Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />August 25, 2016 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />clinic in a shared space. She said that her business has grown and she needs more space to accommodate her <br />patients and would like to stay in Hugo because she has become a part of the community. <br /> <br />Commissioner Patzner asked if there was a sidewalk connecting the back parking lot to the front parking lot. <br /> <br />Juba stated that the back parking lot is the parking for the employees. She stated that the applicant would like <br />the clients to park in the front, so by not adding a sidewalk, they are discouraging their clients to park in the <br />back. <br /> <br />Mr. Schaefer stated that the building has actually been made slightly larger than currently needed to plan for a <br />possible future dentist and other staff. At that time, the proof of parking would be constructed and those <br />employees would have more spaces to park in the back of the building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Patzner asked how trash pick-up would work on site. <br /> <br />Mr. Shaefer stated that the trash bins would be rolled out to the curb, where they would be picked up by waste <br />management. <br /> <br />Juba added that Fairview has a trash enclosure in their parking lot and if the use of this building ever changed, <br />there could be a possibility of a shared waste arrangement. <br /> <br />Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. <br /> <br />Dan Burkhalter, 4517 Victor Path #2, approached the podium. He stated that he was told when he moved into <br />Victor Gardens that every building had to comply with the ARC and have similar styles. He didn’t believe that <br />the proposed building met the standards that are in Victor Gardens development and that the Planning <br />Commission consider the ARC’s comments in this building. <br /> <br />Karen Ray, 4541 Victor Path #8, approached the podium. She stated that she was representing the Master <br />Association for Victor Gardens. She expressed excitement for the business growth and the location of the <br />building on this lot. She stated that the Master Board appreciates the work the applicant had done in screening <br />the townhomes from the business and making the business unobtrusive to the residents nearby. Ms. Ray stated <br />that the Master Board does have concerns on the architecture of the building, specifically styles of the front <br />elevation pieces and the dormers, and believed the building architecture was not consistent with other <br />architectural styles seen in Victor Gardens. <br /> <br />Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rosenquist requested staff to elaborate on the ARC’s review of this project. <br /> <br />Juba stated that the applicant has provided the proper documentation that states that this site is not subject to <br />approval of the ARC. Victor Gardens ARC has also acknowledged that they do not have the right to approve or <br />deny the architecture of the building. Juba stated that at the beginning of this process, staff directed the <br />applicant to begin to go through the process of ARC approval. The applicant completed phase one of the <br />process and was told the ARC Liaison would be recommending approval of the building architecture. The <br />applicant moved forward and in step two received comments from the ARC requesting changes to the <br />architecture. The applicant had their attorney review legal documents and found that they are not subject to <br />review and approval of the ARC. Juba did remind the Planning Commission that the applicant is still required