[0:23] >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THE JULY 17, 2025 ZONING BOARD OF

[0:28] ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PE PERRY, CHAIR OF THIS BOARD. I'LL CALL

[0:34] THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.

[0:40] >> CLERK: CALLAHAN. >> PRESENT. >> EICHELS. >> HERE.

[0:45] >> SALLY GRANS KORSH. >> HERE. >> HUTCHENS. >> PRESENT. >> ENGRAM. >> AYE. >> PERRY.

[0:53] >> HERE. >> T SMIR SMIR. >> HERE.

[0:59] >> WE'LL PROCEED TO THE AGENDA. A COPY OF WHICH WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S

[1:05] LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT LIMES.MINNEAPOLIS. MN.GOV.

[1:15] N.GOV. MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING

[1:22] AYE. AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES AND THE

[1:27] AGENDA IS APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A KEEP SEEN A COPY OF THE

[1:33] MINUTESES FROM JUNE 26, 2025 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. MOTION TO APPROVE.

[1:39] >> MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

[1:44] HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING

[1:51] NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? IF YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST MEETING, YOU

[1:56] SHOULD ABSTAIN. AND WITH THAT, THE MOTION PASSES. THE MINUTES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 26, 2025,

[2:03] MEETING ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. REMINDER TO APPLICANTS

[2:11] AND OTHERS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE SHEET AVAILABLE FROM THE CLERK. AND

[2:16] SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED IN, YOU CAN DO SO ON

[2:23] THE WAY OUT. PLEASE CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR

[2:29] PROJECTS. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, CAN YOU TURN IT OFF OR TURN IT ON SILENT. SO LET ME

[2:38] READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND SAY WHETHER IT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT,

[2:44] CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, RETURN, OR SUBSTITUTION. FOUR IS 1936 DREW AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF HAS

[2:52] RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM?

[3:01] AND, ALSO, BOARD MEMBERS CAN PULL ITEMS. I SEE NO ONE.

[3:07] AGENDA ON ITEM NUMBER 5, IS 2922 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS A

[3:14] DISCUSSION ITEM. AND LASTLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS

[3:21] 2701BLAISDELL AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE ITEM? OR DO ANY

[3:28] MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM? >> CAN I PULL NUMBER SIX. >> YOU WANT TO PULL NUMBER SIX.

[3:37] OKAY. SO LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS FOR OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT. THEY ARE ITEM 4. IS

[3:44] THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS ITEM ON CONSENT? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY

[3:50] DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AGAINST INDICATE

[3:56] BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES. SO IF YOU

[4:02] WERE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, YOUR LAND USE REQUESTS ARE

[4:07] APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. SO LET'S GO TO AGENDA

[4:14] ITEM NUMBER 5, THIS IS 2922 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. I WOULD

[4:22] LIKE TO SAY TO THE BOARD, WE HAVE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT

[4:28] ATTACHED. SO IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE DO HAVE THOSE ITEMS NOW.

[4:35] AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM FURTHER THAN TODAY, WE CAN HAVE

[4:41] THE BOARD CONTINUE THE ITEM TO OUR JULY 31st BOARD MEETING.

[4:49] SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT AS AS YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION. OKAY.

[4:56] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. I'M

[5:07] FATIMAT OLUKOGA, CITY PLANNER. 2922 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM AREA OF

[5:12] A PROJECTING SIGN. FROM 20 FEET TO 31.9 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

[5:20] THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CM3 COMMUNITY MIXED USE DISTRICTS. THE CORRIDOR 6. THE

[5:31] SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OVER 39,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. IT HAS TWO

[5:37] BUILDINGS THAT SPAN TWO LOTS ALONG THE ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH.

[5:43] FROM 29th STREET TO LAKE STREET. IT'S A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH A SIX-STORY

[5:51] MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 2008. THE APPLICANTS ARE

[5:56] PROPOSING TWO SIGNS FOR THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE WAY FINDING SIGNS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE.

[6:04] THE FIRST SIGN IS A CANOPY SIGN THAT MEASURES -- EXCUSE ME, 35.5

[6:11] SQUARE FEET. AND IT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE SIGN STANDARDS. THE SECOND SIGN IS THIS PROJECTING

[6:17] SIGN BEFORE YOU, PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF LAKE STREET AND ALDRICH. AGAIN, 20 SQUARE FEET

[6:24] IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED, AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR 31.9 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. STAFF DOES NOT FIND

[6:33] THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES

[6:38] UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. THOUGH MANY LOTS AND BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA ARE LARGER, THE SIZE AND

[6:45] LAYOUT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND BUILDING ARE NOT UNCOMMON FOR THIS MIXED USE DISTRICT.

