05-06-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT A: a document titled “3 April 2020 DESCRIPTION OF FAR VARIANCE REQUEST -- 3244 SANDEEN ROAD”. This was emailed to Jim Day April 28, 2020 from Joe Hartman. Referring to the 396 sf in part it states, “The additional square footage could be captured above the garage or in the basement”. “In the basement” is confusing because that area of the structure should already be included in the calculation for the FAR of this structure. So, why is a variance being requested? For this structure, to be .30 FAR code compliant, the total square footage of the three floors would need to be 2970sf. (.30 x 9900sf lot = 2970 sf.) We have asked the property owner and Mr. Hartman for more information, specifically the square footage on each floor to provide a verification of their calculation. In spite of repeated assurances from the property owner that he would be open with us and show us the plans, all we have been given is an elevation diagram. This makes us very concerned that the calculation is omitting livable areas that may be converted into occupied space once the planning commission is no longer involved in the process and only sympathetic city officials are involved. 2) The requested square footage above code is simply excessive. The FAR increase from .30 to .34 seems small looking at the numbers, but that equates to an increase in square footage of 13% above code. a. The Code- allowed house square footage is 2970. (.30 x 9900 sf. Lot = 2970) b. The requested variance is 396 square feet. (396/2970 = 13%) 3) Question: If the square footage exceeding code is not visible from the exterior, is that a justification for a variance? We raise this question after getting Joe Hartmann’s statement in a letter sent to affected property owners ( dated April 24, 2020) announcing the May 6th Planning Commission meeting. In part it says “…the proposed home has been designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior…” Where does a “can’t see it” approval end? At … 1,000, 1500 sf.? How can the planning commission deny future requests after this precedent is established? 4) Are all parties acting in good faith? We remain very concerned about this planned construction. The owner does not seem to be negotiating in good faith. At the December meeting of the Planning Commission, the new architect said that detailed drawings could not be made until the constraints on the design were understood. At that meeting the Planning Commission stated that the design must be in substantial compliance with the FAR. Yet, even after replacing the architect, the proposed FAR variation remains what is was when the house was first proposed six months ago. Finally, we are extremely concerned with a process that would approve a variance when the design remains so vague, or is being concealed. At this point why is there no more detail available on the design?