Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br />3. Impact on existing trip generation rates. <br />No /Not Applicable. <br />X Yes. The proposed MUSA exchange would increase densities & <br />increase trips. The increase wouldn't dictate add'1 regional investment <br />4. Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s). in roads. <br />--_— No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />5. Impact on transit and parking strategies. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />C. Aviation <br />1. Impact on regional airspace. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />2. Impact on airport search area. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with <br />aircraft noise. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />4. Consistency with the long -term comprehensive plan for an airport <br />in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />D. Recreation Open Space <br />1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional <br />recreational facilities. <br />X No /Not Applicable. <br />Yes. <br />III.IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK <br />A. Land Use <br />1. Describe the following, as appropriate: <br />a. Size of affected area in acres 163 arres * <br />b. Existing land use(s) vacant, undeveloped 1163 acres) <br />c. Proposed land use(s) 1.3 acres (gross) urban residential <br />d. Number of residential dwelling units involved approx. 340 new unit <br />*328 acres of which to come into MUSA, 165 acres to be deleted from MUSA <br />iii <br />