►
From YouTube: May 20, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
A
C
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
may
20th
2021.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record,
my
name
is
matt
perry
and
I'm
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
G
H
C
D
E
I
C
C
C
C
E
C
K
Good
evening
or
good
afternoon,
chair
perry
members
of
the
board.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
updates
for
you
on
items
that
were
recently
before
the
board
that
were
appealed
to
the
biz
committee
of
the
city
council.
K
The
first
item
is
4933
32nd
avenue.
This
item
was,
at
the
april
22nd
board
meeting:
there's
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
39
feet
to
20
feet,
construction
of
the
new
house.
That
items.
C
That
action
was
for
mr
alice,
mr.
K
Denied
by
the
board
and
was
subsequently
appealed
to
the
biz
committee,
and
this
last
tuesday,
the
best
committee
did
grant
the
appeal
and
the
scranton
variances
before
that
they
were
appealed
to
have
additional
findings
of
the
location
of
the
foundation,
an
existing
garage
on
the
site
as
well
as
rated
concerns,
because
estimated
fighting
number
one
and
that
the
new
structure
being
in
line
with
most
of
the
houses
on
the
block,
the
existing
houses
on
the
block
would
be
finding
number
two.
K
So
that
was
granted
from
that
same
april.
22Nd
meeting
denied
by
the
board
the
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator
related
to
pet
cremation
being
a
substantially
similar
use
to
a
crematorium
which
was
done
that
appeals
denied
by
the
board
that
was
appealed
to
this
committee
and
that
the
board's
decision
in
this
case
was
upheld.
The
appeal
was
denied
that
again
was
this
last
tuesday,
and
that
is
all
the
updates
I
have
for
you
this
afternoon.
C
C
So
let
me
just
talk
about
what
consent
items
are.
These
will
be
items
that
will
be
passed
by
the
board
without
discussion.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion.
Section
importantly,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
C
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
Please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
so
what
are
discussion
items
these
are
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
for
each
item
is
heard.
C
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
No
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed.
Board
members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
does
not
vote
except
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
C
So
let's
look
at
the
recommended
dispositions
agenda.
Item
number.
Five
is
1513
35th
street
east.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number.
Six
is
three
three
six
thirty
three
six
hoover
street
northeast
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
this
item?
Address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing
for
an
item
is
closed
board
members.
H
C
J
C
I
C
C
C
L
Liska
good
afternoon
staff
has
been
in
contact
with
items
mississippi
watershed
management
organization
about
their
role
in
this
space.
This
whole
project
they
communicated
with
staff
earlier
this
week
so
and
actually
followed
up
with
an
email
here
late
this
afternoon,
request
is
being
made.
The
applicant
has
yet
to
be
notified
of
that
email,
but
this
should
move
forward
on
june
3rd.
G
C
L
One
of
the
three
requirements
needed
from
the
applicant
was
basically
the
mississippi
watershed
organization,
acknowledging
that
there
is
an
erosion
issue
that
this
scope
of
work
will
address.
Okay,.
B
C
L
C
D
C
C
D
N
C
N
Is
a
a
mixed-use
property,
including
a
restaurant,
used
directly
adjacent
to
the
subject
property?
The
intent
of
the
lot
line
adjustment
is
to
expand
that
adjacent
property
at
1517
so
that
they
can
construct
an
outdoor
dining
area
in
the
space
in
between
the
restaurant
and
the
single
family.
Dwelling
next
slide,
please,
which
is
a
single
family
dwelling.
This
is
the
existing
condition
survey
of
the
two
properties.
On
the
left-hand
side.
You
can
see
the
subject
property
that
single
family
dwelling
and
on
the
right
is
the
premixed
use
property,
which
is
entirely
built
out.
N
Both
of
the
affected
properties
are
located
in
the
c1
neighborhood
commercial
zoning
district.
The
subject
property
has
an
existing
lot
area
of
approximately
5
22
square
feet
and
a
lot
with
just
over
73
feet
for
zoning
purposes.
The
front
of
the
subject:
property
is
to
the
north
so
facing
35th
street
east
again.
N
N
At
1517
again,
it's
mixed
use
with
the
restaurant
on
that
nearest
portion
to
the
house,
and
the
shared
lot
line
in
between
the
two
properties
basically
runs
along
the
west
exterior
wall
of
the
restaurant.
So
that's
space
in
between
the
the
house
and
the
restaurant
is
this
yard
that
includes
use
of
this
portion
of
the
garage.
