[snorts] Good afternoon. This is the December 4th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment regular meeting. My name is Matt Perry and I'm chair of this board. I will now call this meeting or to order and ask the clerk to call the role so that we may verify the presence of quorum. >> Callahan is absent. Icults >> here. >> Grants Korsch >> here. >> Hutchkins is absent. Ingram >> I smear >> is absent. Wang >> here. >> Chair Perry >> here. >> There are five members present. >> We do have quorum. With that, we'll proceed to our agenda. Copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative information management system available at limbs.minneapolis.gov. I would like to have that amended. So, if someone can move to amend the agenda to include uh item 11, which would be adoption of the 2026 transition calendar. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. All in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any against? Any abstensions? That passes. So the agenda is amended. And now is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion on the motion? [sighs] Seeing none, all in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any against? S indicate by saying nay. >> Any abstensions? And that motion passes and we have an approved agenda. I believe all the board members have seen a copy of the minutes from the October 30th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All against indicate by saying nay. Any abstensions. If you were not at the last meeting, you should abstain. And with that, the motion passes. So, we have the minutes from the zoning board of adjustment October 30th, 2025 meeting approved. A reminder to applicants and others that if you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in on the sheet available from the clerk and speak clearly into the microphone. If you have not signed in, you can do so on the way out. Also to applicants and others, please contact staff after the hearing with any questions regarding your projects. And I think uh board member Samar Carva has joined us and can uh we haven't heard anything so she can vote on all items be uh to come before us. Um quick note, the chair does not vote except in the case of a tie. Let's look at the disposition recommen uh recommendations uh from staff and you give me a moment. Agenda item number four is 415541st Avenue South. This has been recommended for continuation to our next cycle and we'll talk about that more when we talk about continuations. Agenda item number five is 30 326 Harvard Street Southeast. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? I see no one. Agenda item number six is 23152nd Street West. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? I see no one. Agenda item number seven is 2749 KFax Avenue South. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? And then we have agenda item number eight, which is 3906 York Avenue South. This is a discussion item. And agenda item number nine is 5457 Nicollet Avenue. And this is also a discussion item. So let's review the items for consent. There are five, six, and seven. I want to uh open the public hearing and see if anybody would like to speak to these items or against them. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Is there a motion to adopt these on consent? >> So moved. >> Second. >> And there's a second. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Any against indicate by saying nay. Any abstensions? That motion passes. So if you were here for items five, six, or seven, your land use requests are approved. Good luck with your projects and thanks for coming downtown. Let's uh rem uh return to agenda item number four for continuance. This is uh 415541st Street Avenue South. Can staff give a a brief description of why the continuence is being requested? Thank you. Perry, members of the board. Um, yes. So, this uh came at the request of the applicant. So, uh 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. Uh we did have a lot of public comments received in the written form before this. Uh staff really doesn't have any issue with that continuation and kind of working towards that compromised solution. 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. Uh again, I'm happy to answer any questions or stand for those from the board members. I also will note if we do have anyone in the audience who came here tonight to speak um I plan to make myself available in the hallway after this item just to provide contact information and talk about that next um cycle of meeting. >> Very good. Are there any questions of Mr. Campbell? >> I see none. Thank you. Um so what did anybody come down to speak uh for for or against this item? I see no one. So, let's do let's do th this. Is there a motion to the continue the land use request? >> So, moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Um why don't we take a roll call on this >> for the continuation of item four? Icults >> I gr >> I >> Ingram >> I >> Smearova >> I >> Wong >> I >> there are five eyes. >> Great. You know one thing I do want to ask staff if you can help me out with this. We have not yet approved an agenda and we have this item continued to something. uh what uh date should it be continued to since we don't have an approved transition calendar yet? Chair Perry, members of the board, uh correct me if I'm wrong, clerk's office, but uh you know, we'll be adopting the calendar, the transitional calendar here soon. Presumably, that will be January 15th. Um, I think with the way things are going right now and the council and the calendar not formally adopted as of yet, we can just say to the next regular meeting of the board of adjustment and that would suffice. >> Can can we do that now? >> Yeah, that would that would be >> we have to have it be a motion. >> Uh, the motion would be what we just um voted on. >> Okay, that's fine. Great. Thank you. Let's move on to our first item to be heard and that is item eight 3906 York Avenue South. Welcome. Thank you. >> [snorts] >> Good afternoon, Chair Perry. Board members, the application before you is located at 3906 York Avenue South and the applicant is seeking to increase the maximum height of a privacy fence in the corner sideyard from 4T to 6 ft. The subject property is a 15,126qt corner lot with an existing single family dwelling with attached garage. Go fix that. Sorry. The applicant is proposing a 6ft tall privacy fence from the driveway of the property up towards the York Avenue. Is that Thank you. >> And and if I could I request it be magnified a little bit more. