Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment denies variance for VNN Enterprises at 460 W. Garfield
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied VNN Enterprises’ variance request for a 3,890 sq ft commercial storage building at 460 West Garfield, finding the requested relief from façade, roof and sidewalk standards did not meet variance criteria; staff recommended denial and public commenters discussed code and economic development tradeoffs.
The Board of Adjustment voted 4–2 to deny a variance request from VNN Enterprises for a proposed commercial storage building at 460 West Garfield Street.
Planning staff presented the application and recommended denial after concluding the variance findings in the Unified Development Code were not met. Staff noted the parcel is regularly shaped, meets dimensional standards, and that a code‑compliant building could be constructed without the requested relief. The variance sought relief from façade articulation, roof articulation, fence articulation, and a sidewalk requirement.
Owner Johnny Vasquez and his representative said the building is intended for private business storage and not public access. The applicant’s team argued the code does not account for an accessory‑style commercial building—a gap they said creates hardship. "My intentions are to have something that looks really nicer as in comparison as to what I've got right now," Vasquez said, describing his longtime property stewardship.
Staff maintained the variance findings were not met and suggested the applicant pursue a code text amendment if the community wants to accommodate a commercial accessory category. Former board member Brett Glass also urged the commission to consider the matter in the planning commission role or recommend a text amendment so the UDC can be updated to reflect practical business needs.
At roll call the Board recorded four yes votes for denial and two no votes: Pacino, Moody and O'Toole voted yes; Schneider and Matamore voted no. The chair announced the variance denial.
Staff noted one call in support and three inquiries; Public Works opposed the sidewalk variance. Board members who supported denial cited the code’s intent to preserve long‑term pedestrian scale and community character and found the evidence did not show a hardship that would justify broad relief from multple design standards.
Staff advised that applicants may pursue a text amendment to the Unified Development Code; staff offered to help scope potential code changes and review referenced sections concurrently with comprehensive planning work.
