Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grapples with 1 ft 10 in height variance and whether code change or denial is appropriate
Summary
A quasi‑judicial hearing on a variance request for 2709 Bay Boulevard exposed disagreement over measurement methods, whether the request shows a legal hardship versus a design preference, and whether the commission vote met a four‑member supermajority required for increases in maximum building height.
The City Commission held a quasi‑judicial hearing and vote on BOA case 2026‑02, a variance request to increase maximum building height by 1 ft 10 in (from 35 ft to 36 ft 10 in) at 2709 Bay Boulevard.
Planning presenter (Heading) described measuring method used by staff (building height measured from crown of road to midpoint of gable or top of flat roof) and explained the proposed elevations. The applicant (John) explained the requested height increases were to allow reasonable interior ceiling heights (for example, an 11‑ft garage ceiling and a 10‑ft first‑living‑floor ceiling) while keeping the living floor above the design flood elevation. Applicant said the proposed design meets flood mitigation requirements.
Commissioners and neighbors questioned whether the request was a legitimate hardship or a desired design choice. One commissioner noted that the city’s 35‑ft limit is measured from a point that some neighboring communities calculate differently (e.g., from base flood elevation rather than crown of road), and suggested a broader code review would be the appropriate remedy if measurement rules are outdated. Another commissioner called the justification “a desire” rather than a hardship.
The Board of Adjustments had approved the variance 4–2. The commission’s recorded votes on the variance were contested during the meeting: a motion to reject was made and put to a roll call, and a subsequent motion to approve received a majority but—after the city attorney read the code—commissioners noted that any increase in maximum building height requires a favorable vote of four or more members. The attorney advised staff and commissioners to review prior minutes and the ordinance language; staff committed to follow up and provide a legal determination. The apparent shortfall of the required four‑member supermajority left the ultimate legal status of the commission’s action unresolved in open session.
What happens next: City staff and the city attorney will review the recorded vote, consult the code language requiring four favorable votes for maximum building height increases, check prior precedent, and report back to the commission with a formal determination and any corrective steps needed.
