Doug Andrey, the owner of a house at 824 Second Street Northeast, asked the planning body on July 10 for a variance to build a 240‑square‑foot accessory structure — 40 square feet larger than the municipal 200‑square‑foot limit for a second subordinate structure. Planning staff described the property as zoned R2A and said the lot measures 12,600 square feet.

The request came before staff after the owner told the commission his existing detached garage is 572 square feet and that a second 240‑square‑foot structure would allow space for three motorcycles, an ATV with a plow and a small workshop. “My simple simple shed design being 4 feet longer than code impacts no neighbor,” Andrey said during public comment.

Planning staff member Brandy said the existing garage is legal nonconforming because it does not meet the front‑yard setback; the proposed accessory structure would comply with setbacks. “Staff feels that this is a legitimate variance and not a use variance because the 2 accessory structures are subordinate to the primary use,” Brandy told the commission, and staff calculated the existing 572‑square‑foot garage plus the proposed 240‑square‑foot structure would total 816 square feet.

Commissioners noted there were no written objections from adjacent property owners and discussed practical hardships and construction constraints on the lot. One commissioner said the literal reading of the ordinance compelled a no vote for that reason, while another urged that staff bring an ordinance amendment to the planning commission so similar applications would not require repeated variances.

Commissioners and staff also discussed the ordinance history. Brandy said the accessory‑structure provisions had been revised earlier in the year to address “bulking on a property” and to preserve the distinction between small garden sheds and larger accessory buildings. The transcript records attendees noting a wider industry trend toward larger garden‑shed models and suggestions to consider updating the local threshold to about 240 square feet.

A motion to approve the variance was moved by Commissioner Speyer and seconded by Commissioner Tate. The meeting record in the provided transcript stops before a final roll‑call or vote tally for this item, so the transcript excerpt does not show the board’s recorded outcome for the variance or the individual votes.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: multiple commissioners asked staff to review the accessory‑structure size limit and bring a proposed ordinance change to the planning commission so future applicants would have clearer guidance and fewer repeat variance requests.