there are a pair of variances at play here for 4155 41st Avenue South. Um looking at maximum lot cover and maximum impervious surface. Um as I understand it, we heard back from the applicants earlier today that they'd been in touch with some of the neighbor uh property owners that had some concerns about the project. um they've requested a continuation for one meeting cycle so that they can um continue to work on that feedback and potentially modify the plans to find um something of a compromised solution um that works better for those neighboring property owners.

One thing I will note is that because of the um 6120day rule in terms of Minnesota statute for rendering um a decision on an item, we did request and receive from the applicant a further extension past 120 days um to March 31st just in the case that if this went to potential appeals and BHC, um we'd have enough time to again render that full decision.

The spirit and intent of the ordinance regulating fence height is to encourage an aesthetic environment, allow for privacy while maintaining access to light and air, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare...The height of the fence presents a sideline issue for vehicles ex exiting the adjacent driveway who are not able to see pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk.

the overall challenge that we have um with the ordinance and why we're requesting the variance is that that sideyard is our outdoor space. Um it's not at all private as it sits today. Many cars go by every day. uh a lot of pedestrian traffic and a lot of people looking in at us at, you know, at all times. And we want to create an environment that is safer and uh more private and to reduce the noise from the traffic that's going by.

in the information that you gave us of the four houses that you had, two of them were like a 5-ft fence then with a one or 18 inch above it seeth through lattice work. and another one of the 6 ft that you just showed now you could see through the slats so it was almost considered semi-transparent. So my question to you is what's the problem with doing a 4ft solid and then doing the transparent piece component at the top because that does then allow because it's not just safety there there is a concern for people walking by and not being able to see cross into into the yard and stuff.

And I don't think um from my perspective you've really made the case what is unique about your property. Well, my and and that the if you if you um know how we're we're coming from, we have these three legal findings and one of them is there's a practical difficulty that you can't use your property in a way that um there's something about the code is making it difficult to use your property.

The applicants are proposing to install three signs at the site for a business that will occupy both 5457 and 5459 Nicollet Avenue. The first proposed sign is a projecting sign measuring 8 square feet in area. The second and third signs are wall signs mounted to fill the transom space above the entrance...The proposed total for the two wall signs and projecting sign is 66.67 67 ft with the allowed maximum of 54.

I'm just troubled here because um of your end piece where you talked about it it it doesn't do visual clutter. It's compliant. It's it fits with the plan character. And more importantly, something that the applicant said in the letter was that and and what the picture shows is that this is a design that's actually made to go from end to end of the building...if Foxy Dogs was one um entity and grooming was another entity, these signs would be allowed.

the sign code can always be difficult. We can't display a lot of um you know freedom or interpretation with anything just because uh signage is also u you know constitutionally protected. It's a form of free speech and so we're very strict on how we can regulate it as it comes down from the Supreme Court.

I'm trying to be consistent with the other tenants in the building...She's literally just matching the size of the American Family Home Insurance of the Best American Steakhouse signs that were already there...it's not like oh make the sign smaller because that existing framework is already behind the signs.

Based on the fact that the actual what I would consider the sign backing goes from end to end here and creates the larger number of the 66 ft. Whereas the actual sign because it's hand painted is less than is less than the 66 ft...I would say that we should be approving this variance because it makes sense that you have a consistent backing that goes from one corner of the the structure to the other just like the other signs on the other three or the other two buildings.

I'll say I'm going to vote against the motion. Uh, and I think unfortunately despite our friend that just talked to us, I don't think we have that much power sometimes. And I think this is a little bit outside of our purview to uh to be allowing this. I think that it's it's pretty like I think it's economic considerations. Um, and it just, you know, it the sign doesn't have to be as big and I just I can't find a practical difficulty to actually have findings and that's people can disagree with me, but that's what my conclusion I've come to.

I think uh board member Grant's course may have actually swayed me. Um I will point out that in the past um with these sort of v variances it has been structure where we've been stuck on but trees uh usually sway us and I will note that because of the structure right next to this particular piece at the end of the lot there are two trees. So let's say in a different scenario we decide to completely redesign the building and then we would have to demolish these two trees which is a natural feature of this lot. So we this would be a practical challenge.

I talked to the clerk last night about this very matter and he told me that we are not going back. The planning commission is not going back. None of the quai judicial boards are going back to where they were. And the main reason is that the we had this happen several times during our time in here is the council committees were meeting and they were running long. They had to continue their meetings because our meetings were time certain to start and so this is built out. Um, and that's the way it's going to be

my one comment about where we're meeting too is accessibility. Knowing that we're on air is, you know, with how high these counters are, is accessibility for somebody who cannot always be elevated or in instances where I cannot walk. Um, it would surely not be very accommodating to me.