>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THE JULY 17, 2025 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PE I PERRY, CHAIR OF THIS BOARD. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
>> CLERK: CALLAHAN. >> PRESENT. >> EICHELS. >> HERE. >> SALLY GRANS KORSH. >> HERE. >> HUTCHENS. >> PRESENT. >> ENGRAM. >> AYE. >> PERRY. >> HERE. >> T SMIR SMIR. >> HERE.
>> WE'LL PROCEED TO THE AGENDA. A COPY OF WHICH WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT LIMES.MINNEAPOLIS. MN.GOV.
N.GOV. MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES AND THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN
A KEEP SEEN A COPY OF THE MINUTESES FROM JUNE 26, 2025 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING
AYE. AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? IF YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST MEETING, YOU SHOULD ABSTAIN. AND WITH THAT, THE MOTION PASSES. THE MINUTES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 26, 2025,
MEETING ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. REMINDER TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, 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. PLEASE CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR PROJECTS. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, CAN YOU TURN IT OFF OR TURN IT ON SILENT. SO LET ME
READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND SAY WHETHER IT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, RETURN, OR SUBSTITUTION. FOUR IS 1936 DREW AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR
CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? AND, ALSO, BOARD MEMBERS CAN PULL ITEMS. I SEE NO ONE. AGENDA ON ITEM NUMBER 5, IS 2922
ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. AND LASTLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS 2701BLAISDELL AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE ITEM? OR DO ANY
MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM? >> CAN I PULL NUMBER SIX. >> YOU WANT TO PULL NUMBER SIX. OKAY. SO LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS FOR OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT. THEY ARE ITEM 4. IS
THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS ITEM ON CONSENT? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES. SO IF YOU
WERE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, YOUR LAND USE REQUESTS ARE APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. SO LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, THIS IS 2922
ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE BOARD, WE HAVE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT ATTACHED. SO IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE DO HAVE THOSE ITEMS NOW.
AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM FURTHER THAN TODAY, WE CAN HAVE THE BOARD CONTINUE THE ITEM TO OUR JULY 31st BOARD MEETING. SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT AS AS YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE
PRESENTATION. OKAY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. I'M FATIMAT OLUKOGA, CITY PLANNER.
2922 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM AREA OF A PROJECTING SIGN. FROM 20 FEET TO 31.9 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CM3 COMMUNITY MIXED USE
DISTRICTS. THE CORRIDOR 6. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OVER 39,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. IT HAS TWO BUILDINGS THAT SPAN TWO LOTS ALONG THE ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH.
FROM 29th STREET TO LAKE STREET. IT'S A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH A SIX-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 2008. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TWO SIGNS FOR THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE WAY FINDING
SIGNS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE. THE FIRST SIGN IS A CANOPY SIGN THAT MEASURES -- EXCUSE ME, 35.5 SQUARE FEET. AND IT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE SIGN STANDARDS. THE SECOND SIGN IS THIS PROJECTING
SIGN BEFORE YOU, PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF LAKE STREET AND ALDRICH. AGAIN, 20 SQUARE FEET IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED, AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR 31.9 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. THOUGH MANY LOTS AND BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA ARE LARGER, THE SIZE AND LAYOUT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND BUILDING ARE NOT UNCOMMON FOR THIS MIXED USE DISTRICT.
