Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Accessory Structure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Adjustments approves variance for larger detached garage at 1122 Seventh Avenue South

5833053 · September 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Adjustments approved a variance allowing a detached accessory garage larger and taller than zoning standards at 1122 Seventh Avenue South, overturning staff’s recommendation to deny because two of the five required variance criteria were not met.

On Sept. 23, 2025, the Board of Adjustments approved a variance allowing a new detached accessory structure at 1122 Seventh Avenue South to exceed two development standards: maximum accessory height and maximum accessory floor area.

Staff told the board the property is zoned SR3, which limits accessory-structure height to 15 feet and requires accessory floor area not to exceed the primary structure’s footprint. Planning staff said the applicant proposed a 36-foot by 30-foot detached garage with a height of 18 feet 9 inches and an additional third car stall. “Upon staff review, we are noting that criteria A and C are not met,” staff said, referring to the board’s five-criterion variance test.

The variance matter mattered because staff found the application did not meet two required legal criteria: that the variance arise from conditions unique to the property that are not the result of the owner’s actions (criterion A) and that strict application of the standard would cause unnecessary physical — not merely economic — hardship (criterion C). Kim, the planning staff member briefing the board, said staff therefore recommended denial.

The applicant, who owns the property, told the board the existing garage is in poor condition and does not allow a car and storage to coexist. “That garage is being held together with cables,” the applicant said. She said the current garage measures about 22 feet 6 inches by 28 feet 10 inches and the proposed structure would be roughly 36 by 30 feet to allow three cars and an upstairs storage area accessed by a staircase rather than a pull-down ladder.

Board members discussed alternatives raised during review: attaching a larger garage to the house (which would change foundation and site requirements), constructing a breezeway to count the accessory structure as attached, or expanding the primary house footprint (which would also change site layout). Building-inspections staff confirmed a breezeway would count as attached but would require a full foundation for both breezeway and garage.

Planning staff provided these numerical details from their records: the primary house footprint is 704 square feet; the applicant’s proposed accessory structure footprint was listed as 1,080 square feet. The proposed accessory height (18 feet 9 inches) exceeds the SR3 maximum of 15 feet; the applicant said she reduced the garage roof pitch from the house’s 12/12 to 10/12 to lower the peak while keeping a similar appearance.

Board members expressed both concern for maintaining single-family neighborhood proportions and sympathy for reinvestment in older homes. A motion to accept staff findings and deny the variance failed on a roll call. A second motion to approve the requested variances passed by roll call vote: Polchinski — yes; Worth — no; Wendell Dopp — yes; Michael Love — yes. The board approved the variance permitting the detached garage to exceed the cited development standards.

No neighborhood comments were recorded in staff’s packet and none were received by staff prior to the hearing, the planning briefing said. The board also discussed an impending land development code update (the city’s 1998 land development code is under review), and several members noted that pending code changes weighed on their deliberations but did not alter the recorded vote.

The board’s approval allows the applicant to proceed subject to usual permit and inspection requirements; no additional direction to staff or conditions were recorded in the transcript at the time of the vote.