I
mentioned
the
decks
other.
N
N
N
And
we
can
stay
on
this
slide
for
the
rest
of
my
presentation.
This
is
the
proposed
site
plan
which
again
shows
that
proposed
lot
line
adjustment
which
would
relocate
that
shared
property
line
from
its
current
location
around
the
right
on
the
west,
exterior
wall
of
the
restaurant
20
feet
further
to
the
west
so
closer
to
the
house
again.
The
intent
here
is
to
expand
that
mixed
use
property
and
create
some
space
on
that
parcel
so
that
the
restaurant
can
construct
their
an
outdoor
dining
area
serving
that
restaurant.
N
The
seating
area
that
they're
proposing
would
be
just
under
800
square
feet
and
would
include
screening
on
the
west
sides
and
between
the
dining
area
and
the
house
on
the
subject,
property
and
would
also
include
a
small
you
know
ramp
connection
from
the
dining
area
directly
to
the
to
the
public
sidewalk.
On
the
north
side
of
these
properties
20
feet,
the
slot
line
adjustment
would
reduce
the
distance
between
the
single
family
dwelling
on
the
subject
property
and
the
shared
lot
line
from
48.2
feet
to
28.2
feet.
N
This
would
reduce
the
lot
area
for
the
subject:
property
from
the
existing
522
square
feet
to
a
proposed
3794
square
feet.
Single-Family
dwellings
in
the
c1
zoning
district
remains
subject
to
a
minimum
lot
area
of
5
000
square
feet.
So
the
applicants
are
requesting
this
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area
for
the
subject
property
to.
G
N
The
arrangement
of
these
two
properties
is
somewhat
less
common,
but
not
unheard
of
where
single
family,
instead
of
having
a
more
traditional
development
pattern,
main
subject
where,
where
both
of
these
would
have
been
combined
with
the
front
of
the
property
to
the
east
along
bloomington
avenue,
in
this
case,
in
the
rear
of
the
combined
property
to
the
west
along
the
alley.
Instead,
at
some
point
this
was
this
was
split
and
the
rear.
You
know
the
western
portion
of
that
overall
property
was
built
with
its
own
use
facing
the
street
again.
N
N
N
These
circumstances
are,
unfortunately,
not
unique
to
either
of
these
properties,
particularly
the
subject:
property.
The
residents
and
staff
do
not
find
that
these
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
which
supports
the
requested
variants
for
this
residential
property
staff
are
unable
to
identify
a
unique
circumstance
of
the
subject
property,
which
constitutes
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
this
minimum
lot
area,
which
would
not
be
created
by
persons
presently
having
an
interest
in
the
property
and
not
solely
economic
in
nature.
N
Therefore,
staff
finds
that
this
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties
for
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance,
the
the
overall
proposal
to
construct
that
outdoor
dining
area
on
the
adjacent
property
is
generally
a
reasonable
use
of
a
residential
property.
You
know
a
restaurant
in
a
commercial
zoning
district
and
the
proposed
design
of
that
outdoor
dining
area
would
be
in
compliance
with
minimum
spacing
requirements,
minimum
screening
requirements
for
outdoor
dining
near
residential
uses.
However,
the
sphere
and
antenna
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
really
the
issue
here.
N
The
difficulty
is
not
is
again
the
ordinance
regarding
the
minimum
lot
area
for
a
single
family
dwelling
and
the
intent
of
that
ordinance
is
to
ensure
the
allocation
of
sufficient
space
efficient
yard
space.
For
either
just
open,
you
know
semi-private,
open
yard
use
or
as
space
for
accessory
uses
and
structures
like
a
garage,
you
know
they
already
have
outdoor.
You
know
a
small
garage
on
that
property,
but
it's
safe
space
to
allow,
potentially,
you
know
more
or
larger
accessory
structures.
N
The
neighborhood
already
includes
a
variety
of
uses,
including
commercial
and
residential
uses,
in
close
proximity
to
each
other,
so
this
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality.
In
that
regard,
as
I
mentioned,
the
restaurant
already
has
limited
outdoor
dining
area
approved
in
the
public
right
away
on
the
sidewalk
on
the
north
side
of
the
restaurant.
