of life. 8. The Economy and Fiscal Health Clearly,the City's leaders,residents,property owners, The Comprehensive Plan is the official statement of the 9. Community Services In a redeveloping infill community,the capacity of com- and businesses have done an exceptional job;the posi- City's Vision and corresponding Core Community Values. munity infrastructure and services is still a concern. tive results of the City's Citizen Survey place Louisville The policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan BACKGROUND However,efficiency—the ability to achieve economies in highest echelon of municipalities in the United States cover a broad range of subject matter related to the of scale by using existing infrastructure to serve more for citizen satisfaction. However,cities and their envi- long-range(20-year)physical growth of the City. The City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1973 customers at a lower unit cost to each customer—also ronments do not remain static and Louisville's opportu- Nine elements function to complement each other in when the City had only 2,600 residents.That plan was becomes a consideration. Also,because infill develop- nities and challenges in maintaining a high quality of life directing future policy decisions towards implementing updated in 1975.Since then,new Comprehensive Plans ment can positively or negatively affect existing land are continually evolving and transforming. the Community's Vision and preserving vital community were adopted in 1983,updated in 1989,and then ad- uses,understanding how the design,physical character attributes and service levels. These include: opted again in 2005 and updated in 2009.The pattern of and other aspects of an infill project affect the adjacent creating new Comprehensive Plans appears to coincide neighbors and the City as a whole is critical to determin- with a period of significant growth,while the updates ing whether the project is likely to enhance or under- appear to coincide with periods of relative stability. The mine the existing quality of life. 2005 Comprehensive Plan was created near the end of Please circle the number that significant City growth and anticipated change associ- This Comprehensive Plan provides not only the flex- comes closest to your opinion ated with RTD's FasTracks Program. The 2009 update ibility and guidance to address redevelopment in the about the quality of life in National Front Range occurred during a period of stability. Staff believes that Revitalization District and Downtown,but throughout Louisville: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison a 2012 Update can further strengthen the Comprehen- City as well. The Plan provides clear policies to guide How do you rate Louisville as a sive Plan in two key ways: redevelopment as the McCaslin and South Boulder Road place to live? 78% 20% 2% 0% 100% Much above Much above corridors age and as infill residential rehabilitation pres- 1) Better meet today's unique challenges that sures continue to increase in all established residential How do you rate Louisville as a were not factors in 2005 and 2009. Several conditions neighborhoods. place to raise children? 77% 20% 2% 0% 100% Much above Much above which influence the City's ability to implement the Com- How do you rate the overall munity's Vision have changed,or emerged,including: b. Regional traffic and City transportation policy Quality of life in Louisville? 67% 30% 2% 0% 100% Much above Much above —As new development continues in surrounding Juris- How do you rate your a. Redevelopment vs.new development—The Gen- dictions,Louisville will experience a decreasing share of neighborhood as a place to live? 62% 33% 5% 0% 100% Much above Much above eral Development Plan(GDP)approval for ConocoPhil- local traffic on its street network. Future transportation How do you rate Louisville as a lips and the Planned Unit Development(PUD)approval investments in the City will be challenged to accom- place to retire? 51% 35% 11% 3% 100% Much above Much above of North End and Steel Ranch commit the City's last modate demands for regional traffic mobility and at How do you rate Louisville as a large vacant parcels for development. Future change the same time address livability and economic viability place to work? 37% 37% 19% 7% 100% Muth above Muth above in Louisville will come almost exclusively in the form of concerns within Louisville. redevelopment. Previous Comprehensive Plans noted •Source—CiTy of Louisville Citizen Survey—May 212 the shift in growth patterns,but they did not provide The City's new transportation policies and regulations the tools necessary for the community to adequately reflect those of a community are consistent with a review,discuss,and respond to inevitable future infill community that is landlocked and redeveloping and not development requests. consistent with realities of a community continuing to expand. Louisville, Colorado 21