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is it? >> You should see both. >> I can't see what you see. So, >> good. Okay. So, the applicant is proposing a fence from the driveway up towards um York Avenue and along the front of the house. This particular application is really just focusing on the corner sidey yard. So, we're looking at that piece there. Um the rest of the fence is allowed at the six foot height. Um so so driveway along 39th Street to the front of the dwelling on York Avenue. The fence height ordinance limits a fence in the corner side yard to four feet in height if opaque or six feet if open and decorative where additional height is only authorized as far forward as necessary to enclose an entrance facing the corner yard which there is an entrance here which is why why some of the fence is allowed at 6 ft. Um portions of the fence comply with the 6t height requirement by enclosing an entrance. However, roughly 30 ft of the proposed fence exceeds the maximum height. When analyzing a variance, several findings must be met. Staff finds that the challenges do not exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. Um, 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. Zoning requirements for maximum fence height are most most strict and required. Front yards, and these are public facing portions of a property, as these are, which are intended to allow the most visibility to and from the property. The applicant is proposing a 6-ft solid fence that extends significantly beyond the point needed to enclose the side entrance, which is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance regulating fence height. This finding is not met. If granted, the proposed variance may be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or those utilizing the property or nearby properties. 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 sidewalk. This is finding is not met. With that staff recommends denial of this requested variance and I will stand for questions. >> Thanks for that presentation. Um do do people have any questions? >> Yes. I just want a clarification on this. There's a photo shown in the application where it almost has like looks like it's six feet and then jumps to 4 feet. Is that just because the fence wasn't built and this is a partially built photo? >> Correct. The the fence is um partially built. >> Okay. So, so it is already existing at 6 feet right by that driveway which does present a hazard for for people. Okay. >> Yes. Remember, >> thank you for the presentation. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? I see none. All right. We will likely have you up again. Um I'm going to open the public hearing. I want to describe how this works. Uh with the public hearing, I open it up and the applicant speaks first. They have 10 minutes. Um can staff run the clock for 10 minutes? Okay. So you have 10 minutes to make your presentation and then other people who are supportive get to speak for two minutes and then people who are objecting get to speak for two minutes and then I close the public hearing and then the board makes decisions uh or makes motions and and makes decisions. So if you could give your name and address for the record first. I'm just letting this come up. So, >> okay. >> Good afternoon, uh, to you, chairman, and board members, and thank you for allowing us to come and present our requests directly to you um, this afternoon. My name is Patrick Hararten. I'm one of the property owners and along with me is Dory Nyiver. She's the other uh, property owner. We happen to be fiances. Um, but I that's maybe beside the point, but we're the applicants together. Um, I'm presenting on our behalf and we'll try to get our my thing up here in just a second. So um we are asking as Fatima indicated to build the fence at 6 foot versus the ordinance uh which states a maximum of 4 foot. Um and uh specifically as Fatima was kind of showing on the drawing that she had up there, we are allowed from what I understand in the ordinance to build the fence up to the front edge of a doorway, which we have done in accordance with the ordinance. And I Steve Wegman was there and he said I I was within the ordinance up to that point. Then from that point going forward we want to add um 24 ft of 6 ft fence going towards York Avenue and then tying back towards the front of the house which is about another 30 ft um going back in that direction. So, that's the specifics of what we're requesting. Um, I do have um a slide here showing the property as it was when we purchased it. We bought it in August of 2023. And as you can see from this aerial view on the top photo, there is uh the house was built to the south and west of the lot, making the backyard quite small, but enhancing the sideyard area as the outdoor space that is available for recreation and entertainment in our on our property. So, those are um some key points that we wanted to point out. In the lower photograph, that's how the property existed when we purchased it. The there was a swimming pool, a swimming pool fence. Uh there was a trampoline and then there was about a 7ft tall hedge that went all the way to the front of the lot and all the way down 39th and all the way along the driveway um that was there. So, um, that's what it looked like when we bought it. We, uh, have done some changes. This is an aerial view of the property from this summer. Obviously, not