Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board denies staff‑initiated greenhouse COA; staff told to pursue follow‑up enforcement
Loading...
Summary
Staff brought a staff‑initiated certificate of appropriateness for a greenhouse built without approvals at 110 North Bowie. The Historic Review Board found the glass structure likely out of scale and inconsistent with accessory‑building standards and moved to deny the request and to direct staff to pursue next steps with the property owner.
The Historic Review Board on April 14 considered a staff‑initiated application addressing an accessory greenhouse erected at 110 North Bowie without the owners present and concluded the structure is inconsistent with the design guidelines and likely exceeds accepted accessory standards.
Cliff Cross, the city’s director of development services, told the board staff had generated the COA request to resolve a constructed accessory greenhouse and to either direct owners to address the noncompliance or allow the board to act. Cross said staff lacked a confirmed square footage and exact setbacks and asked the board to consider whether the glass structure’s materials and massing fit the neighborhood.
"The glass structure itself does not meet the standard as an accessory structure to the primary structure on property," Cross said, recommending careful review of setbacks, lot coverage and materials.
Board members and staff raised concerns about the greenhouse’s height, massing, and effect on adjacent historic resources. Former council member and sitting planning commissioner Tim Dooley criticized how the structure was allowed to be constructed, saying, “How is it that a structure like this can be built in a community like ours... somebody is not doing their job.”
The board moved to deny the application on the basis that it fails to meet the cited design guidelines (including accessory building setbacks and lot‑coverage standards) and directed staff to pursue administrative enforcement and notification options, including notifying the property owner and pursuing remedies if the owner does not cooperate.
Cliff Cross said staff will follow the board’s directive and that owners will have appeal rights under the code. The action represents a formal, board‑level rejection of the unpermitted accessory structure and punts the next steps to administrative enforcement and potential appeals.
