Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 14, 2019 <br />Page 2 of 17 <br />Zuccaro presented the application, which proposed to amend the phasing plan of the <br />Foundry PUD to require one commercial building be built concurrently with the <br />residential buildings, instead of both. All proper postings were made. The concurrent <br />condition from 2016 was in pursuit of fiscal balance between commercial and residential <br />development. This request was in response to current market and financing conditions <br />that make it difficult to construct two commercial buildings concurrent with the <br />residential development. Consultants for the City told staff many of the same things <br />about development as the applicant did regarding development challenges. The retail <br />market is saturated, there is not much demand for big -box retail, and the areas around <br />Louisville were developing. <br />Zuccaro informed the Commission that staff ran a fiscal impact model, which allows <br />staff to enter numbers into the model for different applications and different scenarios. <br />Staff recommended approval of Resolution 4, Series 2019, recommending to City <br />Council approval of an amendment to the Foundry PUD phasing plan to allow one of the <br />two proposed commercial buildings to be constructed concurrent with the residential <br />development. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of staff. <br />Rice asked when the PUD expired. He noted that there had been issues with other <br />projects when the PUD has gone stale. <br />Zuccaro responded that it would expire three years from when it was approved. He <br />noted that if the expiration date was nearing, staff could bring a request for an extension <br />before the Commission. <br />Rice asked if the proposed language allowed the applicant to pull a building permit for <br />the four residential structures and for one of two of the commercial structures, build <br />three residential structures, and never do anything with one commercial building. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. <br />Rice replied that the proposed language constituted a material change from the original <br />language by changing the concurrent requirement. <br />Zuccaro confirmed that the City would be losing the absolute guarantee of commercial <br />development. He noted that there were incentives to move forward with the commercial <br />from the administration perspective. <br />Rice asked why the proposal was not asking for the phasing to be concurrent with one <br />of the commercial buildings. <br />Zuccaro responded that the way it was written was not making that requirement, but the <br />Commission could make that choice. He added that it would not guarantee that it would <br />get the building finished, but it would be an incentive by requiring more investment in <br />the future structures from the builders. <br />