Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />January 14, 2016 <br />Page 5 <br />Juba stated that the Commission had some concerns with the originally approved PUD General Plan. She stated <br />that there were comments that the two separate buildings seemed large and more architectural design was <br />needed to break those buildings up. The Council had similar concerns, which is where the resolutions were <br />drafted and approved. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked for clarification. He asked if the Planning Commission originally thought the <br />two proposed buildings on the PUD General Plan were too long and now they are reviewing an even longer <br />building. <br />Juba stated that was correct. <br />Lentsch asked the Commission why he was originally approved for that number of units if they cannot fit on the <br />site. He stated that there was a huge financial investment into this site and he now doesn't know what to do. <br />Bear stated that the best the Commission can do at this time is provide feedback to the applicant. He stated that <br />the Commission is in a difficult position because the applicant is saying he presented a plan originally that <br />cannot be built. He showed buildings with units within them that are not reflective of reality and the plans that <br />were originally proposed weren't real. Bear also stated that the applicant has presented the Commission with <br />plans that have a piece of property built on that they do not own. He recommended that the Planning <br />Commission provide feedback from the presented plans the best they can. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that none of the Commissioners seem enthusiastic about the long building. He <br />said that even with the architectural components, the building seems very busy and he would like to see cleaner <br />and shorter lines. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that she was disappointed to learn that the applicant submitted inaccurate <br />information. <br />Lentsch stated that was not true and if the Commission wants, they can build the two separate buildings, but <br />would need to have four stories with a flat roof. He did say that this makes planning the amenities more <br />difficult and expensive as they would most likely need to be in both buildings. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that it was Lentsch, himself, who said that the buildings in the previous approval <br />weren't to scale. She said that the Commission had reviewed, commented, and made recommendations on such <br />plans and to now learn that the buildings weren't to scale puts doubt in the Commissions mind that the currently <br />proposed plans are accurate. She stated that her overall comments are that she doesn't like the long building <br />and thinks it should look more like the originally approved plans. She stated if that plan wasn't feasible that the <br />applicant should have looked into that plan more before purchasing the property or seeking approval. <br />Lentsch stated that he originally didn't want to put an apartment design or density on the remaining parcel, but <br />that the City required him to do so because they wanted the density and apartments in the future. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked how many units were available in the City of Hugo and if 170 units was even <br />feasible and could be filled within the City. <br />Bear stated that may be a question for the applicant if they've done a market study. <br />