Planning Commission Minutes 2018 04 12

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 12, 2018 Page 4of6 Brauneis asked for a closing statement from staff Zuccaro stated that the main reason for staff recommendation of the extension was the floodplain issue. Previous to the new FEMA maps, a large part of Miner's Field neighborhood, the water treatment plant, Downtown, Old Town, and others were all within the 100-year floodplain. The City, along with the City of Lafayette, made major infrastructure changes such as storm sewers to improve floodplain vulnerability. Developments in the floodplain have to adhere to additional regulations. For example, you cannot add to the floodplain beyond your property, you have to elevate the finished floor of your building above the floodplain, and your foundation has to be flood -proof. All this adds costs and technical considerations. Staff felt that the 100- year floodplain being on large portions of the property was a very good reason for the delay and that the extension was appropriate based on the floodplain issue alone. The applicant could move forward now once they figured out the financing and tenant considerations. Hsu asked staff if PUD extensions could be granted anytime or if the extensions had to be near expiration and where that clock is memorialized. Zuccaro stated that the Code did not specify when the timeline starts for PUD amendments. The practice has been that the clock restarts with major amendments, but not with administrative amendments. The clock starts when City Council passes the resolution. Sometimes PUDs get recorded months or even years after the approval, as long as it is within the three-year period. In those cases, the clock still starts with the approval. He suggested getting the City Attorney's advice on the timing of PUD amendments, since it was unclear in the Code. Williams responded that she believed the PUD amendment would have to include an intention to reset the clock, which would require a major amendment to go through Planning Commission and the Council. She did not think restarting the clock was feasible in this case without a major amendment. She asked if the Grain Elevator was entitled to certain grants due to its listing on the National Historic Register. She added that there had to be some sort of ownership from the City since the City had owned the building before it sold it to the applicant, which would be relevant when the Grain Elevator held up the applicant's PUD. She asked if staff believed part of the reason the applicant needed another three years was because the applicant had not received a grant for the Elevator. She expressed concern that the financing for the Grain Elevator would be the next snag in the project. Trice clarified that the Register entitled them to tax credits. As a local landmark, they were eligible for state tax credits, as well. Zuccaro replied that the City bought the Elevator with the intension of entering into a partnership with someone to preserve it. However, staff was recommending support of the request specifically due to the floodplain issue, not the Grain Elevator issues. The applicant had not based their extension request based on the lack of funding for the Elevator. Brauneis asked the applicant for a closing statement and asked when the Elevator was last used. Hartronft stated that it was last used as an elevator in the 1950s. By the 1960s, it was used as a storage place after a brief stint as a feed store. He addressed Commissioner Williams' point about funding for the Elevator, stating that they had pursued state and local funding. They delayed their renovation stabilization progress for almost a year while they applied for a grant and waited for the state to reply. They were not funded and went along with their original plan. Brauneis closed the public hearing and opened commissioner discussion.