Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Flat Roof Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants flat‑roof variance for two commercial parcels at 2135 Fairview Boulevard

Fairview Board of Zoning Appeals · July 30, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved a variance allowing primarily flat or hybrid flat roofs on two proposed multi‑tenant buildings at 2135 Fairview Boulevard, while instructing the developer to submit site plans to planning commission and meet remaining code requirements.

The Fairview Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance July 28 allowing the developer to use a primarily flat or "hybrid flat" roof on two multi-tenant commercial buildings at 2135 Fairview Boulevard, despite a section of the CD4 character district that currently prohibits flat roofs. The motion passed by roll-call vote after board discussion about whether the code's form-based provisions reflected the long-standing pattern of flat-roof commercial buildings along Fairview Boulevard.

Staff consulting planner Kevin Chastain told the board the CD4 district prohibition on flat roofs is in table 4.30.1-f of the new development code adopted April 2 and that, while staff could not recommend approval under standard 1 (because the request is not based on a physical constraint), staff also acknowledged the established pattern of flat roofs along the corridor and said staff is preparing code updates. "The roof design on the buildings ... is primarily flat in nature," Chastain said in the staff presentation; staff's recorded condition requires the owner to submit a site development plan to planning commission and meet all development-code requirements at that subsequent review.

Board members debated applying the text of the new hybrid form-based code versus the "spirit of the law" and whether an ordinance amendment should be sought first. Several board members favored approving the variance so the developer would not be forced to wait the estimated four-month ordinance-amendment timeline; staff reminded the members that any specific elevations and site plans are not binding until reviewed by planning commission and that required buffering and screening would still apply.