[6:51] AND IT DOES NOT CREATE A CHALLENGE IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. THEIR DESIGN OPTIONS

[6:58] AVAILABLE, INCLUDING USING WALL SIGN AGE, WHICH THEY WILL BE ALLOWED, LIKE 180-SQUARE FEET.

[7:04] OR A SMALLER PROJECTING SIGN THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE. THIS FINDING IS NOT

[7:11] MET. THE INTENT OF THE ON-PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS IS TO ALLOW EFFECTIVE SIGN AGE

[7:17] APPROPRIATE TO THE PLAN CHARACTER OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE BUILDING ON SITE

[7:23] IS -- THE BUILDING ITSELF ON SITE IS OVER 32,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. AND CURRENTLY ONLY HAS

[7:29] TWO SIGNS IDENTIFYING THE RESIDENTIAL USE. THE LIMITED SIGN AGE ON THE SITE AND THE

[7:37] SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HELP ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CREATE VISUAL CLUTTER OR

[7:42] NEGATIVELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS FINDING IS MET. THE PROPOSED SIGNS WOULD

[7:49] NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY, WHICH INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, ALONG WITH

[7:56] GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CREATE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR

[8:02] DETRIMENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY. THIS FINDING IS MET.

[8:10] AGAIN, THE SIGN WOULD NOT AID TO VISUAL CLUTTER. ONLY ONE OF

[8:15] TWO SIGNS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. THE CANOPY SIGN IS LOCATED ON

[8:23] ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. THE PROPOSED SIGN -- THE PROJECTING

[8:29] SIGN IS ON CORNER OF LAKE AND ALDRICH. LAKE STREET HAS A UNIQUE VISUAL CHARACTER OF, YOU

[8:35] KNOW, MIXED MURALS, SIGNS, AND OTHER NONCONFORMING BILLBOARDS. SO IT WOULD NOT ADD TO THE

[8:42] CLUTTER OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. AND CONSIDERING THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CHARACTER OF

[8:48] THE CORRIDOR, THE SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SIGN IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA.

[8:54] THE FINDING IS MET. THE PROPOSED PROJECTED SIGN IS

[9:01] COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE SIX-TOUR I WOULD

[9:07] SIX-STORY BUILDING. IT'S CONSTRUCTED AS A 3-INCH DEEP INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM

[9:14] CABINET THAT FEATURES BLUE AND GREEN COLORS WITH WRITE ACRYLIC

[9:19] LETTERS. THE ILLUMINATION AND COLORS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE

[9:25] SCALE AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING. THIS FINDING IS MET. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING

[9:31] DENIAL OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECTING SIGN. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE

[9:39] PRESENTATION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? EITHER FROM

[9:47] THE TESTIMONY OR THE REPORT SHE GAVE OR THE MATERIAL THAT WE RECEIVED. YES?

[9:53] >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS GOOD. I WANT TO THE ASK YOU

[9:59] TO HIGHLIGHT THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER OPTIONS THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH SIGN CODE. OTHER THAN

[10:05] THIS, RIGHT? SHRINKING THE SIGN, LIKE YOU SAW, WALL OPTIONS. THERE'S A TON OF VERSIONS OF THIS THAT DO NOT

[10:11] REQUIRE A VARIANCE. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

[10:17] OH, I'M SORRY. YES? >> YEAH. I GUESS IS THIS A RELATIVELY NEW BUILDING?

[10:23] >> NO. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2008. >> OKAY. I MISSED THAT. 2008.

[10:30] OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE I WAS -- I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ILLUMINATION ONLY BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, IT DID NOT USE

[10:38] BIRD-SAFE GLASS AND THE ILLUMINATION IS AN ISSUE FOR BIRDS AT NIGHT. WHEN THEY STICK OUT FROM A BUILDING. SO JUST TO

[10:47] BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS' COMMENT, THE BLUE SIGN AT

[10:56] 31-SQUARE FEET, IF IT WAS PUSHED BACK ON THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF. YOU KNOW, NOT THAT ONE. THE NEXT ONE. IF IT WAS

[11:03] PUSHED ON THE BUILDING ITSELF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. @FACT THE FACT IT'S STICKING ON

[11:09] THE VESTIBULE THAT MAKES IT UNACCEPTABLE. I NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THE DIMENSION THING. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE

[11:16] SECOND SIGN THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET IS A CANOPY SIGN. AND THAT IS APPROVABLE. ONLY

[11:23] THE PROJECTING SIGN IS THE SIGN BEFORE YOU. >> RIGHT. THIS PROJECTING -- >> NO.

