My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-07-2016 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2016
>
09-07-2016 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/7/2017 10:02:44 AM
Creation date
6/7/2017 10:48:24 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.
/
56
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 – August 3, 2016 3 <br /> <br />9. The proposed addition is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. <br /> <br />Variance Findings: <br />10. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code <br />because the addition would maintain side yard setbacks consistent with other dwellings in <br />the neighborhood. <br />11. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets <br />the City’s housing goal of encouraging property investment that complements and <br />enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. <br />12. The proposed addition to allow for a second garage stall is a reasonable use of the <br />property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the <br />requested variance. <br />13. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of its narrow width <br />of approximately 80 feet and its topography. The unique characteristics of the property <br />were not created by the property owners. <br />14. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood <br />because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other <br />construction in the area. <br />15. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. <br />The applicant has proposed construction plans that are more costly than an alternative <br />considered that would have resulted in a greater encroachment in the side yard setback. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler indicated the findings of fact for this variance request support a <br />recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation <br />for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If <br />the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the <br />following six conditions: <br /> <br />1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the <br />conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City <br />Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council. <br />2. A Grading and Erosion Control permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a <br />Building Permit. <br />3. If required, a Rice Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance <br />of any City permits. <br />4. A Building Permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. <br />5. The addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal <br />structure. <br />6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this <br />matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.