Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 8, 2015 <br />Page 11 of 23 <br />Troy says that prior to the plat recordation, they have to have approved construction plans. Any <br />public improvements, such as the cul-de-sac option or the connections, have to be reviewed by <br />Public Works and approved. Approval guarantee is secured prior to recordation. The PUD <br />cannot be recorded and the plat cannot be recorded until we have approved construction plans. <br />We have the oddity of two scenarios but they have been reviewed publicly. <br />Rice says I was listening carefully when the question was asked about precedent for this. Have <br />we in the past simultaneously approved two different subdivision plats and two different planned <br />use developments for the same property? <br />McCartney says not that I know of. The other examples I gave you were multiple properties but <br />they were all within a campus -type setting. They were not necessarily alternatives, they were a <br />phasing type of application. <br />Rice asks what the shelf life is on this? Three years? From the time City Council approves it, do <br />they have three years to pick a decision? <br />McCartney says three years. <br />Russ adds from the date of the hearing. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Jim Vasbinder, Etkin Johnson Real Estate Partners, 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 100, Denver, <br />CO 80202 <br />There is precedent in the City of Louisville for what we are asking. Back in the late 1980s, there <br />was a multiple building PUD submitted and recorded on Centennial Valley which was rather <br />complex because it had single story and multi -story buildings in different configurations. We <br />have done this in a number of cases in CTC, not the least of which was 1900 Cherry. 1900 <br />Cherry showed on the PUD which was recorded, and the plat that was recorded, an option with <br />smaller building which was roughly 30,000 SF with a substantial amount of parking and parking <br />fields, and an option with less parking and a bigger building which was roughly 63,000 SF. As <br />you may be aware, we built the larger building, 63,000 SF. We went through the building permit <br />process. The difference was that we did not have the three year period. It was recorded. We <br />were successful and White Wave is the tenant occupying the entire building. As it relates to this <br />situation, we are looking at running out of land in the Colorado Tech Center. We have this <br />property under contract to purchase. We continue to see larger and larger users coming to <br />CTC. We have been successful in our last three buildings that range from roughly 58,000 SF to <br />about 133,000 SF, single tenant every building. CTC historically has been smaller tenants and <br />multiple tenants in our buildings. But that has changed over time. The building that you saw a <br />little while ago, 2000 Taylor, was approved by City Council a few days ago and I submitted for a <br />building permit today. We have two proposals out for that whole building. It's uncanny but it's a <br />good thing. When we put this program together with these alternatives, it was primarily for <br />marketing and we looked at each other and said, who in the world is going to come to the City of <br />Louisville and take 450,000 SF? Our first proposal is for 275,000 SF with a company in <br />California. I'm not saying we have a deal but we now have the flexibility to do that. In years <br />past, we would have had to combine a building or tie a building together. The long and short of it <br />is Staff has been very cooperative and given us lots of good comments. We have finalized these <br />designs as it relates to the buildings and sites. The conditions that have been presented are <br />acceptable to us. We still feel that for a project of this size, the signage could be substantially <br />increased from what the standards are. We understand what Staff is recommending and we are <br />withdrawing that variance as it relates to the monument signs that front Dillon Road. We are <br />working through this process as it relates to all of the other conditions that are here, not the <br />least of which is the City of Louisville's. We are also going through an inclusion process for <br />northern water. This property was never included. It is a new experience for us and a learning <br />curve but it is just part of the process of perfecting the services that Louisville will have to <br />