Board of Adjustments approves variance for 334 39th Street North after debate

The Board of Adjustments on June 23 approved a variance allowing a building addition at 334 39th Street North to encroach into the required interior side setback in the General Industrial zoning district.

Kim, a city staff member, presented the request and recommended denial, saying, "So, upon review, staff find that criteria A and C are not met." Staff noted that many of the lots in the area were built under a previous land development code and are now legal nonconforming, and that a supermajority (four votes) is required to grant a variance.

Brandon Hyatt, project manager at Architek Architects, told the board the applicant is "requesting this variance ... from the 20-ft setback to 5 ft in order to allocate ... the building in alignment with the overall structure." Hyatt said reorienting the building or altering the manufacturer's equipment layout would create operational difficulties and additional structural and concrete costs, and that moving the addition would remove seven parking stalls and could force a later parking-reduction request.

Jeff Moral, Principal of Protect Architects, echoed Hyatt: "we are in a bit of a bind so to speak in terms of the variance ... infringing on the current setback would be probably the least obtrusive and still allow for normal functioning business." Both presenters said alternatives would have trade-offs for parking and site circulation.

Board members asked whether pending changes to the land development code might affect setbacks; staff said the city had no clarity on imminent code changes. Staff also confirmed that all neighboring properties within 300 feet were noticed and that no written comments had been received.

After staff recommended denial, one board member moved to accept staff findings and deny the variance, citing that review criteria in section 20-09-14.e.1 (A and C) were not met. Another commissioner opposed that motion, pointing to precedent of similar encroachments in the industrial park and prior approvals. The original mover withdrew the denial motion and the second was withdrawn; a new motion to approve the variance was then made and seconded.

The chair called the roll. Commissioners Gunkelman, Wendel Duff, Pilchensky, Worth and Love each voted "yes," and the motion to grant the variance passed by roll call.

Staff noted that a full site plan review may still be required and could address circulation and parking adjustments. The board took no other business and adjourned.

The variance approval reverses staff's recommendation and leaves potential parking and site-plan implications to later review; the applicant will proceed with design consistent with the approved encroachment.