Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for carport at 3202 Jackson Ave NE over staff objection; condition added to match house appearance
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board approved a variance reducing the required 5‑foot separation between a primary residence and an accessory metal carport to about 2.7 feet at 3202 Jackson Ave NE, with a condition that the carport be finished to match the house. Staff had recommended denial.
The Planning & Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of variance V24‑00007, allowing a proposed carport on a corner lot at 3202 Jackson Avenue NE to be located closer to the primary residence than the Land Development Code normally permits.
Why it matters: The applicant requested relief from the code’s required 5‑foot building separation and 25‑foot corner setback to permit a 20‑by‑50‑foot metal carport adjacent to the residence. Staff recommended denial, citing code intent on setbacks and metal structures, but the board approved the variance with conditions.
Staff presentation and analysis: Assistant Director Althea Jefferson explained the request and said the application did not meet staff’s interpretation of the code’s intent because the applicant proposed a 50% reduction of the 5‑foot separation and a 91% reduction of a related setback. Jefferson recommended denying the variance and noted the case will proceed to City Council after the board’s advisory recommendation.
Applicant presentation and public comment: Applicant Evan Warner told the board the carport would sit behind an existing fence, would not obstruct sightlines at the corner, and would primarily shelter his boat. Warner said he would pour a 4‑inch concrete slab and could modify finishes to make the structure visually compatible. One resident suggested locating the structure in the backyard instead of the street side; the applicant replied that a rear installation would conflict with a utility easement. A resident expressed concerns about precedent for other unpermitted structures; others questioned drainage, concrete runoff and whether a smaller width would reduce the variance needed.
Board decision and conditions: A board member moved to approve V24‑00007; the motion passed by board vote (four in favor). The board added a condition that the structure’s exterior be finished to match the house and meet applicable safety standards. Staff recorded the motion as a recommendation to city council; the council will take final action.
Ending: The variance was recommended for approval with conditions; the matter will be forwarded to City Council for final disposition.