N
So
this
you
know
this
proposed
outdoor
dining
area,
though
it
would
be
much
larger,
would
not
be
the
first
in
sources
of
outdoor
dining
serving
this
restaurant
and
furthermore,
that
again
I
think
I
mentioned
this
before,
but
the
outdoor
dining
that
they
are
proposing
in
this
yard
and
between
the
two
structures
would
be
screened
and
be
sufficiently
separated
from
the
dwelling
to
be
in
compliance
with
some
specific
zoning
requirements
about
outdoor
dining
near
ground,
floor
residential
uses.
So
it
would
not
necessarily
be
a
concern
in
that
regard
from
the
north
side
of
the
restaurant.
N
Based
on
that
staff,
analysis
for
the
first
two
required
findings
not
being
met.
Staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
the
requested
variance
to
the
minimum
lot
area
for
the
subject:
property
at
15,
1513,
35th
street
east
I'll,
say
there
were
a
number
of
written
public
comments
received
from
this
item,
many
of
which
should
have
been
attached
to
the
staff
report
and
been
in
your
packets,
and
there
were
several
written
comments
which
came
in
after
that
staff
report
was
published.
N
So
those
later
comments
should
have
been
forwarded
along
separately
for
your
considerations,
I
believe
the
the
applicants
and
their
representatives
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing
as
well.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
questions
if
necessary.
N
N
I
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
your
presentation,
mr
cole
haas.
I
think
I
read
in
the
written
portion
of
your
report
that
the
lot
line
that
runs
along
the
building
of
the
restaurant,
I
believe
the
applicant
actually
has
an
encroachment
of
the
restaurant
into
the
subject.
Property
is
that
true,
and
what
are
the
implications
of
that
for
use
of
the
property
in
the
future?.
N
Thank
you
chairperry
and
board
member
sandberg.
That
is
correct,
that
the
existing
property
or
the
existing
property
line
between
these
two
properties
does
run
almost
exactly
along
with
the
along
the
west
exterior
wall
of
the
restaurant,
and
I
think
it's
in
the
very
southwest
corner
of
the
restaurant,
where
it
does
actually
hang.
N
And
hang
over
the
existing
property
line,
so
there's
a
small
corner
of
the
restaurant
that
I
think
around
six
inches
of
it
actually
extends
onto
this
residential
property
under
the
current
conditions.
So
this
proposed
lot
line.
Adjustment
would
address
that.
I
guess
that
now
that
encroachment
would
no
longer
be
be
an
issue,
but
that
could
potentially
be
satisfied
by
a
much
smaller
lot.
N
Intent
of
what
they're
proposing
here,
you
know,
they're
not
just
moving
into
six
inches
to
address
that
encroachment,
but
they're
proposing
over
it
20
feet,
and
specifically
you
know,
the
intent
of
that
is
to
is
to
to
facilitate
that
outdoor
dining.
So,
even
though
it
would
you
know
what
is
being
proposed
and
the
extent
of
the
adjustment
that's
being
proposed
would
address
that
staff
recommendation
is
more
based
on
the
broader
intent
of
this
for
that
for
the
outdoor
dining.
Specifically,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
answers
your
question
sufficiently.
N
A
rear
based
on
yeah
thank
you,
chairperry
and
board
member
joanna
scientifically.
The
setback
for
the
efficiently
for
a
commercial
property,
and
both
of
these
properties
are
in
a
commercial
zoning,
district
and
you're
right
that
the
west
property
line
of
the
of
the
restaurant
is
a
rear
property
line
for
zoning
purposes,
and
I
believe
the
setbacks
in
that
case
are
purely
based
on,
because
that
the
single
family
dwelling
is
also
in
the
commercial
district.
It's
purely
based
on
distance
to
a
distance.
N
The
I
believe
the
threshold
is
ten
feet
where
there's
a
strict
prohibition
on
constructing
anything
within
10
feet
of
a
ground
floor,
residential
use
on
the
adjacent
property.
But
in
this
case,
that
is,
is
met
by
the
current
circumstances
of
these
properties
and
would
also
not
be
an
issue
with
the
proposed
lot
line
adjustment
because
because
there
would
still
be
almost
30
feet
of
separation
between
the
new
property
line
at
its
proposed
location
and
the
wall
of
that
dwelling,
the
I
believe
the
setback
requirement
for
the
proposed
outdoor
dining
is
very
small.
P
Great
and
then
thank
you,
another
quick
question,
then:
are
there
any
exceptions
for
the
residential
single
family
in
this
commercial
district?
That
would
allow
it
to
be
a
smaller.
