Planning Commission Minutes 2015 03 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 Page 16 of 23 McCartney says Staff feels the same, but the applicant has brought forth the site plan and insists on the locations. Russ says site plan is influenced heavily by a number of factors in the market such as the number of roof tops within walking distance. With DELO going in and the activity Downtown has and the proximity to this is less than 500 feet away with the South Street Gateway, Staff believes the 225 feet setback request is more reflective of a suburban environment depended on highway arterial only. O'Connell summarizes her thoughts. First of all, the City negotiated this purchase agreement, arrived at the conditions, and then City Council was presented with Resolution 62 signed back in October 2014. She asks if the PC has any power over this based on Resolution 62 to make any changes? She has read Resolution 62 in conjunction with the Sales Agreement and says it appears to be a "done deal". She thinks anything PC does is inconsequential. Russ says this is how it was presented by the landowner. There are conditions that Staff has put on that were silent in the agreement that Staff feels there is room to get better out and gain parking. We are not bound by the Purchase Agreement of this parking. O'Connell says that based on her interpretation of what the Resolution says, City Council has an obligation to pursue and make sure this Purchase Agreement goes through. So if we, as PC and Planning Department make recommendations otherwise, City Council is still bound by what they have agreed to under the Resolution. Russ says the agreement is contingent on approval of the PUD. If the PUD is approved by City Council with terms that are inconsistent with the agreement, then the agreement is null and void. O'Connell asks if the City Attorney has reviewed the Resolution and the Purchase Agreement? Russ says this is his understanding. Applicant Presentation: Justin McClure, RMCS, 105 Cherrywood Lane, Louisville, CO 80027 In presenting DELO Phase 2 on February 12, 2015, he stated that the site plan included the DELO Plaza redevelopment opportunity as well as the Boom redevelopment opportunity. In context discussing consistency of site plan with DELO Phase 2, he wishes to discuss consistency of the site plan of DELO Plaza. The site plan is the original site plan presented with the Resolution 62 and Purchase Agreement. In his opinion, the MUDDSG is present for good reasons but in hindsight, the hatched areas were modified. The hatching was included to eliminate the requirement for retail on the ground floor. Why was that eliminated? Because it was not viable. The internal mid block of Cannon Street was not viable to actually support retail uses. The residential densities and neighborhood create the market condition. Exhibit A was modified. There are architectural conditions put in place in DELO Phase 2 that essentially look retail. As a correlation, when looking at MUDDSG as it relates to an auto -oriented highway development, this is an incredibly difficult corridor to put retail on. McClure is presenting tonight as the owner's representative for Tebo Properties. They own and manage over 2 million square feet of retail space. They are knowledgeable on how to maximize profitability of projects. Tebo Properties owns Christopher Village and other developments in Louisville. The upper floor in Christopher Village almost never leases out and there are consistent issues with vacancy. From an investment perspective, how do you make a property developer want to put dollars into an area? What works on Highway 42? As the chief developer of DELO, how does that area redevelop? The property is located at DELO's front door. Considering the entire Highway 42 corridor, what development proposals are being presented with retail projects? Using the Boom project as an example, it is several months away from a