[11:28] >> THIS ONE IS OKAY. >> GOT IT. I'M SORRY. SO I'M SORRY. AND THAT IS PROJECTING

[11:36] ... SO, AGAIN, AGAIN, THAT'S PROJECTING ON TWO SIDES, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. IF IT WAS FLUSH

[11:42] AGAINST THE WALL, IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE? >> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH.

[11:48] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I THINK WHAT

[11:57] I'LL DO, BASED ON MY EARLIER COMMENTS, IS I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE

[12:04] APPLICANTSES WHO HAVE COME DOWN AND LET THEM TALK. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE

[12:09] CAN DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE IT ONE CYCLE OR NOT.

[12:22] LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

[12:28] >. [ AWAY FROM MIC ] >> THERE YOU TWO.

[12:33] >>GO. >> I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR

[12:40] SDDI SIGNS. >> YOUR LAST NAME? >> [?] >> YEP. THANKS.

[12:47] >> SO GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME, AGAIN, TREVOR. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME

[12:53] TODAY CONSIDERING OUR APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OUR PROPOSED

[13:00] SIGN AT BLUE LINE APARTMENTS ON LAKE STREET. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. AND THE

[13:06] DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS IT WILL BRING TO THE BUILDING AND THE COMMUNITY. APARTMENT HOMES

[13:12] RECENT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. SO HERE IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SOUTHEAST

[13:23] CORNER. THE NEXT SLIDE HERE IS DISPLAYING A REGULATED SIGNAGE

[13:29] OF 20-C-SQUARE FEET. AND HERE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED

[13:35] SIGNAGE OF 32 S 32-SQUARE FEET. SO THIS SLIDE DISPLAYS A

[13:46] RENDERING FROM LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH OF THE 20-SQUARE FEET

[13:51] SIGNAGE ON THE LEFT AND THE 32-SQUARE FOOT SIGNAGE ON THE

[13:57] RIGHT. AND HERE WE HAVE BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH. I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO CALL OUT

[14:03] SOME OF THE RECENT COMMENTS ABOUT THE WALL SIGNAGE. ALL THOUGH, YES, IT WOULD BE A

[14:11] POSSIBILITY TO MECHANICALLY MOUNT TO THE WALL, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT.

[14:18] IT'S MUCH HARDER TO LOOK UP AT A SIGN WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN LAKE STREET. ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE RAISING IT UP. THERE IS

[14:26] ALREADY TENANT SIGN AGE ON THE LOWER LEVEL. SO THE SIGNAGE WOULD NEED TO BE AT LEAST

[14:33] 20-FEET UP IN THE AIR. SO WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING A CAR LOOKING UP, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST -- THAT'S THE REASON WE HAVE PROJECTING

[14:40] SIGNS IS THE VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING DOWN STREET AT IT. SO

[14:47] WE FEEL THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND HARDSHIP UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY BASED OFF THE

[14:53] BUILDING AND SITE INFORMATION. SO THIS IS A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE BUILDING IS

[15:00] 58-FEET TALL, HAS 428 APARTMENT UNITS, SERVING A HIGH VOLUME OF

[15:05] RESIDENTS, GUESTS, AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE BUILDING

[15:11] STRETCHES 547 FEET ALONG ALDRICH AND 128 FEET ALONG LAKE STREET.

[15:17] LAKE STREET BEING THE MAIN CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC IS WHERE THERE IS LIMITED

[15:23] VISIBILITY. MNDOT DOCUMENTS THE DAILY TRAFFIC FLOW ON LAKE STREET AND ALDRICH AT 18,000 TO

[15:31] 22,000 CARS PER DAY. THAT EQUATES TO 150,000 CARS PER

[15:39] WEEK. OCCUPANCY IS CURRENTLY AT 80% HAVING OVER 85 VACANT UNITS.

