Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />5.Insert a new Action that reads, “Any significant new development in this quadrant should <br />thth <br />include improved connectivity between 88 Street and 96 St. to relieve traffic on those <br />streets, and to improve access and circulation for Avista Hospital and Monarch School <br />Campus”. <br /> <br />6.Insert a new Action that reads, “Open space dedications and/or reservations by <br />landowners or developers should be focused on linking open space parcels to preserve or <br />enhance wildlife movement, scenic vistas and community buffers. Representatives of the <br />Louisville Open Space Advisory Board (LOSAB) should be included in discussions of <br />open space and trail system connectivity”. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed Section 17.64.070 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) that outlines the four <br />criteria, which must be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Wood explained that <br />for the Planning Commission to take action to recommend the change the requirement is to have <br />support of two-thirds of the full membership voting in support. The criteria are as follows: <br /> <br />1.The amendment request is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the <br />comprehensive plan of the City. <br /> <br />2.The amendment request will not result in adverse impacts to existing or planned services <br />to the citizens of the City. <br /> <br />3.The amendment request demonstrates a need exists for the amendment through either <br />changed conditions or past error, which support adjustments to the City’s comprehensive <br />plan. <br /> <br />4.The Planning Commission and/or City Council may consider other factors in reviewing an <br />application as they deem appropriate and may request additional information, which is <br />necessary for an adequate review and evaluation of the amendment. <br /> <br />Wood stated that a major focus of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is directed to the <br />introduction of residential land use on the STK property, both north and south of existing Disk <br />th <br />Drive, and west of S. 96 Street. The applicant has responded to several referral <br />correspondences regarding the residential and its importance to the mixed-use development plan. <br />While not intending to oversimplify the thoroughness of the applicant’s response letters, it the <br />position of staff that the factors used by the applicant to support a mixed-use form of land use are <br />transportation, fiscal impact, urban design, and accessibility and mobility choices. <br /> <br />Wood stated that staff does agree that, given the constraints of site access for the project the <br />mixed-use scenario does in fact smooth out the peaks associated with traffic movements. Staff <br />acknowledges that transportation is a critical component in any consideration given to the <br />amendment of a comprehensive plan. However, it is also important for this analysis to place <br />transportation in context with other factors that need to be considered in the comprehensive plan <br />amendment process. <br /> <br />Wood reported that the standing comprehensive plan requires that there be no negative fiscal <br />impact on the City. Also, the plan requires that the rate of proposed development is to be <br />coordinated with the need for capital improvements. Specifically, the additional carrying costs of <br />the proposed residential development must be off set by an additional revenue stream. <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />