The board’s decision followed a discussion about the implications of the proposed fence, which would be built on a 15,126 square foot corner lot. Staff highlighted that the current ordinance allows for a maximum of four feet for opaque fences in corner side yards, with six feet permitted only if the fence is open and decorative. The proposed fence exceeded these limits, raising concerns about obstruction of sightlines for both vehicles exiting driveways and pedestrians using the sidewalk. The applicant, along with co-owner Dory Niver, argued that the removal of a swimming pool, trampoline, and hedge was part of their effort to improve the outdoor space, and the new fence was intended to create a safer, more private environment.

During the public hearing, the applicant contended that the fence aligned with neighborhood styles and aesthetic standards. They stressed that their intention was not driven by economic factors but by a desire for improved quality of life. However, board members questioned the necessity of the height increase, pointing out that the property did not have unique characteristics compared to others on 39th Street. The board also explored potential compromises, such as a four-foot solid fence with transparent elements above, but the applicant insisted that a solid fence was necessary to buffer street noise and ensure privacy.

The discussion revealed no significant opposition from neighbors, with some expressing support for the variance request. However, the board ultimately decided that the proposal did not meet the necessary legal findings for variance approval, particularly concerning public safety standards. The decision was made to uphold staff recommendations, and the applicant was advised to consult with staff for alternative solutions.

In another noteworthy deliberation, the board considered a variance request for increased signage at a multi-tenant commercial building on Nicollet Avenue. The applicant sought to expand the signage from the 54 square feet allowable to 66.67 square feet, comprising a projecting sign and two wall signs. Staff recommended denial, citing concerns about visual clutter and adherence to zoning district standards. Board members questioned the rigidity of these regulations, particularly given the building’s design, which seemed to accommodate the proposed signage. One board member suggested that the business could be required to create two separate entities to meet the current signage regulations, a notion that highlighted perceived inconsistencies within the code.

The applicant’s representative, Kelsi Sharp, pointed out the financial burden of the variance process and noted inconsistencies in enforcement, as other tenants in the building displayed larger signs. Sharp argued that the proposed signage was architecturally consistent and necessary to fill existing transom spaces. The board expressed frustration with the signage code, debating whether to uphold the staff’s recommendation or support local business needs by granting the variance. The deliberation remained unresolved.

Additionally, the board approved a variance request related to signage for a business that aimed to match the size of existing signs at neighboring businesses. Despite staff recommendations against it, the board voted in favor of the variance, acknowledging the practical difficulties of resizing the sign and the alignment with established signage practices in the area. The approval was granted by a four-to-one vote.