My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-03-2020 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
06-03-2020 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2024 12:25:26 AM
Creation date
5/29/2020 4:30:16 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.
/
79
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—May 6, 2020 6 <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 /> Chair Gehrig thanked the public for their comments and brought the discussion back to the <br /> Planning Commissioners. <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 /> Commissioner Jones agreed with Chair Gehrig and reiterated that the structure itself required no <br /> variances to City Code. <br /> Commissioner Jeffreys 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 <br /> was included in the information that was emailed within the PowerPoint presentation. He stated <br /> if the Commission believes they need additional time to review the elevations the item could be <br /> tabled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.