N
Square
footage
not
specifically
no
not
in
the
code,
they
would
have
to
change
the
use
of
the
property
to
do
something
else.
Besides
a
single
family
dwelling,
maybe
if
they
were
able
to
change
it
to
be
a
a
mixed-use
property
in
that
in
that
house
structure,
then
that
would
technically
be
a
separate
delineated
use
which
might
not
be
subject
to
the
same
minimum
lot
area
requirements.
N
But
if
it's
going
to
remain
as
a
single
family
dwelling
or
even
if
it
was
converted
to
something
like
a
two-family
dwelling,
there's
no
exceptions
built
into
the
code
for
reducing
that
lot
area
beyond
its
existing
conditions.
Essentially
again,
right
now,
the
property
is
in
compliance
with
that
minimum
block
area
requirements,
so
there's
no
exceptions
for
reducing
it
below
that
minimum.
P
N
Area,
something
like
a
two-family
dwelling,
there's
no
way.
N
And
board
member
john
anderson,
that
was
something
that
was
kind
of
broadly
discussed
early
on
in
the
process,
with
the
applicants
about
potential
other
options
from
the
zoning
perspective
or
different
processes,
including
a
potential
just
a
combination
of
the
properties,
as
you
described
it,
and
that
would
also
not
really
work
for
zoning
purposes.
For
a
few.
N
But
one
issue
is
that
for
zoning
purposes
there
is
generally
a
prohibition
on
having
more
than
one
principal
residential
structure
on
a
combined
property
and
that
house
right
now
is
considered
a
principal
residential
structure
and
the
zoning
code
does
not
allow
having
different
problems,
multiple
principal
residential
structures,
on
the
same
property
unless
it
is
through
something
like
a
cluster
development.
But
a
cluster
development
does
not
allow
a
few
different
commercial
uses
on
that
property.
So
then
that
would
defeat
the
purpose,
because
the
restaurant
and
other
commercial
uses
there
would
not
be
permitted.
N
Another
potential
option
would
have
been
something
like
a
pud,
a
planned
unit
development
as
an
option
to
combine
the
properties
and
have
multiple
principal
structures,
but
a
pud
requires
a
minimum
size
of
a
half
acre.
So
that
was
also
not
an
option
here,
and
these
were
topics
that
were,
potentially
you
know,
discussed
as
options,
but
ultimately
ruled
out
due
to
other
other
specific
requirements
of
the
zoning
code,
which
would
not
be
met
in
this
case.
C
O
My
name
is
kirsten
bigman,
I'm
the
owner
of
reverie,
which
is
that
the
1517
east
35th
street.
C
Applicant,
we
can
see
if
the
I.t
people
yep
looks.
O
Okay,
great,
I
appreciate
that
well,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
I
really
appreciate
it
and
we're
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
share
a
bit
with
you
prior
to
your
decision
making
like
I
said,
my
name
is
kirsten
bigman.
I
am
one
of
the
owners
of
bravery,
which
is
the
small
community
cafe
in
south
minneapolis.
B
O
Think
it's
really
important
for
me
to
mention
that
I'm
just
a
small
business
owner
trying
to
make
things
work,
and
this
is
extremely
challenging
time
for
our
city
and
well,
as
you
know,
for
everybody
we
arrived
at
the
intersection
of
35th
and
bloomington
in
2019
and
we
actually
opened
in
december.
Thank
you.
B
E
O
At
the
intersection,
so
in
our
application,
when
talking
about
the
practical
difficulties
and
to
be
honest
when
framing
this
application,
I
think
we
approached
it
from
the
wrong
lens
and
I'm
sure
you
guys
know
this,
but
practical
difficulties
are
really
hard
to
shape.
When
you
don't
understand
zoning
code
on
a
deep
level
or
really
at
all,.
E
O
I've
been
working
really
hard
to
understand
how
to
frame
this
today
in
our
application,
we
spoke
solely
about
ourselves
for
every
as
business
owners
and
kind
of
spoke
from
the
lens
of
our
site,
but
our
own
needs,
and,
and
also
those
of
the
larger
community
as
they
relate
to
this
location.
O
What
we
failed
to
do
is
to
seek
the
needs
of
the
site,
as
they
relate
to
the
other
tenants
on
the
property,
the
property
owner
and
and
our
collective
shared
vision
for
the
last
same
question,.
