05-06-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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