AND IT DOES NOT CREATE A CHALLENGE IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. THEIR DESIGN OPTIONS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING USING WALL SIGN AGE, WHICH THEY WILL BE ALLOWED, LIKE 180-SQUARE FEET. OR A SMALLER PROJECTING SIGN THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE
ORDINANCE. THIS FINDING IS NOT MET. THE INTENT OF THE ON-PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS IS TO ALLOW EFFECTIVE SIGN AGE APPROPRIATE TO THE PLAN CHARACTER OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE BUILDING ON SITE IS -- THE BUILDING ITSELF ON
SITE IS OVER 32,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. AND CURRENTLY ONLY HAS TWO SIGNS IDENTIFYING THE RESIDENTIAL USE. THE LIMITED SIGN AGE ON THE SITE AND THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HELP ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CREATE VISUAL CLUTTER OR
NEGATIVELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS FINDING IS MET. THE PROPOSED SIGNS WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY, WHICH INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, ALONG WITH GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CREATE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR DETRIMENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY. THIS FINDING IS MET. AGAIN, THE SIGN WOULD NOT AID TO VISUAL CLUTTER. ONLY ONE OF
TWO SIGNS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. THE CANOPY SIGN IS LOCATED ON ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH. THE PROPOSED SIGN -- THE PROJECTING SIGN IS ON CORNER OF LAKE AND ALDRICH. LAKE STREET HAS A
UNIQUE VISUAL CHARACTER OF, YOU KNOW, MIXED MURALS, SIGNS, AND OTHER NONCONFORMING BILLBOARDS. SO IT WOULD NOT ADD TO THE CLUTTER OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. AND CONSIDERING THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE CORRIDOR, THE SIZE AND
PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SIGN IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. THE FINDING IS MET. THE PROPOSED PROJECTED SIGN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE SIX-TOUR I WOULD
SIX-STORY BUILDING. IT'S CONSTRUCTED AS A 3-INCH DEEP INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CABINET THAT FEATURES BLUE AND GREEN COLORS WITH WRITE ACRYLIC LETTERS. THE ILLUMINATION AND
COLORS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING. THIS FINDING IS MET. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECTING SIGN. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OF STAFF? EITHER FROM THE TESTIMONY OR THE REPORT SHE GAVE OR THE MATERIAL THAT WE RECEIVED. YES? >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS GOOD. I WANT TO THE ASK YOU
TO HIGHLIGHT THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER OPTIONS THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH SIGN CODE. OTHER THAN THIS, RIGHT? SHRINKING THE SIGN, LIKE YOU SAW, WALL OPTIONS. THERE'S A TON OF VERSIONS OF THIS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
OH, I'M SORRY. YES? >> YEAH. I GUESS IS THIS A RELATIVELY NEW BUILDING? >> NO. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2008. >> OKAY. I MISSED THAT. 2008. OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE I WAS -- I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ILLUMINATION ONLY BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, IT DID NOT USE BIRD-SAFE GLASS AND THE ILLUMINATION IS AN ISSUE FOR BIRDS AT NIGHT. WHEN THEY STICK OUT FROM A BUILDING. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS'
COMMENT, THE BLUE SIGN AT 31-SQUARE FEET, IF IT WAS PUSHED BACK ON THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF. YOU KNOW, NOT THAT ONE. THE NEXT ONE. IF IT WAS PUSHED ON THE BUILDING ITSELF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. @FACT THE FACT IT'S STICKING ON
THE VESTIBULE THAT MAKES IT UNACCEPTABLE. I NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THE DIMENSION THING. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE SECOND SIGN THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET IS A CANOPY SIGN. AND THAT IS APPROVABLE. ONLY THE PROJECTING SIGN IS THE SIGN BEFORE YOU.
>> RIGHT. THIS PROJECTING -- >> NO. >> THIS ONE IS OKAY. >> GOT IT. I'M SORRY. SO I'M SORRY. AND THAT IS PROJECTING ... SO, AGAIN, AGAIN, THAT'S PROJECTING ON TWO SIDES, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. IF IT WAS FLUSH AGAINST THE WALL, IT WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE? >> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I THINK WHAT I'LL DO, BASED ON MY EARLIER
COMMENTS, IS I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE APPLICANTSES WHO HAVE COME DOWN AND LET THEM TALK. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANT TO
CONTINUE IT ONE CYCLE OR NOT. LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >. [ AWAY FROM MIC ] >> THERE YOU TWO.