R
O
On
the
site
is
really
special
and
honestly,
the
practical
difficulty
that
we're
experiencing
is
that
we
can't
do
this
special
and
important
thing,
because
ourselves.
So
if
you
could
advance
to
the
next
slide,
which
should
say
reverie
in
really
big
gold
letters
and
our
own
means
thank.
J
O
H
O
The
visionary
behind
the
monologues
gallery,
which
occupies
the
corner
storefront
at
series
in
bloomington,
he's
also
a
locally
focused
realtor
and
landlord,
and
the
vision
behind
the
creative
placemaking
that's
taking
place
on
this
site
that
we're
a
part
of
ephraim
operates
his
business
function
on
these
lots
and
leases
other
residential
and
non-residential
spaces
on
both
lots
of
tennis,
arts
and
community
oriented
missions.
They
have
the
same
folks.
O
B
B
O
E
O
The
fact
that
the
city's
zoning
ordinances
do
not
allow
for
a
mixed-use
development
that
combines
the
residential
only
building
with
a
commercial
or
misused
building
on
the
same
zoning
lot
for
smaller
sites
like
this
is
our
practical
building.
Here.
The
minimum
lot
area
requirements
only
applies
to
a
residential.
Only
lot
developments
are
limited
if
the
building
at
1513
were
converted
to
mixed
use
or
commercial
use.
Even
the
minimum
lot
area
requirement
wouldn't
apply.
S
Q
O
B
B
O
Super
busy
intersection,
the
stoning
variants,
will
allow
for
the
lot
line
adjustment
which
will
allow
us
to
build
a
year-round,
walk-up
takeout
window.
That's
another
practice
and
then
build
a
deck
for
outdoor
seating.
That'll,
be
an
amenity
for
the
neighborhood
and
accessible
to
everyone,
including
those
with
physical
different
disabilities.
B
O
Q
O
B
O
B
O
O
B
O
O
Properties
with
within
750
square
feet
are
a
similar,
smaller
size
and
if
you
go,
go
to
the
next
slide,
that
21
properties
within
750
square
feet
have
smaller.
O
O
S
O
B
T
R
O
O
We
conceived
of
the
place
and
the
before
times
as
a
space,
where
folks
would
gather
at
your
tables
with
people
they
don't
know
and
and
really
get
to
know,
each
other
in
the
space
meet
new
people
and.
B
B
O
That
this,
in
conjunction
with
our
clarification,
that
this
is
in
fact,
a
practical
solution
to
practice
the
difficulties
presented
by
the
zoning
code
that
allowing
this
very
experience
will
not
become
a
precedent
to
others
with
people
attempting
something
similar,
because
it's
such
a
unique
situation.
In
the
first.
S
S
B
G
C
You
thanks
for
your
testimony.
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicant.
C
We
have
next
ephraim
the
subveal
and
if
you
press,
stair
six
to
mute
your
phone,
that
would
be
great.
I'm
sorry
if
I
got
your
last
name
wrong.
C
I'm
preparing
again.
A
A
lot
of
it,
I
just
wanted
to
say.
Q
A
G
Residential
property
that.
A
A
Bloomington
as
well
as
15,
sorry,
the
restaurant
reveries
so
and
that
back.
M
M
A
Q
A
Combine
those
properties
or
to
combine
that
mixed
use.
A
E
E
I
15.
A
J
A
E
A
A
Ingrained
I
I
was
always.
I've
always
been
looking
for
a
space
where
these
creative
expressions
could
come
together.
K
A
Affordable
living
and
housing
possibilities,
green
space
and
then
the
final
component.
Nutrition.
J
H
A
To
have
to
go
hand
in
hand
in
creating
the
most
livable
healthy
environment
to
live
in
and
to
create
community
within,
and
so
that
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that's
always
been
the
original
intent.
I
I
intend
to
keep
these
properties
together
as
long
as
I
own
the
property
and
make.
H
A
Much
the
intended
using
abilities
onwards
from
today,
so
nutrition.
B
A
E
A
M
A
Complement
to
the
space,
so
I'm
I
feel
very
lucky
to
have
them
as
anchor
tenants.
I
happen
to
live
upstairs
in
the
residential
unit
above
the
gallery,
space
which.
G
B
A
Solar
arrays
around
the
region
so
that
people
may
buy
solar
credits.
A
Every
once
in
a
while
out
of
the
gallery
space
as
we
open
up
unshuttered
the
windows
and
doors
to
the
office
space.