any snow on the ground at the time. Uh, we have removed the pool, as you can see. We've removed the trampoline. We've removed the pool security fence, and we've removed the hedge to open up that whole sideyard significantly. Um, and then what we're proposing is to add, as I said in the opening, about 24 ft of fencing along this side of the property going from the door forward down 39th Street and then tying about 30 ft back to the to the house. So that that's the specifics of the of the variance that we're requesting. So uh the other thing I would comment on while looking at this slide is that whole area in the front of the yard that used to be enclosed with a fence and about a 7ft high hedge. We're leaving that completely open uh so that it does create a a much more open space there and much more visibility at that by intersection of York and 39th Street. So I we think we've improved the safety situation there for pedestrians and vehicles because the corner has a much greater visibility. specific to the um page eight of the general land use application. um we have in the documents that I believe you all have um spoken to these things but the 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. So that's our our reason for requesting um the variance. It is not based on any economics. Um the property value doesn't change, I don't think. um either way. So, we're not looking to do this to to gain some economic advantage. Um if you look at the second item on the application, the property owners are authorized applicants um that we use it in a reasonable manner in keeping with the ordinance. So, we're building a fence, which you'll see a picture of it a little bit later, that is aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the neighborhood environment. And uh it's it has the same look and feel as many fences around the neighborhood. Um because we're asking for it to be 2T taller, um that's why we've asked for the variance. And in addition to the fence, uh we're wanting to build a a patio out there where we can have an outdoor cooking space, a fire pit, and be outdoors there and entertain friends and family in that space. the um proposed, you know, the variance. Um uh we don't think it uh does anything injurious uh to the environment or the property of any of our neighbors. Um it it's aesthetically in keeping with the area. We'll show you some pictures of the neighborhood in a moment. Um it doesn't erode the character of the neighborhood or impinge on our neighbors enjoyment. Um, we've all of our neighbors were informed and a lot of them checked in with us to see what we were asking for and they're in support of us. Um, no one is I don't think anyone's here to speak against it. Um, and uh, nothing about the fence we don't believe creates any kind of um, hazard or impingement on other people's safety or welfare. Uh this is a picture of me by the fence that's in the backyard uh with my six-foot pole, which becomes relevant on these following slides. Um this is pictures from the neighborhood. This is at 39th in York on a corner lot. This house has a little bit more than 6ft fence that comes all the way to the front of their house. um that is there that that seems to be um aesthetically fine, but I guess it would be outside the ordinance unless they got a variance. Right directly across the street from that on the same corner on 40 40th block of York, another fence that's also six feet tall. Um it comes not all the way to the front of the house, but more than halfway towards the front of the house. So, um, they seem to have, uh, Dakota Fence built that one. I'm not sure if there was a variance or a permit or whatever, but, um, that fence is there. Um, and this one is at the corner of Zenith and 39th. Their fence comes about 18 ft into the front yard. It's 6t tall. Um, and it, uh, is, you know, right up the street from where we are. Here is another one at 39th in Sheridan where they have a 6ft tall fence that goes to the front of their house, also past their driveway. Same thing at the corner. It's directly opposite of that house at 40th in Sheridan. They have a 5-ft fence that goes from across their driveway up the street and back to the front of the house. And then finally this one at about 6 ft at 42nd in Sheridan. So um we're we feel that we're in keeping with the aesthetic of the neighborhood and the safety and welfare of our neighborhood and we're requesting uh that you approve our our variance request. Thank you for hearing me. Sure. Thanks. Thanks for the presentation. Are there questions of the applicant? >> Thanks. Um, you've done a really good job of presenting your your case, but I am curious um, 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 understand your need for privacy, but but of the examples that you showed that at least that were in the packet, three of the four you could see through. And you're showing a very solid opaque >> piece. And so I'm questioning why couldn't you do what three out of the four that you showed did? Well, our specific reason for wanting the solid fence is that we have unlike most of the rest of the properties that I showed, we have a very busy street there with a lot of vehicle traffic and noise. Um, and the the solid fence will tend to buffer us from that noise better than a opaque fence at the top. So, that's why we're specifically asking for that. Um, and you know, to a degree, this, you know, the people walking by, um, we feel like it's our private property and that we should be able to have them not see into our yard. I'm not sure why it would be, uh, of anybody's interest to gawk into our yard. And they can see into our house and into our yard. Um, and it it it it doesn't impinge on anybody's safety or well-being if they can't look in our yard. I don't think so. That's why we're asking for the solid fence though for for both those reasons. Other questions I can answer? >> Yeah. You know, I uh I actually drive down 39th every single day. Yes. >> And I have watched this fence >> develop. Um, your house is not the only house on 39th that's has the kind of configuration you're talking about. >> Sorry. >> Your house does not have anything unique about it in terms of the configuration on it than any of the other houses. >> It so that's my observation. >> Okay. 