>>GO. >> I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR SDDI SIGNS. >> YOUR LAST NAME? >> [?] >> YEP. THANKS. >> SO GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME, AGAIN,
TREVOR. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TODAY CONSIDERING OUR APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OUR PROPOSED SIGN AT BLUE LINE APARTMENTS ON LAKE STREET. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. AND THE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS IT WILL
BRING TO THE BUILDING AND THE COMMUNITY. APARTMENT HOMES RECENT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. SO HERE IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER. THE NEXT SLIDE HERE IS DISPLAYING A REGULATED SIGNAGE OF 20-C-SQUARE FEET. AND HERE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE OF 32 S 32-SQUARE
FEET. SO THIS SLIDE DISPLAYS A RENDERING FROM LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH OF THE 20-SQUARE FEET SIGNAGE ON THE LEFT AND THE 32-SQUARE FOOT SIGNAGE ON THE
RIGHT. AND HERE WE HAVE BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH. I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO CALL OUT SOME OF THE RECENT COMMENTS ABOUT THE WALL SIGNAGE. ALL THOUGH, YES, IT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY TO MECHANICALLY
MOUNT TO THE WALL, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT. 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 ALREADY TENANT SIGN AGE ON THE
LOWER LEVEL. SO THE SIGNAGE WOULD NEED TO BE AT LEAST 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 SIGNS IS THE VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING DOWN STREET AT IT. SO
WE FEEL THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND HARDSHIP UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY BASED OFF THE BUILDING AND SITE INFORMATION. SO THIS IS A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE BUILDING IS 58-FEET TALL, HAS 428 APARTMENT
UNITS, SERVING A HIGH VOLUME OF RESIDENTS, GUESTS, AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE BUILDING STRETCHES 547 FEET ALONG ALDRICH AND 128 FEET ALONG LAKE STREET. LAKE STREET BEING THE MAIN
CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC IS WHERE THERE IS LIMITED VISIBILITY. MNDOT DOCUMENTS THE DAILY TRAFFIC FLOW ON LAKE STREET AND ALDRICH AT 18,000 TO 22,000 CARS PER DAY. THAT
EQUATES TO 150,000 CARS PER WEEK. OCCUPANCY IS CURRENTLY AT 80% HAVING OVER 85 VACANT UNITS. SO WE'RE HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP. 75% OF THE THIS PROJECT
IS HIDDEN FROM LAKE STREET. WITH THE HIGH TRAFFIC COUNT AND SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, IT MAKES BLUE AND LIME EASY TO MISS. THERE'S MANY MUCH-LARGER SIGNS FLANKING THE PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE. WE'RE ALREADY BATTLING
FOR VISIBILITY. THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY ADHERING TO THE 20-SQUARE FEET RESTRICTION PUTS OUR PROPERTY AT A LARGE DISADVANTAGE OF BEING UNSEEN AND TO OTHER EXISTING SIGNS IN THE AREA. FUTURE RESIDENTS, GUESTS,
AND SERVICE PROVIDERS WILL NOT SEE THE SIGN IN TIME TO SAFELY SLOW T DOWN FOR TURNS OR PARKING. DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AT THE PROPERTY, THE LACK OF VISIBILITY WILL LEAD TO CONFUSION AND UNSAFE PARKING
BEHAVIOR, POSING A RISK TO THE PROPERTY. SO OUR PROPOSED SIGN AGE WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WAYFINDING ALIGNING WITH THE GOALS OF THE CM3 DISTRICT. IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE
INCREASE TO 32 SQUARE FEET WILL STILL BE MODEST IN SIZE SIGN BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WILL NOT ADD VISUAL CLUTTER ALONG LAKE STREET. STANDOUT IS OVERSIZED OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE
AREA. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL HELP THIS PROPERTY OVERCOME A GENUINE HARDSHIP OF VISIBILITY. BEING UNIQUE IN SIZE AND PLACEMENT. NOT LEADING TO SETTING A PRECEDENCE WITH FUTURE CASES. SO, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE. SO