K
B
J
J
A
The
room
there's
four
bedrooms
and
they're
currently
as
far
as
the
challenge
of
possibly
turning
that
into
a
mixed
user.
E
B
A
Think
that
would
be
a
feasible
low
cost
at
this.
G
G
Growing
ending.
A
To
that
property
would
be
challenging.
B
E
A
G
C
Sure,
thanks
for
your
testimony
are
there
any
questions.
A
C
I'm
not
seeing
any
so,
let's
move
on
and
a
quick
note
to
other
speakers
if
something's
already
been
said
by
somebody
else,
you
can
just
say
you
agree
with
it.
What
has
been
said,
you
don't
need
to
repeat
it
and
I'd
like
to
try
and
limit
to
the
other
speakers
the
time
to
two
minutes.
C
So
next
we
have
tabitha
montgomery.
If
you
could
press
their
six
tons
on
unmute
your
phone,
I
would
appreciate
it
and
if
you
could
give
your
address
too,.
B
B
C
Agree
with
it,
what
has
been
said,
you
don't
need
to
repeat
it
and.
C
To
try
and
limit
who's
speaking,
I'm
sorry.
M
My
name
is
joe
stanley
and
my
spouse,
and
I
own
the
commercial
building.
C
M
Well
and
the
residential
property
as
well,
and
we
have
a
psychotherapy.
R
M
Is
our
building
if
you're
standing
on
the.
F
I
F
Q
M
C
Thank
you,
mr
stanley.
Now
on
to
tabitha
montgomery.
M
R
R
Ultimately,
my
comments,
I
believe
what
we've
attempted
to
say,
I'm
going
to
echo
what
ephraim
indicated
in
terms
of
not
being
able
to
do
justice
to.
I
think
what
kirsten
has
already
teed
up,
but
I
would
call
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
some
of
the
board
members
and
I
apologize
that
I
don't
remember
your
names,
who
began
to
go
down
the
path
of
exploring
what
other
challenges
or
practical
difficulties,
could
exist
or
other
options
within
the
zoning
code.
R
We
put
forward
a
letter
that
we
attempted
to
address
in
our
own
language
the
different
issues
that
the
very
well-prepared
staff
person
mr
cole,
has
put
forward
in
terms
of
special
circumstances,
not
detrimental
to
the
public
welfare
and
the
variance
that
keeps
to
the
spirit
and
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
take
each
of
these
in
turn,
but
specifically
referring
you
back
to
the
ways
that
kirsten
has
already
indicated
that
the
zoning
code
creates
significant
conclusions
to
what
can
be
done
at
this
site.
R
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
the
unified
nature
of
this
property
is
already
in
existence,
and
we
are
ultimately
attempting
to
align
what
is
already
in
place
for
this
community
with
that
which
on
paper
should
be
for
years
now.
If
you
would
refer
back
to
the
city's
designations
of
their
great
streets
program,
the
intersection
of
35th
and
bloomington
has
been
deemed
a
priority
eligible
zone
for
great
street
funding
to
invest
in
business
district
revitalization
before
they
switched
to
the
priority
eligible
zone
designation.
R
It
was
a
status
of
intervene
on
a
scale
of
two
other
options
to
support
or
maintain,
and
so
the
intervene
designation
was
the
most
aggressive
in
terms
of
what
needed
to
happen
in
order
to
help
revitalize
this
particular
corner
in
our
community,
which
I
believe
that
reverie
cafe
has
done
extraordinarily
well
in
an
amazingly
difficult
time.
They
are
the
epitome
of
what
a
community
partner
from
a
business
perspective
represents
alongside.
R
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
of
any
detriment
to
the
public
welfare
in
our
community.
In
fact,
it
only
will
continue
to
bolster
the
nature
and
the
dynamic
of
what
type
of
programming
exists,
not
just
because
of
the
health
of
a
small
student,
but
because
of
the
way
that
it
connects
and
brings
people
together.
Who,
in
this
particular
moment,
are
in
desperate
and
dire
need
of
continuing
to
be
brought
together
in
service
of
community.
