Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graham Shed Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Graham shed and retaining-wall variance at Kerrigan Ridge to allow revision and resubmittal
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals tabled the Graham residence application (25-104 V) for a shed and associated retaining walls at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge Drive so the applicant can work with staff on design alternatives and submit additional materials; board members signaled they were more open to retaining-wall relief than the proposed shed location.
The City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to table a nonuse-area variance application for a proposed shed and associated retaining walls at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge Drive (Amberly PUD) to allow the applicant time to coordinate with staff and submit additional materials.
Planner Tammy Noble presented the staff analysis, describing the steep topography, proximity to a no-build zone and the proposed encroachment by the shed and retaining walls. "We are recommending disapproval of the nonuse area variance," Noble said during the staff presentation, while also noting that certain criteria in the alternative B test appeared met for some site elements.
Applicant Tyler Graham and designer Jeff Hausler explained the project response to a severe slope and safety concerns for young children, describing the plan to use retaining walls to create usable flat space and to site the shed in a location that minimizes tree removal. Graham said the homeowners association has approved the project and that the shed is sized to hold family and maintenance equipment; he gave the proposed shed dimensions as roughly 20 by 16 feet.
During deliberations, several board members said they could find justification for retaining walls because of topography and safety needs but were less convinced that the requested shed location was necessary or that other feasible on-site alternatives did not exist. Staff described the process and deadlines for submitting supplemental materials and explained the board may suspend submission rules for good cause.
The applicant asked the board to table the matter so he could work with staff on adjustments; the board voted in favor of tabling the application to the next available meeting so the applicant may revise plans or provide additional evidence.
What happens next: the applicant may revise shed dimensions or location, provide photographs or additional engineering/ drainage plans, and return at a future meeting; the board noted resubmission deadlines and that disapproved applications may not be resubmitted within one year without significant new facts per code.
