Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 05 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Brauneis asked for conflicts of interests. Seeing none, he invited the applicant to make a presentation. Erik Hartronft, 950 Spruce Street Suite 2A in Louisville, co-owner and architect of the Mill Site, described the development process to date. He and his fellow developers had been working on meeting their contractual requirements, including the PUD approval, which took until December of 2016 after which they started moving forward with the development project. The floodplain mitigation work took longer to be submitted to and approved by FEMA than anticipated. He and his co -developers also had to plan for a new building that would be three feet above the floodplain and flood -proof. That process ended last month when FEMA ratified new floodplain maps. In the FEMA -approved maps, the site is no longer in the 100 -year floodplain, making development easier. Hartronft addressed an email from a Louisville resident requesting that the Commission not approve the extension in order to encourage them to build faster. Hartronft explained that they could not move forward without the PUD extension and that failing to get approval would actually slow the project down. Rice asked Hartronft to lay out the current plan for the three-year extension. Hartronft stated that he did not have a set schedule yet and that the three properties currently under development have different schedules. His priority moving forward would be finding tenants. Rice replied that the public interest was in knowing what the impact of the extension would be. Hartronft discussed the financial history of the Louisville Grain Elevator including previous grant applications. Hartronft summarized that their plan, overall, was to look for a tenant for the building and apply for another grant. Williams asked if Hartronft planned to bring a PUD Amendment forward and about the likelihood that they would be breaking ground within the three-year extension. Hartronft responded that they might apply for an administrative amendment initiated sometime this year to deal with a grading issue. He added that he could not tell when ground would be broken, but the plan was to move forward in three phases. It was in their interest to move forward, since they were not gaining money from the property right now. Williams asked if Hartronft could begin the other phases first if they did not get a grant for the Grain Elevator. Hartronft said they could, though they would prefer to clean up the Grain Elevator before trying to fill the rest of the development. Hsu asked what the downsides of a 1 -year or a 2 -year extension would be. Hartronft responded that uncertainty for financing and tenants was the biggest issue with a shorter extension. Williams asked if the funding was dependent on signing the retail and if Hartronft expected it to happen soon. Hartronft stated that the Grain Elevator itself would ideally be a single tenant, if possible. For example, some tenants had expressed interest in using the new building and the Grain Elevator.