My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-2020-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
01-13-2020-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 4:15:46 PM
Creation date
1/9/2020 2:22:28 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.
/
177
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, 2019 4 <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff recommend approval of Planning Case 19-015 for a <br />Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as <br />amended by the conditions below: <br /> <br />1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. <br />2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City <br />Code. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on <br />this matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Vice Chair Jones opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth reported this property was zoned R-2 which required a front yard <br />setback of 40 feet. He commented a standard lot was to have 11,000 square feet and the sum of <br />all floors within a structure shall be no more than 30% of the total square footage of the lot <br />(FAR). He indicated at last month’s meeting the Planning Commission tabled action on this item <br />due to the concerns that were raised by the architect with respect to the definition of habitable <br />space. He stated it was his understanding the applicant was no longer working with this architect. <br />He explained he was concerned with the fact the applicant was using an 11,000 square foot lot in <br />its FAR calculation with the lot was less than 9,400 square feet. He feared the applicant was not <br />properly addressing the City’s FAR requirements and asked what was happening with the house <br />redesign. He questioned why the Commission should consider granting a variance when the City <br />had no understanding of what would be built on the property. <br /> <br />Andrew Peterson, Architect with Design Filter, stated he was trying to address the initial 10- <br />foot encroachment into the front yard setback. He believed the FAR was a separate issue from <br />the variance. He explained the variance was being requested at this time to allow him to know <br />what he had to work with on the property before designing the home. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth asked if the architect would be working to meet the City’s FAR <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson reported this was the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth inquired if a variance request would be coming back before the City <br />for FAR. <br /> <br />Richard Priore, applicant, stated he could not say at this time. He explained the new architect <br />would like to better understand how much land was available to work with before designing a <br />home for the lot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.