Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB tables request for 1,200‑sq‑ft detached garage at 6588 New Albany Conduit Road
Summary
The Architectural Review Board on May 12 tabled ARB 26‑2025, a request to build a 1,200 sq ft detached garage at 6588 New Albany Conduit Road, after members questioned whether the proposed double‑wide door and front‑facing orientation ‘substantially meet’ the urban center code’s intent. The applicant may revise and return within 60 days.
The New Albany Architectural Review Board voted unanimously on May 12 to table application ARB 26‑2025, which sought approvals and waivers for a 30×40×10 ft (1,200 sq ft) detached garage at 6588 New Albany Conduit Road.
Staff described the proposal as a barn‑style detached garage with wood siding and a proposed 16‑foot‑wide by 8‑foot‑tall single bay door. Staff said the garage would be 15 feet tall, roofed in a steel color shown in the materials board and recommended a condition to change the roof color to match the existing house. The application requests three waivers: exceeding the 800 sq ft accessory‑structure maximum, a 16‑ft wide door where the urban center code generally allows 10 ft single doors, and a reduced side setback of 5 ft where 15 ft is normally required.
Property owners Dan and Danielle Jeffers told the board they had considered other placements but that the existing driveway, adjacency to the property line and the desire to match neighboring detached garages limited options. "If we moved it away from the property and went with the double doors, it would cause we'd have to push the barn back further," Dan Jeffers said, describing how reorientation would lengthen the driveway and reduce backyard space.
Board members repeatedly pressed staff and the applicants on whether the submission met the waiver standard requiring that the proposal "substantially meet the intent" of the urban center and design standards. One committee member questioned how a double‑wide, front‑facing door could meet the intent of standards written to encourage single doors and discourage garage doors visible from the street. The member said he could accept some waivers (for example, the reduced setback) but "I don't know how a double door can substantially meet the intent" of the code.
Several members suggested design compromises — two single doors, a connector to the primary house, or relocating the structure further back — and offered to help the applicants with sketches. Staff also noted a neighbor had provided written support for a reduced setback.
Rather than deny the application, a motion to table the item for 60 days to allow the applicants to work with staff and the board passed unanimously. The chair and members encouraged the Jeffers to submit revised plans and said working with staff sketches could produce a design the board could approve without a new application fee.
Next steps: The applicants may work with staff and board members on revised designs and return within the 60‑day window for reconsideration. If the board ultimately denies an application, the transcript shows the applicants would face the standard re‑application process and fees; tabling preserves the opportunity to amend without that penalty.
