My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 04 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2018 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 04 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:27:18 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:56:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/12/2018
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.
/
6
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 />April 12, 2018 <br />Page 3of6 <br />He added that it was important to have an anchor tenant. They had talked to tenants already, <br />but they had been held back by the FEMA mapping. From day one, there has been a lot of <br />interest even without marketing. They had not done any marketing at all, since there had been <br />so much uncertainty about the property. With the extension they would be able to market the <br />property, but they would not be able to do so without the extension. <br />Howe asked about the estimated construction time if all phases were completed separately. <br />Hartronft stated that the Grain Elevator was roughly a nine -month project and Randy's project <br />was also about nine months. The new building would be a little more than a year. In general, <br />construction projects take about a year. With one contractor running all three developments it <br />might take a year and a half. With all three phases running contiguously, it could take up to <br />three years. <br />Brauneis asked for additional questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked for public <br />comment. <br />Jeff Meyer, 470 County Road in Louisville, stated that as a neighbor he had been excited about <br />the project and had been to Council many times to voice his support. He has been disappointed <br />that from the closing of the property to today, there has been no progress. Problems include that <br />the floodplain had affected only part of the development area, there had been no marketing <br />done, and they were relying on more public money to make the Grain Elevator feasible. He <br />added that the applicants could have started on one plot even though the Grain Elevator might <br />continue to cause issues. He asked that the Commission put restrictions on the applicants. <br />Brauneis thanked Meyer and stated that the Planning Commission did not have control over the <br />Historic Preservation funding. <br />Rita Rosse, 421 County Road in Louisville, stated that she was a neighbor of the project and <br />looked at the sight every day. She was frustrated that nothing had happened in over a year, <br />especially as the property had been publically supported. She expressed worry that there may <br />be nothing done over the next three years. <br />Randy Caranci, 950 Spruce Street Suite 1A PO Box 658 in Louisville, co-owner of the <br />development, noted that there was a lot of vacant commercial property in Louisville. He had <br />worked with one particular tenant since September. His current tenant at 500 Front had two <br />one-year options, and they came in while he was in negotiations with a long-term lease that he <br />could not close because of the short-term nature of the leases on the development currently. He <br />expressed sympathy with his neighbors, but emphasized that it was difficult to have short-term <br />leases and without approval it would just delay the problem. <br />Brauneis stated that during the recession there were a lot of extensions. He asked if staff was <br />aware of any circumstances in which there were extensions that were different than the <br />standard length. <br />Zuccaro stated that the only extension he was familiar with had been three years. Trice added <br />that there was nothing in the Code that required extensions to be three years, but they were <br />typically three years. <br />Meyer thanked the Commission for asking challenging questions of the applicant and not <br />treating the extension as a mere formality. He restated that he would hate to be in the same <br />situation in three years and that he did not feel the public support for the Grain Elevator was a <br />worthwhile use of funds. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.