Historic preservation panel declines to approve as-built height for 1123 6th Street S addition

Commissioners on the Fargo Historic Preservation Commission declined to approve an as‑built height variance and amended certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 1123 6th Street South after finding the work on site differed materially from the drawings the commission had previously reviewed.

Chelsea Leverson of the city planning department told the commission the addition was built with a higher roofline, modified window openings and an omitted dormer compared with the plans the commission approved in September. Leverson said the property is within the Erskine historic overlay and that a variance of special development standards requires at least four approval votes.

Homeowner Christine Johnson told the commission she pulled a permit and proceeded while still securing a contractor, and that her interior mockups and the contractor’s sequencing led to changes in window placement and roof construction. "My intention has always been to match the window styles," Johnson said, adding that she had misunderstood some permitting and code requirements.

Chris Rose, assistant director of inspections, told the commission that building‑code egress requirements must be met regardless of the certificate of appropriateness action and that the city had a stop‑work order in place. "They didn't build what was submitted," Rose said, describing differences between the submitted plans and the constructed work and explaining that some of the smaller replacement windows as installed would not meet egress requirements for sleeping rooms.

Commissioners pressed for options, including revising the existing structure with dormers or returning with amended drawings that show how the project will meet both the overlay standards and code egress requirements. Planning staff pointed to ordinance No. 4,821, which the packet cites as prohibiting an addition taller than the principal building, and said that height was the primary concern that would need to be resolved before other elements could move forward.

A commissioner moved to approve the construction and roof height "as built," and the motion was seconded, prompting a roll‑call vote. During the roll call several named members—Larson, Green, Fisher and Holden—voted "no." Staff and commissioners said the vote short of the supermajority required for a variance would leave the certificate denied and the stop‑work order in place, with appeal options available to the owner.

The commission directed staff to work with the owner and inspections on remedies and to advise the owner about appeal procedures and a possible resubmission. The commission paused the meeting to complete the process and indicated it would return to finish any outstanding procedural items.

The certificate of appropriateness and variance action remains unresolved pending the commission’s final recorded action and any appeals or revised submittals from the owner.