PC Packet 08.09.18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission July 26, 2018 Page 6 Giguere describes the sketch plan submitted by MWF Properties. The applicant would like to receive informal comments about the sketch plan prior to formal approval. The applicant is proposing a three story, multifamily apartment complex within an 18 acre parcel. Giguere explains that although the applicant has stated that 4.5 acres of the site is buildable, the site contains wetland and will require a wetland delineation to determine the site's wetland boundaries. The apartment complex is in compliance with the city's 2030 comprehensive plan in terms of providing affordable housing options for residents. Giguere goes on to state that although the elevations provided by the applicant show some architectural details in terms of building design, staff has recommended that the applicant add additional elements to the building. These additional elements include larger overhangs, a wainscot, a larger break-up of building and roof elevations, as well as window shutters. Ryan Shwickert approaches the podium. Shwickert states that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the City in terms of the site plan and building design. Shwickert explains that the applicant focuses on section the 42 tax credit program. Shwickert assures the council that the applicant keeps its developments well maintained. Commissioner Arcand asks why the development only has 45 units. Shwickert responds by stating that more units would make this particular project more risky because the demand for affordable housing within the Hugo area is largely unknown. Commissioner Luchsinger states the importance of having a development that fits in well with the surrounding environment and that the design of the building is the aspect that is still in question. Because the applicant relies on tax funds, the design of the building is budgeted in a manner that may not allow extensive architectural design. However, the applicant is willing to add additional designs to the building elevations to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Shwickert suggest that the best way to ensure that the building possesses pleasing architecture while remaining within budget would be to add more detail to the most visible side of the building and less detail on the less visible, back side of the building. Shwickert goes on to explain that window shutters are not as modern as other designs. The engineers who designed the building feel as though window shutters are not necessary. Arcand explains that if there is another way the building could be "dressed up", the commission would be willing to make compromises. Shwickert states that screening mechanical equipment will not be a major concern due to the fact that most of the mechanical equipment will be installed within the building itself. Chair Kleissler states that she is unsure about the dimensions of the building. She would like to know the measurements of the outcrops and breaking shown on the exterior elevations. Shwickert states that he is not sure what the depth is of the elevations but he and the applicant will work on that aspect. Juba addresses Chair Kleissler by stating that when the applicant submits a site plan and applies for a conditional use permit, measurements and a variety of viewing angles showing the depth of the building design will be included within the new elevations. The details do not yet exist within the sketch plan.