My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-04-13 PC Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2013
>
12-04-13 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2014 10:41:01 AM
Creation date
3/5/2014 10:40:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 20134 <br /> <br />4. The lot is comparably unique in the City. The property is situated on a lot that slopes <br />significantly from west to east approximately 29 feet, therefore creating a lot where the <br />placement of an attached or detached garage within the setback requirements is <br />exceptionally difficult. <br />5. Since the proposed addition would not encroach any further into the front yard setbacks <br />than the existing structure, the construction of this accessory structure (with overhang <br />addition) is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood. <br />6. The addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design <br />and the use of high quality materials for the detached structure should minimize the <br />impacts on surrounding property owners. <br />7. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to <br />be based on economic considerations alone. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff <br /> stated the findings of fact for this variance request support a <br />recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a <br />recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons <br />for the denial. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the <br />following four (4) conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted, as amended <br />by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by <br />the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council. <br />2. That the new structure shall not encroach any further into the front yard setback than that <br />of the existing structure. <br />3. That the new structure shall not exceed the height of the existing structure, which is based <br />on the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface <br />as defined by the building code. <br />4. That the color and roof material of the detached garage shall match or complement the <br />existing primary residential structure, and shall conform to all other requirements in the <br />R-2 Zoning District. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff <br />reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1.Recommend Approval with Conditions. <br /> <br />2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br /> <br />3.Recommend Denial. <br /> <br />4.Table. <br /> <br />Chair Larson <br /> opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel <br /> asked if the garage door size would be increased. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff <br />commented that this was not specified in the request and would not require <br /> <br />a variance if the size were altered. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.