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. >> Yeah. And our contention is because our house is built to the south and west limiting the backyard. There's not much of a backyard at all. Whereas most people have a backyard to enjoy. We have very little. So this sideyard really is the outdoor space. And that's what we think makes our property somewhat different than anyone else uh or others. Not anyone else, but others. Um, and that were on a busier street than many. I mean, not every street in Minneapolis is as busy as 39th. It's It's a very >> No, I I was talking when I was speaking I was speaking about 39th Street specifically. >> Um, can you address the safety issue that staff brought up? >> Yeah. So, um, I travel quite a bit. I I'm gone a lot. Dory's home alone. And as it sits today, um people walk by frequently and they're staring into our house. Um and they see her there alone or if she's sitting out in the sideyard by herself. Um it just exposes her somewhat to um people knowing that she's there female alone. And uh she mentioned that that gives her some discomfort in in being out or visible in the house even when people are walking by looking in. >> How about the How about the staff brought up line of sight being obscured by the six foot versus the four. >> Say that again. >> The staff brought up that the line of sight was obscured from your driveway. to the street by it going up an additional two feet. >> Um along the driveway already, at least according to Steve Ugman, um we have already built a 6ft fence there because he said that was legitimate all the way up into the front edge of the side door. So, um I I I'm not sure um you know, it does create a little bit of a a um blind spot by the driveway, but the 7ft hedge that was there for decades um had the same effect. And we don't think we're creating any, you know, unsafe situation there that isn't, you know, present elsewhere. and that we've actually opened up the whole front so that it's easier for people to see on that busy corner. >> I I'll just say crazy as it may seem, what you can do with a hedge is not the same thing you can do with a with a fence according to the code. >> Understood. I I just visually though I I understand the difference between the two, but >> if you're line of sight wise, it's >> the hedge obscures the line of sight equally as much as a fence, I would in my opinion. >> I see. Okay. Any other questions? I don't see any. Um, someone else would like to speak. >> Yeah. Hi, I'm just the other property owner. >> Yeah. So, if you want to come up to the microphone, give your name and address. >> Yeah. Dory Nyiver and also living at 3906 York Avenue. Okay. >> Okay. I I just just to clarify on that 6 foot where it's built along the driveway that's within the ordinance and you know was um given a you know approval by Steve when he was there that so the part that you're speaking to that might impede the line of sight is an approved part of the fence. The additional six feet is much farther down the fence that we're requesting or the additional two feet. >> So, >> can I can I have staff [clears throat] >> can I ask you a question on finding number three? What part were you speaking specifically about the fence being problematic? that chair Perry, that actually is the part of the fence that um I was speaking to, but it is allowed by code. >> Okay, >> so that is an error on my part. >> Okay, good. Just want to clear that up. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I don't think there are. Thanks for the presentation. >> Thanks for hearing us. I really appreciate it. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Uh does anybody else want to speak in favor? How about speaking against? I see no one. Let's close the public hearing. Board comment. >> Yeah. >> Um something that board member Grants Korsch mentioned earlier is the height of the fence and the opacity on top. And I tend to agree with her because um we're not here to redesign what this should look like, but I think that makes the most sense. So I actually um want I agree with staff findings. Um, I still haven't heard a reason of why. Um, sorry I lost my train of thought, but I'll just end it with I agree with staff findings. >> Thanks for those comments. Yes, Mr. Ingram. >> Thanks, Chair Perry. Uh, I think that was as good of a case as you could make for that lot and I just don't think that's enough. So, I also agree with staff findings. >> Are there any other comments? Oh yes, Mr. Als Chair Perry, members of the board, as a point of clarification, I'm not sure when we talk about an additional part on top of the fence where exactly we'd be talking about that. Note that in a required corner side yard that they are limited to 4 feet total regardless of of that design and have to be open. So I just want to be clear, they couldn't have a 4ft portion and that you know that was enclosed and then two foot on top. I just want to clarify in case there's any confusion on that. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes. >> Second that. >> What? >> I second that. Uh >> oh. Motion. >> We have a I I don't Do we have a motion? >> I thought he said he moved staff findings. >> I didn't move staff findings, but I will move staff findings. >> I second that motion. >> Okay, it's moved and seconded. Any other further discussion? Uh will the clerk please call the role? >> I Colts. I grants Korsch >> reluctantly I because I just dislike this six-foot rule but it's the rule >> Ingram I Smikarova >> I >> Wong >> I >> there are five eyes >> so you your request is denied you can see staff um about what your options are going forward you have options and you can see staff about what those appreciate you coming down. Uh staff member Olukoga, you're up again. And this is for 5457 Nicollet Avenue. Yes. Good afternoon again, Chair Perry, board members. The application before you is located in at 5457 Nicollet Avenue and the applicant is seeking a variance to permit an increase in the maximum size allocation from 54 square ft to 66.67 square ft. Um, the subject property is located at the corner of Diamond Lake Road and Nicollet Avenue in South Minneapolis and has an area of over 16,000 square ft. Um, it is improved with a multi-tenant commercial building. 