My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08182020
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
PL PACKET 08182020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2020 12:42:46 PM
Creation date
8/12/2020 4:02:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />April 21, 2020 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Chairperson Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. 2 <br /> 3 <br />City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for a Preliminary Plat to divide current parcel at 4 <br />3800 Silver Lake Road into two separate parcels. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Commissioner Socha wondered if there was anything that would prohibit the owner of these 7 <br />two parcels from selling them separately or whether granting this motion would allow the two 8 <br />parcels to be sold separately to different owners. Mr. Grittman explained technically it would 9 <br />allow the parcels to be conveyed separately because they would be two legal parcels. In a 10 <br />practical matter that is highly unlikely because the project is regulated by both a PUD 11 <br />agreement which regulates the specifics of what can be developed and how they inter-relate to 12 <br />each other and it is also subject to a Tac Increment Financing (TIF) redevelopment agreement 13 <br />which is specifically written with the Doran Companies as a party. It would be exceedingly 14 <br />difficult without a significant amount of further Council and probably HRA approval to 15 <br />actually sell these separately as a separate project. Even if these were conveyed separately, 16 <br />without any further approvals these parcels would still be subject to all of the PUD 17 <br />requirements that are part of the original approval. It is unlikely, but possible. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Chairperson Westrick asked if the property owner was present for questions. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Mr. Grittman indicated the property owner was not present and believed they were monitoring 22 <br />the meeting but would stand with the staff presentation for the time being. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Chair Westrick asked if there were any responses from the public on this item. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Mr. Grittman indicated staff has not received any comments and there was no one in the 27 <br />Chamber audience. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Chairperson Westrick closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Commissioner Rude asked if the reason for this item was to aid in the financing. Mr. 32 <br />Grittman indicated that was correct. The financing would be separated between the first and 33 <br />second phase. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Commissioner Rude asked if there was any concern with the outlot being a separate third lot. 36 <br />Mr. Grittman explained there should not be any concern and it would continue to be an outlot 37 <br />and has public improvements in that. The PUD requirements for that is it would need to 38 <br />continue to remain an outlot. It already is technically an outlot and separate from the 39 <br />subdivision. There is no reason to wrap it into the subdivision and is controlled by the PUD 40 <br />agreement. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Commissioner Payne understood this is a two-phase project and would dividing this into two 43 <br />separate lots have an affect on the calendar for that two-phase project. Would it delay 44 <br />anything. Mr. Grittman indicated it should not have any impact and the applicants have 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.