Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for third accessory structure at Homeplace property
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to allow a 32-by-48, 19-foot pole-barn/garage as a third accessory structure at 945 East 101st Street, citing concerns about multiple accessory buildings on a residential parcel without a primary residence and potential commercial/warehouse character.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request on Aug. 25 for a 32-by-48 pole-barn/garage at 945 East 101st Street in the Homeplace neighborhood.
Petitioner Lisa Hensler presented the request on behalf of property owner Jim Grechley, saying the proposed structure would match an existing recently completed building and would be used for personal storage including a motor home, old cars, tractors and hobby equipment. Hensler said the request sought exceptions to the accessory-structure size limit (the petitioner requested 32 by 48 feet; the existing maximum footprint cited in the staff report is 24 by 30 feet) and to the height limit (applicant requested 19 feet; existing limit cited as 18 feet).
Planning staff told the board the department generally supports the variance requests so long as there is no evidence of commercial use or outdoor storage, but staff flagged concern that three accessory structures on a single 1.1-acre residential parcel could shift the property character toward storage or warehousing rather than residential use. Staff also noted outstanding review comments from planning and engineering that the petitioner needed to address.
Board members questioned why the owner had constructed or sought multiple accessory buildings before establishing a primary dwelling on the lot and raised concerns about precedent. One board member said she was reluctant to approve successive variances without proof that a primary residence will be built; another asked the petitioner to commit that the buildings would not be used for commercial rental storage. The owner said he did not live on the property yet and said he would commit not to rent space to others.
The board discussed the site’s history; planning materials record zoning history dating to 2011 and show prior approvals and conditions related to accessory structures. The petitioner said an older garage on the property was previously required to be shored up and that he would be willing to remove the older garage once the new storage buildings were in place.
A motion to approve the variances was made and seconded, but after discussion the board voted to deny the petition. The chair announced, “The petition is denied.” No further hearings on this docket were scheduled during the meeting.
Planning staff had recommended any approval be conditional on no evidence of commercial activity or outdoor storage and on resolution of remaining review comments; the board’s denial leaves the outstanding review items and the applicant’s future plans subject to future consideration if a new petition is filed.
