My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-2016 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2016
>
06-08-2016 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2017 5:08:39 PM
Creation date
6/6/2017 4:55:07 PM
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.
/
150
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 – April 6, 2016 6 <br /> <br />14. That a detached accessory structure is a permitted accessory use and is reasonable within <br />the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. <br />15. The lot is unique in the fact that the lot’s width does not meet the City Code <br />requirements. <br />16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, <br />the placement would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage <br />requirements for typical lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The property owner would <br />match the materials used for siding and roofing to the single family dwelling, which <br />should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. <br />17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or <br />to the neighborhood as a whole as many properties within the area have accessory <br />structures that encroach in the setback requirements. <br />18. The proposed plans and variance request for the construction of a new accessory structure <br />does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff stated that 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. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff <br />recommends the following five (5) 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 accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach five (5) feet into the side yard <br />setback along the east property line. <br />3. That the accessory structure shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. <br />4. That a permit for the construction of the accessory structure/garage and a permit for the <br />construction of the driveway shall be required. That the structure shall conform to all <br />other regulations in the City Code. <br />5. That the exterior façade of the new accessory structure shall match the color and materials <br />on the existing single family dwelling on property. The final façade shall be approved by <br />the City Planner. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the property met the City’s setbacks when constructed. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff stated it was possible the garage was in conformance when constructed in <br />the 1940’s. However, under the current standards, the garage was a non-conforming structure.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.