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. Let me show you. >> I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I I want to just cut what was the first sign again? It's this uh >> this the >> a blade the blade sign. >> The blade sign. Yep. >> Okay. >> Um and then the second and third signs are um wall signs 29.33 square ft in area um each for a total of 58.66. The proposed total for the two wall signs and projecting sign is 66.67 67 ft with the allowed maximum of 54. When analyzing assigned variance, several findings must be met and staff does not find that practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property which support the requested variances to increase the maximum sign allotment for two wall signs and a blade sign. The intent of the onremise sign regulations is to allow effective signage appropriate to the planned character of each zoning district. To promote an attractive environment by minimizing visual clutter and confusion to reduce adverse impacts on nearby properties and protect public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed signage is compatible for the CM2 zoning district, which is intended to accommodate small, moderate, and largecale commercial uses. this finding is met. The proposed signs would not alter the essential character of the locality which includes residential and commercial uses along the goods and services corridor. Um the proposed signs would not increase or lead to visual clutter and the proposed signs are compatible in size, shape, materials, color, illumination and character with the function and architectural design of the one-story commercial development. With that, staff recommends that the zoning board of adjustment adopt staff finding and denies the variance to increase the maximum size allocation from 54 to 66.67 square ft. I will stand for questions. >> Okay. Thank you for your pre presentation. Are there questions of staff? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry talk talkative. Thank you. Thank you. It was a really good presentation and I really but I'm just 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. I mean that this this is the design of the building whether it was right or wrong when it was done. And so, and I'm looking at the um the the the State Farm sign that they showed. Was that State Farm sign existing and that's going away? And now this So, so if this was two separate pro, if if Foxy Dogs was one um entity and grooming was another entity, these signs would be allowed. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's just the fact that it happens to be one business that we're saying they're not allowed. Uh uh I'm going to have a hard time with why we're not adjusting this one because it just I I understand what you're saying, but when the design of the building is sort of made to do this, that extra 12 square ft, which is literally if I take that 12, that means it's just three square feet. I mean, I could take it off the sides or the edges, but this structure is built for this. And if there was two separate businesses, we would allow this. >> Mhm. So we should ask the business to create two separate businesses and then it would be allowed, right? >> Or shrink the signs and comply with the allocation. >> Yeah. But it I appreciate what they're saying is that architecturally this u whatever it was 1960s building was built to do this and it it doesn't and it feels like the plan character visual clutter and compliance is there >> with the actual building. >> Okay. You've answered my question though that if it was two separate buildings, we would allow it or two separate businesses, we would allow it. So, it's just the fact that it's one business, we're not allowing it. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry to ramble. Uh, you know, I want to follow up on uh board member Grant Korsch and ask um staff uh I was under the impression, I've been on the board for a while that a building had a sign budget and it was not based on businesses. So if that business if that building was two two stories tall >> it would have and there was a business up upstairs and downstairs there would be a total sign budget for that building. So I'm a little confused right now too. Mr. Ellis, can you help provide some guidance? because I I know we have heard um that type of request in the past. >> Yeah, Chair Perry, members of the board, I don't have all of the numbers in my head and able to res result in it. Um to to kind of your point um yeah like the overall square footage of signage is based on the overall size of the building and then the property owner has the ability to you know have each individual tenant have their maximum amount. Um we have two separate sort of fallbacks. If there's a second floor tenant, they can have a separate allotment. And if there is and a ground floor tenant, um, you know, even if all of the aotment is gone, is automatically allowed to have a a 30 foot sign or something along those lines. I don't remember off the top of my head. I can look it up, uh, if the board is going, >> uh, if the board is curious. So, it's it is based on that. Um, and so in this case, the allotment um is over um what we would normally do, but I think that's what we're talking about when we say two separate uses. They each get their own minimum. So that puts them over that aotment. So, you know, we're looking to go from 54 um you know, it's 54 