My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020.06.15 CC Packet
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2020 CC Packets
>
2020.06.15 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2020 11:25:30 AM
Creation date
6/26/2020 11:23:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
6/15/2020
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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
Agenda Number J.1 <br />CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY <br />DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br />PLANNING AND ZONING <br />APPLICATION STAFF REPORT <br />TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator <br />FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform through Rachel Juba, Community <br />Development Director <br />SUBJECT: Pratt Ordway Properties. Request for a PUD Amendment and Site Plan <br />for “Victor Place” (PID 19-031-21-24-0077 and 19-031-21-23-0154) (City <br />File No. 20-007) <br />DATE: June 9, 2020 for the City Council Meeting of June 15, 2020 <br />REVIEW DEADLINE: Waived by applicant <br />1.DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: <br />The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment and site plan to allow <br />construction of a single story, 13,879 square foot office/trail building. The development is <br />primarily located on Lot 2, Block 1, Victor Gardens Commons and partially on Outlot A, <br />Victor Gardens South Village. The parcels will be combined. <br />2.PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their May 28, 2020 <br />meeting. <br />In addition to the applicant, there were five residents to speak on this item. The primary <br />concerns from the residents related to access, traffic volumes and speed. Staff noted <br />that the streets were planned to accommodate the traffic, but indicated that City staff <br />would follow up with the residents to discuss their concerns. <br />The applicant spoke and indicated that they did not want to modify the roofline as <br />recommended by staff. The staff recommendation was to balance the roofline so the <br />same pitched elements were mirrored on the north and south elevations, but the <br />applicant indicated that they felt that their plan was more cost effective and met the <br />intent of the PUD. <br />The Planning Commission discussed the item and was split 3-3 on whether to support <br />the applicant’s roofline proposal. Some Commissioners felt that the roofline should be <br />revised to be consistent with Victor Gardens PUD standards but others were okay with <br />the change. After discussion, the Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.