The case centered around a property on Niti Road, where the applicant sought permission to construct a 1,200-square-foot accessory building, exceeding the typical size limit of 800 square feet for such structures. The property, zoned as R3 multifamily, already housed a primary structure measuring 3,000 square feet. Stephanie Streer, an associate planner for Community Development, presented the case, highlighting that the proposal was larger than a previous 900-square-foot shed approved in 2017 and exceeded the current code allowance by 400 square feet.

The staff recommended approval, contingent on the board weighing six criteria equally. Concerns were raised by a resident, Marilyn Esy, who feared the building’s industrial appearance might disrupt the residential area and lead to noise or unauthorized business activities. However, the applicant’s representative, Steven D. Clark, assured the board that the structure was intended solely for storing antique cars, and would include two inches of insulation to mitigate noise and temperature concerns. Clark emphasized that both he and his wife, retired music professors residing at the location for over 25 years, had no intention of operating a business from the property. He assured that the building would aesthetically match their home, featuring similar colors and materials.

Throughout the discussion, the board members expressed interest in the design specifics, such as the building’s height, confirmed to be ten feet at the sides and approximately thirteen feet at the peak. Clark noted that the structure would be concealed from road view by a surrounding six-foot wooden fence. Questions about the building’s exterior materials were addressed, confirming adherence to code requirements with a design consistent with the principal structure’s aesthetic.

As the floor opened for public comments, no residents came forward to express support or opposition. This lack of public engagement cleared the way for procedural motions, including closing the public hearing, which proceeded without objections. Board members then deliberated the proposal, with discussions focusing on sound insulation and the importance of meeting code requirements. A member suggested including a condition for sound insulation to prevent future noise complaints, though others deemed it unnecessary given the information provided.

The conversation also touched upon the city’s rationale for size limitations on accessory buildings, which aim to maintain aesthetic harmony and ensure the structures do not overshadow primary residences. Despite the building’s size, it was considered acceptable within the neighborhood context, given the property’s ample space. The board ultimately expressed satisfaction with the proposed design, noting its compliance with community standards and zoning regulations.

A motion to approve the application, based on the criteria of the Land Development code, was made and seconded. The vote passed unanimously, allowing the applicant to proceed with constructing the oversized accessory structure. Following the decision, the board briefly discussed recent member resignations and the need to fill vacancies, expressing willingness to recommend candidates to the council. The meeting concluded with a unanimous vote to adjourn.