Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals panel questions need for detached garage variance, cites self-imposed hardship
Summary
Board members questioned a request for a detached garage variance, calling the hardship potentially self-imposed and suggesting design alternatives (ADU, minor relocation) and removal of an unpermitted patio in the stream buffer as mitigation; no formal vote was recorded.
At the work session, Speaker 6 explained why they would deny a detached garage variance: it "does not meet the intent of the ordinance" and would amount to granting a "special privilege," because detached garages are uncommon on nearby lots. Speaker 6 noted the property already has a two-and-a-half-car attached garage and a concrete driveway that reaches the property line.
Board members explored alternatives to the variance, including moving the garage a few feet, creating a rear-out parking space, or redesigning the house so an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above a garage would alter impervious-coverage calculations. "They would still...not be getting an impervious coverage variance," Speaker 6 said when discussing whether an ADU would change the analysis, while others observed additional impervious allowance might be possible but cost-prohibitive for the homeowner.
Members also discussed an existing unpermitted patio/terrace within a stream buffer that the applicant said they would remove as part of the project; several members flagged stump-grinding and boundary-tree consequences as items staff or the tree canopy manager should address if removal is permitted. Several Board members characterized the request as a self-imposed hardship because the house design and driveway predated the proposed garage. No formal motion or vote on this specific variance was recorded during the work session.
