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 6 <br />Lentsch stated that they have done a market study and Hugo has no apartments and there are plenty of people <br />looking. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked to clarify if the statement relating to the City wanting the higher density of 165 <br />units within this location was the case or if it was proposed and approved through the PUD. <br />Bear stated that the original downtown plan concept shows a new urbanist village with single family lots at a <br />much lower density. When the property was planned, it was planned in a mixed use district, which does allow <br />for a higher density. He stated that this is an area of the City where a higher density would be acceptable. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked if it was required, though. <br />Bear stated that it was not required. He stated it was something the City was willing to look at but was not a <br />directive of the City. He described that a lower density on the site would be fine and even a higher amount of <br />units, if the site was planned properly. <br />Chair Kleissler stated that the Commission should give the applicant some more general recommendations if <br />there are no further questions. <br />Commissioner Knauss commented saying that she did not believe it was the Commissions job to design the <br />project, but that it's their job to provide comments. She stated that she believes it's the applicant's job to <br />propose something for the Commission to review. <br />Lentsch asked if they went back to the two originally proposed buildings that were 50 feet tall and had a flat <br />roof, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that it would depend on how the buildings looked. <br />Chair Kleissler stated that Commission approved a Planned Unit Development as a unit and they would like to <br />see the whole site planned together, especially since there was flexibility granted on a number of things. She <br />said the second biggest piece to this was the concern for the building's scale. <br />Lentsch asked what the Commission would think about the buildings being four stories. <br />Commissioner McRoberts told Lentsch to show them what it would look like. <br />Lentsch provided the Commission with a concept plan. <br />Cary Osbourne stated that the plan that was just handed to them is a concept plan that is being worked on in Eau <br />Claire, WI currently. He stated it was a concept of what a building with a flat roof could look like. This <br />building has 51 units with a mix of one and two bedroom units. <br />Chair Kleissler asked what the height was of the building. <br />Lentsch stated it was only a three story building. <br />Chair Kleissler stated that she still thought there was a lot of building mass. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.