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT. YES? YEP. >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF. CAN YOU -- EITHER STAFF -- BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT JUST THE ZONING CODE IN GENERAL. ABOUT
SORT OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE 20-SQUARE FOOT SIGN RESTRICTION. AND IF THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN SIGN SIZES IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY. >> CHAIR, THERE ARE DIFFERENT
SIZE ALLOWANCES FOR ZONING DISTRICTS. AGAIN, IT'S CM3 DISTRICT. IT'S A MAXIMUM OF 20-SQUARE FEET FOR PROJECTING SIGNS. THAT'S IN GENERAL TO IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENDED CHARACTER OF DISTRICTS WITH THAT
ZONING. DOWNTOWN AND IN HIGHER INTENSITY CM DISTRICTS, LARGER SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. HUTCHENS. >> THANKS, CHAIR. TO PULL ON
THE THREAD THAT BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN BROUGHT UP. THERE'S A CM4 DISTRICT JUST TO THE EAST. DO WE KNOW THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE CM4? OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEAD? >> CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, IN THE CM4 STRICT, A PROJECTING SIGN
WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 48-SQUARE FEET. >> A HALF BLOCK AWAY COULD DOUBLE IT? INTERESTING. >> SO WE HAVE TO -- IF I WAS
KEEPING TRACK OF THINGS, THE DIFFICULTY IS THE THING THAT HAS TO BE .. YOUR OBSERVATION IS WORTHWHILE, MR. HUTCHENS, BUT I DON'T KNOW
WHERE THAT REALLY GETS US FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OF STAFF? >> SURE. >> IS THE -- THANKS. IS THE BULK OF THE BUILDING BEING HIDDEN, LIKE THE APPLICANT SAID, 75% IS NONVISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IS THAT AN UNCOMMON
THING IN A CM3 DISTRICT? OR KIND OF A PLATTED TOWARD THE LESS-TRAVELED ROAD OF A BUILDING THAT SIZE? IS THAT UNCOMMON? IS THAT PRETTY COMMON? THAT'S AN ARBITRARY QUESTION, MAYBE. TOO BROAD?
>> YEAH, CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN MAKE ANY SORT OF INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE TO THAT. YOU SEE ALL SORTS OF PLATTING CONFIGURATIONS ACROSS THE CITY AND ALSO IN DISTRICTS. >> ALL RIGHT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES. >> AH, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS SO FAR. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT IS NOT ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS HERE. I SEE AT LOT OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT'S
NOT RELATED TO SELLING MORE UNITS AND THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. I KNOW FURTHER DOWN BRYANT, I MEAN, YOU HAVE OTHER LONG APARTMENT COMPLEXES DOWN THAT STREET HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
THIS, EVEN THOUGH -- YEAH. THERE ARE SOME -- YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BIGGER SIGN NEARBY. BUT I CAN'T FIND MY WAY THERE. >> THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? YES. >> I, UMM, I DON'T FIND THAT THE
INCREASE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT A VARIANCE. I DON'T FIND THE FIRST FINDING. BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT INCREASE IS GOING TO MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. IT'S STILL THE SIGN AT THE CORRECT SIZE WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS IT BEING LARGER. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT
DOES PROJECT, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR VISIBILITY, AS YOU'RE DRIVING, WALKING, OR 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 UNIQUE ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE VARIANCE. I WOULD MOVE STAFF FINDINGS.
>> OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? AND A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I SEE NONE. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> C CALLAHAN.
>> AYE. >> EICHELS. >> AYE. >> SALLY GRANS KORSH. >> AYE. >> HUTCHENS. >> AYE. >> SMIRKAROVA. >> AYE. >> SIX AYES AND ZERO NAYS. >> SO YOUR REQUEST IS DENIED.
