The primary focus of the meeting was the contentious variance applications concerning a property located at the intersection of 4th Street North and 33rd Avenue North. This property, which houses an existing two-story, two-family dwelling, is designated under Urban Neighborhood 1 and Interior 1 zoning with form overlay districts. The property owner submitted four variance requests to retain noncompliant improvements that included a taller fence, increased impervious surface coverage, reduced yard requirements for a ground-level patio, and an expanded driveway width. These modifications had been made without prior approval, prompting a site inspection and subsequent identification of code violations.

Board members carefully examined the details of each variance. The first request sought permission to increase the height of a fence from four feet to six feet in the front and corner side yards. Despite this, city staff recommended denial, asserting that the variance did not align with the ordinance’s objectives for aesthetics, privacy, and public welfare.

The second variance proposal aimed to increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from 60% to 89%. Staff highlighted that this significant increase would exacerbate stormwater runoff issues and negatively affect local infrastructure, stressing that the parcel size did not present unique circumstances to justify such a departure from the ordinance. These regulations are intended to mitigate urban heat effects and promote landscaping space, goals which staff believed would be compromised by the proposed changes.

The third variance requested a reduction in the minimum front yard and corner side yard requirements to zero feet for a patio. Staff noted that sufficient buildable area existed at the rear of the property, making this variance unnecessary. The proximity of the patio to the property line also posed potential impacts on neighboring properties, further supporting the staff’s recommendation for denial.

The final variance sought to increase the maximum driveway width to 22.6 feet. Staff found that compliance challenges were not present, as the space allowed for a 20-foot wide driveway was adequate. They argued that an expanded driveway would disrupt parking in the neighborhood and alter the locality’s character by increasing visibility from the public right-of-way.

During the public hearing, the property owner expressed confusion about the need for variances, claiming that previous interactions with municipal services and contractors led them to believe permits were not required for the work done. They emphasized the safety concerns for their vulnerable resident and the challenges posed by a narrow curb cut exacerbated by winter conditions, which complicated vehicle access. The owner also mentioned prior variances that had been approved, which they believed justified their current requests.

Board members deliberated over the owner’s claims and the staff’s recommendations. One member acknowledged that the property owner had likely received inaccurate information regarding permit requirements.” Nevertheless, they emphasized the need to adhere to the legal criteria required for granting variances, which were not met in this case.

Ultimately, the board voted to adopt the staff’s findings and deny all variance applications, with four members in favor and one against.