Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 08 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2020 Page 17 of 24 He does believe the right people have purchased the property. He addresses the setback issue and gives a summary of the journey of why they are requesting a 55 foot setback instead of 60 feet. He has worked with two different realtors to market the property. The constant feedback they received is that the retail needs to be closer. When they talked with potential buyers, they would constantly say that they loved the property but there was no way they would do a 60 foot setback. He does not believe that retail will do well on this property with a 60 foot setback. The only developer they have had that is willing to do this is with a 55 foot setback and mentions that he does not think it will be noticeable when people drive by. Dan McConville, St Louis Parish McConville mentions that they had tried many times to develop on property but because it required having the three property owners develop simultaneously, it never seemed to come together. The timing between all the property owners was not working. He does believe this property is a gateway into the city and supports the GDP amendment to create this new space and amenity for Louisville. He hopes the commissioners will approve the 55 foot setback. Megan Turner, United Properties Turner gives an overview of the company United Properties and how they are a commercial development company. She mentions InterPark Broomfield that is in Broomfield, CO at W 112t" Ave and Main St. This is a property they developed recently that includes industrial and retail space. She shows a short video that highlights the desired setback and the architectural elements for the property site. She discusses what the approval process would look like for them. First, the amendment of the GDP would need to be approved. They would then submit their GDP application for the ascent church parcel. Next is the approval process for the construction documents and then commencing the construction work. This GDP amendment is the catalyst for the parcels development to proceed in the future without GDP amendments Alicia Rhymer, United Properties Rhymer discusses the setback hardship and the justification of asking for the reduction of 5 feet. Moving north, the parcels get smaller and the angular shapes along the railroad get tighter. The stress is greater on the parcels when you keep moving north with the layout of the land. All three property owners must dedicate 30-35 feet in the rear for the trail to accommodate for the grade requirements. That results in a loss of 35 feet for the property owners. Each property must also do detention and water quality, which takes up significant space. She then discusses the private access roads. There is really only one access road which is from S. 96t" Street. The parcels are landlocked by the railroad so we will need a 30 foot drive aisle that will be able to accommodate the traffic. In addition, we have an 8 foot tree lawn and 8 foot detached sidewalk along S. 96t" Street that we will have to provide, so we have significant hardships east and west of the property.