YOU CAN SEE STAFF FOR WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE GOING FORWARD. AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN TODAY. IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO GET DOWNTOWN FROM WHEREVER YOU ARE AT. SO LET US MOVE ON TO
ITEM NUMBER 6. 3701BLAISDELL AVENUE SOUTH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. ITEM NUMBER 6 BEFORE YOU 3701BLAISDELL AVENUE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO PERMIT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A FENCE TO 6 FEET IN
THE FRONT YARD FROM 4 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE UN2 NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT INTERIOR 3 OVERLAY. THIS IS A 4,604 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN KINGFIELD
NEIGHBORHOOD, WARD. I DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT IN FAVOR FOR THE PROJECT. THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT EXIST ON THIS SITE WERE NOT CREATED BY THAT APPLICANT. THE PLATTING OF THIS
PROPERTY RESULTS IN A I REVERSE CORNER LOT THAT IS SUB STANDARD IN SIZE AND DIMENSION. THAT COMBINED WITH THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE SOUTH, IS THE FLAG LOT THAT CURVES AROUND -- RAMPS AROUND TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT DRIVEWAY
THAT EXTENDS ALONG THE EAST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONS AS AN ALLEY. WHERE IT HAD -- AN ACTUAL PUBLIC ALLEY THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. THAT APPLICANT DID NOT CREATE THIS PLATTING
CONDITION ON THE SITE. THIS FINDING IS MET. THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO ENCOURAGE ANESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOW FOR PRIVACY WHILE
MAINTAINING ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO USE THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ENCLOSED BY THE FENCE FOR SEMIPRIVATE OUTDOOR YARD SPACE. WHICH IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL SPACE OF THE DRIVEWAY
ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPACE FROM THE PROPERTY FACING 3 7th STREET THAT IS LIMITING THE IMPACT ON THE FRONT YARD. THIS FINDING IS MET. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OR BE INJURIOUS TO OTHER AR AREA PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THOSE USING THE PROPERTY BY INCREASING THE PROPERTY SECURITY. THE PROPOSED FENCE IS SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED SITE
TRIANGLE, AND AS SUCH, DOES NOT OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY OR PREVENT A TRAFFIC SAFETY HAZARD. THIS FINDING IS MET. WE ASK THAT YOU ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS? WE HAVE TWO. SALLY, YOU'RE SECOND. AND ADAM. >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THE ONLY REASON I PULLED IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WE'RE VOTING ON. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. WOULD YOU
MIND WITH THE VIEW -- YEAH. PERFECT. WHERE IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE NOW? THERE WE GO. WOULD YOU THROW A CIRCLE AROUND WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING VARIANCED HERE. IT'S NO THE ENTIRE FENCE, CORRECT? >> NO. IT IS THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. >> YEP. JUST THAT CHUNK. NOT
THE ONE THAT RUNS ALONG 37th. >> CORRECT. THIS IS THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE. >> SO THEN THE WHERE I'M HUNG UP IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE BACK OF THE YARD HAS AN ALLEYWAY DRIVEWAY IN
IT. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE FRONT YARD AT ALL? IT'S NOT -- SO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORING FENCE IS IN CODE? IT'S JUST THE LITTLE CHUNK
FACING THE FRONT SIDEWALK. HOW IS THAT AFFECTED BY THEM HAVING A DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR? >> SO, IT'S MORE SO THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY REDUCES THE
ESSENTIALLY REDUCES THEIR USE. >> MAY I STEP IN? >> SURE. >> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE REVERSE CORNER LOT PLATTING.
THERE ARE REVERSE CORNER LOTS ALL OVER THE CITY. >> UH-HUH. >> TO ME, THAT DOES NOT, IN MY MIND, CONSTITUTE ANYTHING UNIQUE. AND SO IT'S ... IN
FACT, I THINK THERE ARE THINGS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REVERSE CORNER LOT IS WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE. AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE DENIED IT. I'M WONDERING WHERE STAFF -- IS THIS A SHIFT IN STAFF POSITION FROM WHAT IT HAS
BEEN? OR AM I MISSING SOME SOMETHING? >> I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A SHIFT IN STAFF POSITION. I THINK JUST IN THIS CASE, THE REVERSE CORNER LOT CUPPED WITH THE FLAG LOT, THAT IT ESSENTIALLY WRAPS AROUND THIS LOT. CREATES A UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCE. >> OKAY. >> CHAIR, MAY I? >> YES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS STAFF ALSO DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THIS IS A SUB STANDARD LOT. THIS IS A SMALLER LOT WITH LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR UN USE.
