Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFTARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2020 6 <br /> <br />Richard Priore, applicant, explained the house as presented meet all City Code requirements. <br />He indicated he could build this home tomorrow without needing a variance. However, because <br />he was requesting additional space for a therapy room, he needed to come before the Planning <br />Commission. He questioned why the neighbors were struggling with the additional space given <br />the fact the envelope of the home would not change. He understood the neighbors wanted to <br />preserve the neighborhood, but stated he would be dramatically improving the lot. He explained <br />the height of the house was within City Code. He stated he was having a hard time <br />understanding why the neighbors were objecting to the project when the home would be built per <br />the plans whether or not the FAR was approved. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig thanked the public for their comments and brought the discussion back to the <br />Planning Commissioners. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig explained the request before the Commission was for a FAR variance. He <br />reported the home itself did not require any variances to City Code. He stated because the <br />exterior footprint of the home would not be increased and because the additional space was for a <br />good use, he supported the proposed request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones agreed with Chair Gehrig and reiterated that the structure itself required no <br />variances to City Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys explained she had concerns with the fact the home plans were of a new <br />design. She indicated if the home had been built with a .3 FAR it would have a smaller envelope <br />and would not have the capacity for the therapy room. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig reported the home could be built per the plans today and the extra spaces could be <br />used as storage. However, the applicant was asking to convert the space into useable space in <br />order to provide a therapy room for their special needs son. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated he supported the FAR increase. He believed this was a <br />reasonable request and the lot was unique. He explained he could support the FAR increase <br />because the essential character of the property would not be altered because the envelope meets <br />City Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth reported he did not believe the Commission could review and approve <br />this request because it did not have adequate information. He believed the Commission needed <br />to be able to review a complete package that demonstrates compliance with all applicable State, <br />County and local statutes and codes. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig indicated the Planning Commission’s scope was to review variances requests per <br />City Code. He explained the Commission does not review every building request if there were <br />no variance requests. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth stated he could support this variance in order to move forward but <br />noted in doing this without the required documentation was a concern to him. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla apologized to the Planning <br />Commission for not including the house elevations within the packet. He noted this information