Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies proposed two‑story accessory building and garage at 827 NW 17th, citing incompatibility
Summary
After repeated reviews, the commission denied with prejudice a plan to rebuild a two‑story accessory structure and an attached garage, finding the replacement does not approximate known historic massing, includes an unpermitted foundation and sits on or near property lines.
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The commission denied with prejudice HPCA25-0000115, an application to reconstruct a two‑story accessory building and a garage at 827 Northwest 17th Street. Staff had recommended denial, citing inadequate documentation and a design that failed to approximate the historic structure the applicant said existed on the site.
Applicant Holly Hunt argued the two‑story structure was historically present and had been used as housing for decades. “This twotory structure was never used as a garage,” she told the commission, saying photographs and foundations suggest a historic two‑story building and that the structure’s restoration is a priority for the owner. Commissioners and staff, however, flagged an unpermitted concrete foundation placed without inspections, placement that crosses property lines, and roof, window and door proportions that do not match the historic evidence in the record.
Staff said the existing on‑site foundation should not form the basis for approving a replacement structure and noted that even if a two‑story form is rebuilt it must be located and detailed to approximate documented historic form. Commissioners asked the applicant to refile with a revised proposal that isolates the accessory building (without the garage) and includes clearer evidence and revised designs that match documented historical footprints and forms.
Outcome: The commission voted to deny the application with prejudice, meaning the exact same submission cannot be reheard without substantive change or new information. Staff advised the applicant that removing the proposed garage from future submissions and focusing on a revised two‑story accessory building that better approximates known historic character would be the most viable path forward.