[15:48] SO WE'RE HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP. 75% OF THE THIS PROJECT IS HIDDEN FROM LAKE STREET.

[15:55] WITH THE HIGH TRAFFIC COUNT AND SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, IT MAKES BLUE AND LIME EASY TO MISS.

[16:03] THERE'S MANY MUCH-LARGER SIGNS FLANKING THE PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE. WE'RE ALREADY BATTLING

[16:10] FOR VISIBILITY. THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY ADHERING TO THE

[16:15] 20-SQUARE FEET RESTRICTION PUTS OUR PROPERTY AT A LARGE DISADVANTAGE OF BEING UNSEEN AND

[16:20] TO OTHER EXISTING SIGNS IN THE AREA. FUTURE RESIDENTS, GUESTS,

[16:26] AND SERVICE PROVIDERS WILL NOT SEE THE SIGN IN TIME TO SAFELY SLOW T DOWN FOR TURNS OR

[16:33] PARKING. DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AT THE PROPERTY, THE LACK OF VISIBILITY WILL LEAD TO

[16:40] CONFUSION AND UNSAFE PARKING BEHAVIOR, POSING A RISK TO THE

[16:46] PROPERTY. SO OUR PROPOSED SIGN AGE WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY

[16:52] AND WAYFINDING ALIGNING WITH THE GOALS OF THE CM3 DISTRICT. IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE

[16:59] INCREASE TO 32 SQUARE FEET WILL STILL BE MODEST IN SIZE SIGN

[17:05] BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WILL NOT ADD VISUAL CLUTTER ALONG LAKE STREET. STANDOUT IS OVERSIZED

[17:12] OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL HELP THIS PROPERTY OVERCOME

[17:19] A GENUINE HARDSHIP OF VISIBILITY. BEING UNIQUE IN SIZE AND PLACEMENT. NOT LEADING

[17:24] TO SETTING A PRECEDENCE WITH FUTURE CASES. SO, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS

[17:30] MATTER. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF

[17:35] THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS

[17:42] THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE. SO

[17:49] I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT. YES? YEP.

[17:55] >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF. CAN YOU -- EITHER STAFF --

[18:01] BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT JUST THE ZONING CODE IN GENERAL. ABOUT SORT OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE

[18:08] 20-SQUARE FOOT SIGN RESTRICTION. AND IF THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN

[18:13] SIGN SIZES IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.

[18:22] >> CHAIR, THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIZE ALLOWANCES FOR ZONING DISTRICTS. AGAIN, IT'S CM3

[18:29] DISTRICT. IT'S A MAXIMUM OF 20-SQUARE FEET FOR PROJECTING SIGNS. THAT'S IN GENERAL TO IN

[18:35] KEEPING WITH THE INTENDED CHARACTER OF DISTRICTS WITH THAT ZONING. DOWNTOWN AND IN HIGHER

[18:42] INTENSITY CM DISTRICTS, LARGER SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES,

[18:52] MR. HUTCHENS. >> THANKS, CHAIR. TO PULL ON THE THREAD THAT BOARD MEMBER

[18:57] CALLAHAN BROUGHT UP. THERE'S A CM4 DISTRICT JUST TO THE EAST. DO WE KNOW THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF

[19:02] THE CM4? OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEAD?

[19:08] >> CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, IN THE CM4 STRICT, A PROJECTING SIGN

[19:13] WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 48-SQUARE FEET. >> A HALF BLOCK AWAY COULD

[19:20] DOUBLE IT? INTERESTING.

[19:25] >> SO WE HAVE TO -- IF I WAS KEEPING TRACK OF THINGS, THE

[19:36] DIFFICULTY IS THE THING THAT HAS TO BE ..

[19:42] YOUR OBSERVATION IS WORTHWHILE, MR. HUTCHENS, BUT I DON'T KNOW

[19:48] WHERE THAT REALLY GETS US FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OF

[19:55] STAFF? >> SURE. >> IS THE -- THANKS. IS THE BULK OF THE BUILDING BEING

[20:01] HIDDEN, LIKE THE APPLICANT SAID, 75% IS NONVISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IS THAT AN UNCOMMON THING IN A CM3 DISTRICT? OR

[20:10] KIND OF A PLATTED TOWARD THE LESS-TRAVELED ROAD OF A BUILDING

[20:15] THAT SIZE? IS THAT UNCOMMON? IS THAT PRETTY COMMON? THAT'S

[20:21] AN ARBITRARY QUESTION, MAYBE. TOO BROAD? >> YEAH, CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF

[20:26] CAN MAKE ANY SORT OF INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE TO THAT. YOU SEE ALL SORTS OF PLATTING CONFIGURATIONS

[20:33] ACROSS THE CITY AND ALSO IN DISTRICTS. >> ALL RIGHT.

