Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and city spar over blanket city‑attorney review in Olive Boulevard condominium plat
Summary
At first reading on a condominium plat for 10901 Olive Boulevard, the developer said a staff condition requiring the city attorney’s prior approval of any future declaration amendments is 'unworkable'; the city attorney cited past underfunded indentures and council asked staff and applicant to draft a narrower compromise before second reading.
A first reading on a commercial condominium plat for 10901 Olive Boulevard revealed a standoff over a staff condition that would require the declarant and successors to submit any and all future amendments to the condominium declaration to the city attorney for approval.
David Huttkin, representing Huttkin Properties Group, told the council the proposed blanket condition — which would obligate owners to seek city‑attorney approval "regardless of how minor or ministerial such change may be" — is "unworkable" and risks derailing lender and buyer transactions. Huttkin said he and his attorney had proposed 10 amendments aimed at closing loopholes while guaranteeing the property is maintained "as a first class retail and service center." He offered to work with city staff and the city attorney to craft more specific language before second reading.
Carl Lumley, the city attorney, responded that the city’s concern arises from experience with older subdivisions and indentures that have become underfunded and unmaintainable. Lumley said the city’s best practice is to review declarations at the outset and retain the ability to review amendments; he added minor changes may be expedited administratively while serious issues can be presented to council.
Jason Jaggi, director of community involvement, presented the plat and summarized the staff conditions: (1) revised drawings to clearly define common and limited common elements and (2) an amended declaration subject to city‑attorney review. Several council members said the absolute, blanket review requirement was broader than they preferred and asked staff and the applicant to negotiate a narrower set of review triggers and specific maintenance obligations before the next meeting. The item will return for second reading after the parties attempt to agree on language.