foot. I mean, I think each have like a total of 60. So, I don't know if it would actually make it um all the way to the 66 ft would be sufficient if there were two separate uses. >> It probably would not. >> Yeah. But >> okay. >> Did that did that help? I >> it it answered my question. I it in trying to be consistent with what we have done in the past with signage on buildings where there are two different businesses. >> So it would still be over the aotment. >> Yes. But but according to the overall if I might um the building it looks like there's four segments to this building. Mhm. >> So, so we are penalizing this one owner who has two out of the four. I mean by that theory then we should be going to the other two which I don't have it in front of us but we should go into the other two businesses then and they should all be reduced in size. I mean, I again I go back to this is this area is designed for this and to to do it smaller to me is inappropriate because this was the design whether we agreed with it or not. >> Um maybe we can say that the actual signage then is the part that's the foxy dogs part and the grooming part where the circle of red is. Can that be considered the signage then? just that part >> that is >> and then they're allowed to have the color behind it. >> If they leave the sides on here, it is part of the sign. It is a metal plate. Essentially, the sign is a metal plate. >> I understand that. >> So, if they were to redesign it and just make the circular part as you are recommending, then they may comply. >> I'm not trying to design it. I'm just trying to say that >> it seems that we are We we've got whether we like it or not, there is a there is a signage part in this building and the other two places also have signage then. >> So they the the the part that's in red on both the grooming and the foxy dogs part that actually is the actual signage and then the the other part is just background. >> So can't we consider just that as the actual signage? I do understand where what you're saying and I appreciate that. However, that is not how the zoning code is designed to measure signage. Okay. >> So, they would have to um we analyze what is presented and they have presented a metal plate which reaches from one end to the other in this transom. So, that is what we need to measure. So if they want to submit a different design and we measure that accordingly, they may fall in within the allocation. >> And I I will just add hopefully not make things more confusing. There was a a case that we had where there were paw prints on the side of a building and we didn't just take the where the paw print a paw print and another paw print and a paw print. It was a rectangular size where all the where all the paw prints were encased. So, um, you sign code is always incredibly frustrating. I'll just say that. Yes, Mr. Ellis. I will note though, we did have a we have recently amended the sign code to try to make things a little bit simpler and we are continuously working on things. Um, the the one for example that Chair Perry is mentioning wouldn't be caught under the current code today well because of the type of sign. for the kind of deregulating painted wall signs as a type of sign, you know, because it really there's not a lot to be gained on on from a regulatory standpoint on that. Um, but you know, to your point, but um we still have in play that draw the large box around it is still in code. Um, the sign code is still kind of conservative on that. Uh, 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. So we tend to be very strict in how we interpret things uh to not open us up to some sort of lawsuit. So >> okay uh any other questions or comments? I see none. Thank you. Is the applicant present? >> Yes. >> Would you like to give testimony? >> So, like I said before, you get 10 minutes and then that little thing goes off and we ask you to wrap up. If you could give your name and address for the record. >> Okay. >> Do you need help getting that set up? >> Um, I would love to have the sketch back up here if I could. Mhm. I'm Kelsey Sharp. My personal residence is at 4407 North Humble Avenue in North Minneapolis. I run Sharp Signs. It's a sign company in Minneapolis and South Minneapolis. Um, we work [clears throat] with clients all over the Twin Cities. This is the first time I've ever applied for a variance. I try to avoid that process because I'm working with small businesses and just coming before you today is a huge expense to try to get this project advanced. Um, so yeah, I think one of one of the points that I wanted to make and I thank you guys for even reading the findings that I submitted. I just wanted to highlight that I'm trying to be consistent with the other tenants in the building. Um there's a Mexican restaurant in that building that has two illuminated blade signs. So huge fabricated blade signs. Um in addition to their other monument signage that they have, there's um another restaurant that has two signs exactly the size that I'm proposing and they have a roof sign on the building. Um, and so I think just like when we're talking about a tenant um, in this in this space who is like speaking in the same conversation as these other tenants whose signs are speaking in all caps in bold, illuminated, their signs are doing a lot. We're just trying to match that energy and also create something tasteful. Um, so I would also say that this sign is hand painted. So, it's on a metal panel because there is nothing beneath it. But if it was just going to be hand painted directly on this building, it would be painted at this exact same scale, right? And it wouldn't have even required a permit and certainly not a variance. So, I think that that's like these are like just some of the things that I would urge you to consider. Um, and yeah, I think I I um agree that if these were two separate tenants, they could have had signs at about this size. Um, uh, what else? So, yeah, and I think that some of the points were made