My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016.02.25 PC Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2016 PC Packets
>
2016.02.25 PC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2016 12:42:41 PM
Creation date
2/25/2016 12:39:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
2/25/2016
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 <br />January 14, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />Commissioner Knauss asked then if there is a possibility that the applicant does not purchase that lot and <br />another developer can develop on that site. <br />Lentsch stated that there is always that possibility. <br />Commissioner Knauss asked what factors have changes since February of 2014, since the PUD General Plan <br />was approved, that made this site plan change so much. <br />Lentsch stated that the buildings that were proposed in the PUD General Plan were not to scale. He stated that a <br />97 unit building would be the size of building A. <br />Commissioner Knauss asked the applicant how many units would fit within the two originally proposed <br />buildings within the PUD General Plan. <br />Lentsch stated that 30-40 units could fit within each of the two originally proposed buildings. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that she has concerns about the long linear building. She stated that if she was <br />standing in front of it, she would be looking at a building the length of a football field and a quarter on each <br />side, which is extremely long to her. She told the applicant that she understands that they have tried to design <br />different breaks in the architecture, but that those pieces wouldn't be noticeable from the front. <br />Lentsch asked Commissioner Knauss what the alternative would be. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that it was her opinion that there has got to be a better design instead of the long <br />linear building. <br />Lentsch urged the Planning Commission to look at the lot design. He stated that the configuration of the lot is <br />what limited them to have this building design. He also reminded the Commission that this facility is planned <br />to have underground parking and having a building that wraps around itself can create other issues. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that 97 units may not be feasible on the site. <br />Lentsch stated that if they cannot get to 165 units, he doesn't believe that they can build the apartments because <br />it wouldn't be economically feasible. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that the Commission can understand that a developer would like to get a <br />financial return on a project, but their financial return isn't necessarily the Commission's priority for this <br />project. <br />Lentsch urged the Commission to let him know what they can do to make this concept work. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that they would need a better design. <br />Lentsch stated that the believed the proposed building was gorgeous and its large scale fits in with other <br />apartment buildings that offer this many units. <br />Commissioner Rosenquist stated that the applicant should take a hard look at the originally approved PUD <br />General Plan and work with staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.