>> OKAY. AND BOARD MEMBER, I'M SORRY. I DID SAY YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK NEXT. I APOLOGIZE. >> IT'S ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY APPROVE OF THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. I
THINK IT'S REALISTIC ON THE FACT THAT THE SMALL PIECE OF FENCE THAT FACES BLAISDELL IS SO FAR FROM THE PROPERTY LOT LINE THAT IT SETS APART. TO ME, THE INTENT ALWAYS ON A 6-FOOT FENCE
ON THE FRONT PIECE. YOU'RE NOT BLOCKING THE FRONT PIECE OF THE AREA. AND BLAISDELL HAS A LOT 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 THOROUGHFARE, TO ME, IT'S VERY REASONABLE. AND THIS IS A
CLASSIC EXAMPLE WHERE I LOOKED AT THE DRAWING AND COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS WONDERFUL TO SEE THE PHOTOS. BECAUSE IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WAY IN THE BACK. AND SO, IN MY HEAD, IT REALLY DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE. BECAUSE IT IS SO FAR
FROM THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I THANK YOU FOR GETTING THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE PHOTOS SO IT'S REAL. SO I'M DEFINITELY -- DO WE NEED A MOTION ON THIS? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF -- >> I HAD A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.
>> WE CAN HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND DISCUSS IT. >> YEP. ABSOLUTELY. >> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> YEAH. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, MR. HUTCHENS? >> I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION --
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE, IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IT HAS TO HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS. WE BUILT THE FENCE OFF OF OUR PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AGAINST CODE
ON A LOT I DON'T THINK IS THAT, AH, UNIQUE. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE IT THROUGH. IT'S JUST CONFUSING TO ME, I GUESS. IT'S A GOOD LOOKING FENCE. NO PROBLEM WITH THE FENCE. JUST CONFUSED. CONFUSED ON THE DECISION, I GUESS.
>> CAN YOU TELL -- CAN WE FIND IF THE ENCROACHMENT. IS THAT ALONG THE -- IT'S NOT ALONG THE BLAISDELL SIDE. >> IT'S NOT. ON THE 37th STREET SIDE. >> AND THAT'S NOT THE FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> CORRECT. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE
ON THE BLAISDELL. >> I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME FENCE. >> BUT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE DEFINITELY THOUGHT WE SHOULD CONDITION THAT, SO THAT ... >> ANY OTHER SUBSTIT
DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHELS. >> AYE. >> SALLY GRANS KORSH. >> AYE. >> HUTCHENS. >> NAY. >> INGRAHAM.
>> NAY. >> SR. SR. SR. >> AYE. >> WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND TWO NAYS. >> THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THE REQUEST IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. AND THANKS
FOR COMING DOWN. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. WE HAVE -- ARE THERE ANY UPDATES? THERE WERE SOME APPEALS OF OUR BODY. I THINK YOU WERE GOING TO REPORT ON TODAY. >> YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR
PERRY. BOARD MEMBERS WITH, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS FROM THE JUNE 12th APPEALED TO THE BIZ COMMITTEE. THEY WENT TO HEARING ON TUESDAY THIS WEEK. TWO DAYS AGO. THE FIRST OF THOSE WAS 44 -- 4428 EDMUND BOULEVARD. AN
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELATED TO VARIANCE SHORING PILINGS. FOR THAT ONE, THE BIZ COMMITTEE DENIED THAT APPEAL AND UPHELD THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. OR THE BOARD'S DECISION. EXCUSE ME. THE OTHER WAS 4640 17th
AVENUE SOUTH. A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR TURF FOR A SCHOOL. ON THAT CASE, BIZ DID GRANT THAT APPEAL. THEY DID NOTE THAT IN PAST CASES WHEN THEY LOOKED AT ISSUES RELATED TO TURF, IT WAS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. IF THIS WAS
RELATED TO IMPERIOUS, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD MORE CONCERNS. WITH THIS CASE, THEY FELT IT WAS ABLE TO BE GRANTED. AND THEY ADOPTED THIS ORIGINAL STAFF FINDINGS. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ANY OTHER UPDATES?
>> CHAIR, STAFF HAS NO FURTHER UPDATES. >> OKAY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS JULY 31st, 2025. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECONDED. >> MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.
WE'RE ADJOURNED.