that, uh, when you're talking about the square footage a lotment that they're allowed, it doesn't address the letter height at all. You know, it's like it the signs really are reasonably, you know, the lettering is appropriate to a sign of this scale to for legibility, right? so that traffic passing, pedestrian and car traffic can just read this sign easily. This is the right size, but because we're trying to fill those existing transoms, that color field is the is the square footage that's putting us over. Um, and then, uh, like some of you all mentioned, there are a ton of changes that are coming up to the sign ordinances. One of the ones that's being proposed is that a tenant like this wouldn't even have to pull a permit if she was matching the size of the previously existing sign there, which is what she's doing. She's literally just matching the size of the American Family Home Insurance of the Best American Steakhouse signs that were already there. So, I think that knowing that that change is coming up hopefully in the next, you know, year, 6 months, I think that it's important to try to start to, you know, get the city comfortable with making these types of concessions. She's literally just matching the existing sign. I don't know if the sign that American Family Insurance had came from a different era, but we're we're just using the frame that was they had already installed it onto the building. So these blank sign frames are there and that's the scaffolding that we are trying to hang these signs on. So it's not like oh make the sign smaller because that existing framework is already behind the signs. Does that make sense? Um and I think that there's photos of what that blank scaffolding looks like on the building as it currently stands cuz she has um she's currently operating in this address also. So it's like you know urgent that she gets signage at this location. um you know like she's required to have signage um and she's already passed the time that she will be having her banners up. Um so yeah, I I hope that just like highlighting that point about the fact that we're hanging this on an existing frame. These frames cost money. I hope that that demonstrates a practical difficulty. She would have to refabricate a new smaller frame when there's already a frame there. And then I think the last thing that I would just say for you all is I'm coming before you for the first time. I don't do this often as a sign designer and sign installer for many signs in the Twin Cities. I hope that you consider that we're just trying to create something that is clean and aesthetically pleasing. Um and you know, yeah, really just trying to match a ton of other um existing conditions in the neighborhood. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? >> I see none. Thanks for coming down. >> Yeah. And then I just also wanted to I'm the applicant, but the property owner is on board with making these changes to the building and the tenant who is the business owner is also here and she can answer questions as it as it pertains to her daily function in the space and a little bit maybe questions that I can't answer. >> Sure. We we'll give them the opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, as I said, everybody subsequent to the applicant gets two minutes to talk. So, is there anybody who would like to speak in favor? Could you give your name and address for the record, sir? >> My name is Peter Rickmer. Uh I live on 25th and Penn North. First of all, I support the applicant's application. The one thing that I want to state is the overall lighting in the city of Minneapolis is too bright. It's harming the environment. And so the one thing that I did is on Lake Street, I went at at the highway 30 highway 35W and Lake Street uh bus on top at night and the lights are blinding you. Uh even though you're above the buildings, the lights are going upward. And so when you take a look at the applications and the lighting, if you could require shielding, so it's not so the light doesn't eliminate the sky, which does nothing even for security. It doesn't make any sense. So, I'm requesting this board to make sure you look at how the lighting is and to make sure it's not eliminating the sky because it harms the environment. It ruins like the bees and the birds. They get disorientated. And so, anyways, I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Okay. I I'll just pass along to you, sir, that we are not the board to talk to about that. We don't make decisions like that. Your city council person is your person you want to talk to. And to that I would have to say that this body has more power than what it thinks because this body has the right to make in the suggestion is that the lighting does not eliminate anything above the building where the light is. >> So you you can actually put that right into the plan that you're approving. And so when you talk to staff, they can put it in and then you can improve it. I'm just saying that uh don't discount the amount of power that you have. >> Okay. >> Oh, I'm buzzing. See, thank you. >> Is is there anyone else who'd like to speak? >> And that's how you handle it. >> See, >> would anybody like to speak against the application? I see no one. Let's close the public hearing. board comment. >> Yes. >> 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. Excuse me. 66 square um the 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. So, I'm making a motion that we uh prove this variance based on that fact that the actual signage, the actual within the orange or red number that says the actual letters is the actual sign. And so based on that, I would ask that we approve this sign. >> Okay. There's a motion to notwithstanding staff recommendation to approve the requ the variance request. Is there a second? >> Is there a second? >> May I May I ask a question of staff? >> Sure. >> Um Okay. Um, would would this metal plate be allowed without signage on it? Like would this be allowed in