Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds appeal on variances for 1963 Grand Avenue and lays item over after lengthy public hearing
Summary
An appeal by Vannegus Properties to overturn a Board of Zoning Appeals denial of height and floor‑area variances for a proposed 72‑unit building at 1963 Grand Avenue drew extensive testimony for and against; council laid the matter over one week to Dec. 18 for further deliberation and consultation with the city attorney.
The City Council heard an appeal from Vannegus Properties LLC seeking variances to build a five‑story, 72‑unit multiple‑family dwelling at 1963 Grand Avenue. Department of Safety and Inspections staff presented the file and explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals had denied two key findings — practical difficulties and plight of the landowner — that were necessary to grant the variances.
David Ide of the Department of Safety and Inspections reviewed the code history and the BZA decision, noting that the public alley was opened in 1888 and that the zoning code allows the use of half the alley for lot size calculations. Staff and the BZA found the two findings not met; Ide said the alley's historic presence meant no new practical difficulty existed under the code.
The appellant, Dr. Michelle Benagos, said the developer will build the project with or without the variance but that a fifth story is needed to make two levels of underground parking financially feasible; she argued the site context and block pattern create a unique plight and practical difficulties that warrant a variance. "We're going to do this project with or without the variance," she said, adding that a four‑story design with one underground level would be possible but felt "not neighborly." Attorney Bill Griffith argued practical difficulties can include the proposed use's reasonableness and the constrained lot configuration created by historic lot lines.
More than a dozen neighbors testified, expressing concerns about setbacks, shading, alley congestion and neighborhood character. Opponents pointed to nearby precedents and argued the 40‑foot height limit for the stretch of Grand Avenue was adopted to preserve adjacent single‑family contexts. Supporters emphasized the 2040 plan and the need for transit‑oriented density.
After deliberation the council did not decide on merits that day. The council president said she found grounds to question the BZA findings but sought colleagues' views. Councilmember Naker and other members disagreed on the legal interpretation of practical difficulties versus economic feasibility. To allow more time for deliberation and consultation with the city attorney, the council voted to lay the appeal over to December 18 for final action.