[20:38] >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES.

[20:44] >> AH, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS SO FAR. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT IS NOT ECONOMIC

[20:51] CONSIDERATIONS HERE. I SEE AT LOT OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT'S

[20:57] NOT RELATED TO SELLING MORE UNITS AND THAT'S NOT IN OUR

[21:05] PURVIEW. I KNOW FURTHER DOWN BRYANT, I MEAN, YOU HAVE OTHER

[21:11] LONG APARTMENT COMPLEXES DOWN THAT STREET HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS, EVEN THOUGH -- YEAH.

[21:17] THERE ARE SOME -- YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BIGGER SIGN NEARBY. BUT I CAN'T FIND MY WAY

[21:24] THERE. >> THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? YES. >> I, UMM, I DON'T FIND THAT THE

[21:33] INCREASE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT A VARIANCE. I DON'T FIND THE FIRST FINDING. BUT I

[21:38] ALSO DON'T THINK THAT INCREASE IS GOING TO MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. IT'S STILL THE SIGN

[21:45] AT THE CORRECT SIZE WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS IT BEING LARGER. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT

[21:50] DOES PROJECT, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR VISIBILITY, AS YOU'RE DRIVING, WALKING, OR

[21:56] TAKING TRANSIT. I DON'T THINK THE BIGGER SIGN WOULD MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK THE SITE IS

[22:02] UNIQUE ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE VARIANCE. I WOULD MOVE STAFF FINDINGS. >> OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION?

[22:09] AND A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I SEE

[22:19] NONE. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> C CALLAHAN.

[22:25] >> AYE. >> EICHELS. >> AYE. >> SALLY GRANS KORSH.

[22:34] >> AYE. >> HUTCHENS. >> AYE. >> SMIRKAROVA.

[22:39] >> AYE. >> SIX AYES AND ZERO NAYS. >> SO YOUR REQUEST IS DENIED.

[22:47] YOU CAN SEE STAFF FOR WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE GOING FORWARD. AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN

[22:53] TODAY. IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO GET DOWNTOWN FROM WHEREVER YOU ARE AT. SO LET US MOVE ON TO

[23:02] ITEM NUMBER 6. 3701BLAISDELL

[23:14] AVENUE SOUTH.

[23:32] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. ITEM NUMBER 6

[23:38] BEFORE YOU 3701BLAISDELL AVENUE.

[23:44] THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO PERMIT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A FENCE TO 6 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD FROM 4 FEET. THE

[23:53] PROPERTY IS IN THE UN2 NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT

[23:59] INTERIOR 3 OVERLAY. THIS IS A 4,604 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY

[24:04] LOCATED IN KINGFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD, WARD. I DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT IN FAVOR FOR

[24:11] THE PROJECT. THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT EXIST ON THIS SITE WERE NOT CREATED BY THAT

[24:18] APPLICANT. THE PLATTING OF THIS PROPERTY RESULTS IN A I

[24:25] REVERSE CORNER LOT THAT IS SUB STANDARD IN SIZE AND DIMENSION. THAT COMBINED WITH THE ADJACENT

[24:30] LOT TO THE SOUTH, IS THE FLAG LOT THAT CURVES AROUND -- RAMPS

[24:36] AROUND TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT DRIVEWAY THAT EXTENDS ALONG THE EAST EDGE

[24:41] OF THE PROPERTY. ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONS AS AN ALLEY. WHERE IT

[24:47] HAD -- AN ACTUAL PUBLIC ALLEY THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. THAT APPLICANT DID

[24:53] NOT CREATE THIS PLATTING CONDITION ON THE SITE. THIS FINDING IS MET. THE SPIRIT AND

[25:02] INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO

[25:08] ENCOURAGE ANESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOW FOR PRIVACY WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING

[25:15] TO USE THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ENCLOSED BY THE FENCE FOR SEMIPRIVATE OUTDOOR YARD SPACE. WHICH IS A REASONABLE

[25:21] USE OF THE PROPERTY. DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL SPACE OF THE DRIVEWAY ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE,