almost like a a one twostep thing? Would this be allowed as an architectural feature without signage on it? And then cuz I know cuz I believe that the hand painted sign is is measured differently than than the metal is. Would like I don't know if you see what I'm getting at, but um and maybe I'm I don't know. I'm trying to find a way to to try to figure out how to get to this. But um that's that's my my thought is like if these pieces of metal just already existed um as just a feature of the building um and then they painted on top of an existing area, would we just be counting the uh the hand painted part? >> It would it would >> Well, yeah. Moga chair members of the board um under under the current regulations. Yeah. If that was truly an architectural feature, if it was wall or other form of walling and then that was treated as a painted wall sign, it would be allowed, you know, but it's a sign separate, you know, that's come before us. I understand your point and that can be something you can the board considers. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm going to second the motion. >> Okay. It's moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Will the clerk >> Oh, yes. Uh, no. Thank thanks everybody. Uh, I 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. >> Yep. I I agree with board [clears throat] member Ingram as well because that's the part that I'm stuck on is what is exactly the challenge here besides making the signs smaller. Um so I would also um agree with staff findings. May I may I um try to do one more plea here because I think in the world of adjustment when you when you have two pillars hanging down in a storefront it is easier to connect from one side to another and so there is a practical difficulty if you try to hang it differently. It can be it you all you need is a joy uh uh to to connect it on either side and so it is a huge practical difficulty to make it smaller when the building was built for that and it consistently I mean they showed us the previous owners I mean and the and I've been told that the other two are doing the same thing where it goes from one side of that wall to the other side of the wall. So, I do think it is a practical difficulty. Um, so correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, Derek. >> Um, uh, no, I I I appreciate that. Uh, I think if you look at the last picture, it's possible to have one one half that up. And so, it just it it is possible. It's not So, I don't know. I just don't think there's enough there personally. >> I'm sorry. Can you clarify the last picture? So, in the in the border report, the the la the last picture, you see uh the American uh family, >> right? >> And it's it just I think it's possible to do half of it in different ways. I I don't know. I'm not there might be an expense to it or something like that. Once again, economic considerations and I just don't think there's enough there. >> I can I add something? I 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. Um and um which is why I I think now that I I would go against staff findings and would um support uh board member Grants Kors's motion. >> Any other comments? >> All right. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Izz. Grans Korsch >> I >> Ingram >> n >> Samikarova >> I >> Wong >> I >> there are four eyes's and one day >> so that request is approved uh good luck with uh your project and your business your new location of your business. That's great to hear. I know that corner very well and um you bring a lot to it. We have one thing. Well, we have two things left. Are there any updates? >> Chair Perry, members of the board. Um, yes. There's one update on an appeal that went to the business, housing, and zoning committee and then to council from an earlier agenda uh back in October since the uh November meeting was earlier earlier November meeting was cancelled. uh 2821 Brookwood Terrace uh where uh the board of adjustment had recommended uh approval of um development on or within 40 feet of the top of the steep slope that was appealed by a neighbor. Uh it was denied at committee and at full council um and the board was upheld. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and now let's uh visit our number 11 which is the uh transition schedule approval of that. Um we don't really I I'll just introduce this. Um as you know we don't have any control over the schedule. We're I wish that guy was still here [laughter] because we have no power over the schedule. So I would uh I would entertain a motion to approve the transition schedule. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. And I will just I think I can just say all in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any against? Any abstensions? That motion passes and we have these four dates to meet. >> Can I ask a question of staff? Yeah. Have they confirmed that we're not leaving this building? We're no longer meeting in the castle. >> Uh, Chair Perry and board members Carava, I would leave that up to the clerk's office. I don't know if there have been any specific changes. I know they plan to keep us in here for an extended period of time. I don't know if that's forever, but it will be for the foreseeable future as I understand it. So, I can answer that question because 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 >> fine. [laughter] >> So you don't have to take the >> Yeah, they can have two. >> The clerk doesn't have to take the [laughter] >> So that we can have two, you know, public meetings at the same time, >> right? >> Although I >> I don't understand the technology that will televise them. That will be interesting to me, but they're they're working on that. I mean, 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. >> That's a serious issue. Maybe maybe you can uh uh return that back to uh Mr. Carl. AB: >> Absolutely. I can send those comments back to Mr. Carl. >> Okay. Uh with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I We are adjourned.