My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 02 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 02 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:17:02 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/14/2019
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 14, 2019 <br />Page 6 of 17 <br />McClure replied that it was based on the market and other projects, like stabilization of <br />DELO Plaza and the Foundry building itself to execute Building E. <br />Williams asked what stabilization meant. <br />McClure replied that it meant about 85% occupancy for commercial buildings. He would <br />not know how long that would take to meet before the building went on the market. <br />Williams asked if, in the scenario that building F was occupied at 85% at year one with <br />three-year leases, there would be a trigger to build the other buildings. <br />McClure replied that it would definitely be a trigger. He noted that he would prefer five- <br />year leases or three-year leases with extensions. <br />Hoefner asked what the chances were that the applicant would stop building after <br />building C. <br />McClure replied that he would be in trouble in that case after all the time and money he <br />would have already sunk into the project by that point. If he defaulted on any of these <br />loans, he was personally liable. <br />Hoefner asked if the applicant thought he would come back to the Commission asking <br />for another re -write. <br />McClure replied that the thought of coming back for a re -write gave him a hot flash. <br />Williams asked if there was a possibility that the applicant would ever come back and <br />ask to change Building E to residential. <br />McClure replied that there was a possibility, though it was not be his intent. The intent <br />was to build it as commercial as approved. He noted that it was more valuable as a <br />commercial unit, but might be more marketable if they turned it into a live -work unit. <br />Williams asked if all the condominiums were live -work. <br />McClure replied that the condominiums were purely residential. <br />Hoefner asked how McClure would respond if the Commission changed the second <br />condition to make the CO conditional on more buildings than just the last one. <br />McClure replied that the lender would not want any COs withheld at all so he would like <br />it to be as light as possible. He noted that withholding the CO on the last unit was a big <br />motivator, because the entire horizontal infrastructure of Building D would already be in <br />place. <br />Howe noted that the applicant would not have to finish E and F to trigger the last CO for <br />the last building. All the applicant would have to do was complete the horizontal <br />infrastructure, not build the building. He asked how the applicant and the City could <br />avoid having a vacant area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.