[25:29] THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPACE FROM THE PROPERTY FACING 3

[25:36] 7th STREET THAT IS LIMITING THE IMPACT ON THE FRONT YARD. THIS FINDING IS MET. STAFF

[25:41] FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OR

[25:47] BE INJURIOUS TO OTHER A AREA PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THE

[25:53] SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THOSE USING THE PROPERTY BY INCREASING THE PROPERTY SECURITY. THE

[25:58] PROPOSED FENCE IS SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED SITE TRIANGLE, AND AS SUCH, DOES NOT

[26:04] OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY OR PREVENT A TRAFFIC SAFETY HAZARD. THIS FINDING IS MET. WE ASK THAT YOU

[26:11] ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

[26:19] QUESTIONS? WE HAVE TWO. SALLY, YOU'RE SECOND. AND

[26:26] ADAM. >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THE ONLY REASON I PULLED IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WE'RE

[26:32] VOTING ON. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. WOULD YOU MIND WITH THE VIEW -- YEAH.

[26:40] PERFECT. WHERE IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE NOW? THERE WE GO. WOULD YOU THROW A CIRCLE AROUND WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING VARIANCED

[26:47] HERE. IT'S NO THE ENTIRE FENCE, CORRECT? >> NO. IT IS THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD.

[26:52] >> YEP. JUST THAT CHUNK. NOT THE ONE THAT RUNS ALONG 37th.

[26:59] >> CORRECT. THIS IS THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE. >> SO THEN THE WHERE I'M HUNG UP

[27:06] IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE BACK OF THE YARD HAS AN ALLEYWAY DRIVEWAY IN

[27:14] IT. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE FRONT YARD AT ALL? IT'S NOT --

[27:23] SO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORING FENCE IS IN CODE?

[27:29] IT'S JUST THE LITTLE CHUNK FACING THE FRONT SIDEWALK. HOW IS THAT AFFECTED BY THEM HAVING

[27:35] A DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR? >> SO, IT'S MORE SO THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLATTING

[27:43] OF THE PROPERTY REDUCES THE ESSENTIALLY REDUCES THEIR USE.

[27:56] >> MAY I STEP IN? >> SURE. >> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT

[28:02] THE REVERSE CORNER LOT PLATTING.

[28:07] THERE ARE REVERSE CORNER LOTS ALL OVER THE CITY. >> UH-HUH. >> TO ME, THAT DOES NOT, IN MY

[28:15] MIND, CONSTITUTE ANYTHING UNIQUE. AND SO IT'S ... IN

[28:23] FACT, I THINK THERE ARE THINGS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REVERSE CORNER

[28:29] LOT IS WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE. AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE DENIED IT. I'M WONDERING WHERE

[28:35] STAFF -- IS THIS A SHIFT IN STAFF POSITION FROM WHAT IT HAS BEEN? OR AM I MISSING SOM

[28:43] SOMETHING? >> I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A SHIFT IN STAFF POSITION. I THINK JUST IN THIS CASE, THE REVERSE CORNER

[28:50] LOT CUPPED WITH THE FLAG LOT, THAT IT ESSENTIALLY WRAPS AROUND

[28:56] THIS LOT. CREATES A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. >> OKAY.

[29:03] >> CHAIR, MAY I? >> YES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS STAFF ALSO

[29:08] DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THIS IS A SUB STANDARD LOT. THIS IS A SMALLER LOT WITH LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR

[29:15] UN USE. >> OKAY. AND BOARD MEMBER, I'M

[29:21] SORRY. I DID SAY YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK NEXT. I APOLOGIZE. >> IT'S ALL RIGHT.

[29:27] >> OKAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY APPROVE OF THIS VARIANCE

[29:33] BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. I THINK IT'S REALISTIC ON THE FACT THAT THE SMALL PIECE OF FENCE

[29:40] THAT FACES BLAISDELL IS SO FAR FROM THE PROPERTY LOT LINE THAT

[29:47] IT SETS APART. TO ME, THE INTENT ALWAYS ON A 6-FOOT FENCE

[29:53] ON THE FRONT PIECE. YOU'RE NOT BLOCKING THE FRONT PIECE OF THE AREA. AND BLAISDELL HAS A LOT

[29:59] OF THINGS GOING ON ON IT. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT A FENCE. AND THE FACT IT'S SO FAR BACK FROM THE MAJOR

[30:05] THOROUGHFARE, TO ME, IT'S VERY REASONABLE. AND THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE WHERE I LOOKED

[30:13] AT THE DRAWING AND COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS WONDERFUL TO SEE THE PHOTOS. BECAUSE IT WAS VERY

[30:19] CLEAR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WAY IN THE BACK. AND SO, IN MY HEAD, IT REALLY DOES REQUIRE A

[30:25] VARIANCE. BECAUSE IT IS SO FAR FROM THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I THANK

[30:32] YOU FOR GETTING THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE PHOTOS SO IT'S REAL. SO

[30:37] I'M DEFINITELY -- DO WE NEED A MOTION ON THIS? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF -- >> I HAD A COUPLE MORE

[30:44] QUESTIONS. >> WE CAN HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND DISCUSS IT. >> YEP. ABSOLUTELY.

[30:50] >> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> YEAH. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

[30:55] >> APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, MR. HUTCHENS?

[31:01] >> I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION -- ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE, IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IT HAS TO HAVE

[31:06] AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS. WE BUILT THE FENCE OFF OF OUR PROPERTY ON THE

[31:14] PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AGAINST CODE ON A LOT I DON'T THINK IS THAT,

[31:23] AH, UNIQUE. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE IT THROUGH. IT'S JUST CONFUSING TO ME, I GUESS.

[31:28] IT'S A GOOD LOOKING FENCE. NO PROBLEM WITH THE FENCE. JUST CONFUSED. CONFUSED ON THE

[31:35] DECISION, I GUESS. >> CAN YOU TELL -- CAN WE FIND IF THE ENCROACHMENT. IS THAT

[31:40] ALONG THE -- IT'S NOT ALONG THE BLAISDELL SIDE.

[31:45] >> IT'S NOT. ON THE 37th STREET SIDE. >> AND THAT'S NOT THE FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> CORRECT.

[31:50] >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE ON THE BLAISDELL. >> I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME FENCE.

[31:56] >> BUT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE DEFINITELY THOUGHT WE SHOULD CONDITION THAT, SO

[32:05] THAT ... >> ANY OTHER SUBSTI

[32:11] DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. CLERK,

[32:17] PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHELS.

[32:23] >> AYE. >> SALLY GRANS KORSH. >> AYE. >> HUTCHENS. >> NAY.

[32:29] >> INGRAHAM. >> NAY. >> SR. SR. SR.

[32:37] >> AYE. >> WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND TWO NAYS. >> THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THE

[32:43] REQUEST IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. AND THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. APPRECIATE IT.

[32:53] OKAY. WE HAVE -- ARE THERE ANY UPDATES? THERE WERE SOME APPEALS OF OUR BODY. I THINK

[33:01] YOU WERE GOING TO REPORT ON TODAY. >> YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR PERRY. BOARD MEMBERS WITH,

[33:08] THERE WERE TWO ITEMS FROM THE JUNE 12th APPEALED TO THE BIZ

[33:14] COMMITTEE. THEY WENT TO HEARING ON TUESDAY THIS WEEK. TWO DAYS AGO. THE FIRST OF THOSE WAS

[33:20] 44 -- 4428 EDMUND BOULEVARD. AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELATED TO

[33:26] VARIANCE SHORING PILINGS. FOR THAT ONE, THE BIZ COMMITTEE

[33:31] DENIED THAT APPEAL AND UPHELD THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. OR THE BOARD'S DECISION. EXCUSE ME. THE OTHER WAS 4640 17th

[33:39] AVENUE SOUTH. A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR TURF FOR A SCHOOL. ON THAT

[33:47] CASE, BIZ DID GRANT THAT APPEAL. THEY DID NOTE THAT IN PAST CASES WHEN THEY LOOKED AT ISSUES

[33:52] RELATED TO TURF, IT WAS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. IF THIS WAS RELATED TO IMPERIOUS, THEY WOULD

[33:58] HAVE HAD MORE CONCERNS. WITH THIS CASE, THEY FELT IT WAS ABLE TO BE GRANTED. AND THEY ADOPTED

[34:05] THIS ORIGINAL STAFF FINDINGS. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?

[34:12] ANY OTHER UPDATES? >> CHAIR, STAFF HAS NO FURTHER UPDATES. >> OKAY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS

[34:20] JULY 31st, 2025. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECONDED.

[34:25] >> MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. WE'RE ADJOURNED.