S
R
I
would
also
note
that,
in
terms
of
this
particular
property
losing
the
amount
of
square
footage
that
has
been
noted
and
shifting
of
the
lot
line,
I
certainly
would
want
to
call
attention
to
the
fact
that
potterhorn
park,
which
is
a
66
acre
jewel
in
the
heart
of
our
community,
is
a
stone's
throw
and
when
I
say
a
stone's
throw,
I
would
estimate
less
than
50
feet
away
from
this
particular
property,
which
would
certainly
not
diminish
their
ability
to
benefit
from
the
outdoor
nature
and
tapestry
of
what
a
front
yard,
side,
yard
or
backyard
would
provide
in
this
particular
outside
of
the
the
idea
of
including
additional
small.
C
50
thanks
for
your
comments,
ms
montgomery,
I
appreciate
your
testimony.
We
next
have
sherry.
C
S
S
S
They
engaged
the
community
in
dreaming
up
innovative
transformations
of
space,
and
I've
really
seen
that
and
what
ephraim
has
done
with
modis
lopez
of
really
transforming
that
corner
into
such
a
place
for
art
and
community
and
then
how
that
expanded,
immensely
with
reverie
and
together.
What
they've
done
for
the
community
really
responding
to
what
they
see
in
community
needs
everything
from
providing
free
meals
for
the
community.
S
That
needs
it
to
to
creating
opportunities
for
artisans
and
community
members
to
really
engage
in
the
positive
transformation
of
that
corner
and,
as
tabitha
montgomery
said,
that
connection
to
the
park.
S
So
this
is
the
one
restaurant
that
is
adjacent
to
the
part,
and
it's
such
a
such
a
hub,
like
joe
stanley,
said
of
community
engagement
and
people
who
are
wanting
to
come
together
to
make
this
neighborhood
as
positive
and
as
connected
as
it
can
be.
C
S
Your
phone
adjacent
to
the
part
and
it's
such
a
hello,
can
you
hear
me.
E
H
To
the
board
as
well,
and
one
is
that,
as
everyone
says,.
E
H
S
B
With
whatever
and
adding
this.
H
H
T
Oh
hi
good
evening,
my
name
is
jenny.
E
T
The
lot
next
to
it
would
be
untouched
trash
and
other
things
would
gather
in
the
space.
It
would
always
be
dark
and.
T
J
T
Utilizing
it
a
gathering
space
for
neighbors
non-neighbors
to
come
together,
share
food
and
conversation,
create
art,
music
and,
at
times,
dancing.
T
B
Q
C
E
E
E
Q
U
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
everyone.
That's
testified.
It's
obvious
that
there
is
a
large
amount
of
community
support
and
passion
around
this
site,
as
was
detailed
in
all
of
the
public
comments
that
were
received
as
well.
I
think
that
the
questions
of
staff
earlier
on
really
illustrate
some
of
the
more
traditional
routes
that
will
be
considered
in
order
to
approve
the
variances,
but
from
what
I
can
tell
the
first
finding
of
uniqueness
and
the
second
finding
of.
U
Conformity
are
our
issues,
and
so
I
think
that
the
fact
that
the
properties
are
owned
by
the
same
group
or
they
share
a
very
close
bond
that
is
unique
and
it
is
important,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
that
will
carry
over
as
far
as
if
the
variance
is
granted,
it
stays
with
the
property
and
what
that
means
going
forward.
But
that
to
me
seems
like
a
very
crucial
part
of
the
success
of
the
the
business
and
also
the
residents
the
resident
residential
parcel
as
well.
U
I
think
that
the
fact
that-
and
I
I
think,
there's
a
few
overlapping
sort
of
zoning
considerations
for
the
over
overlay
in
the
2040.,
and
I
think
the
issue
is
that
the
residential
parcel
would
be
out
of
compliance
with
that
more
than
the
commercial
one
would
not
be
in
compliance
and
so
that
one's
a
little
trickier,
because
again
it
would
stay
with
the
property.
And
so
if
someone
were
to
buy
that
house
and
they,
you
know,
buy
into
a
smaller
lot
that
gets
tricky.
U
C
Right
thanks
for
those
comments,
there
definitely
is
a
lot
of
passion
and
a
lot
of
good
that
the
restaurant
is
doing
I'll.
Just
say
quickly
that
the
uniqueness
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
is
to
the
property
in
question,
which
is
1315
the
residential
property
and
not
the
business,
the
commercial
site,
the
restaurant
itself.
C
So
we
do
need
to
look
at
that.
Mr
sandberg.
I
Yeah
thanks,
I
think,
there's
a
good
argument
that
property
line
needs
to
change.
C
I
We
talked
about
how
much
it
would
have
to
change
in
order
to
come
into
conformance,
but
I
think
there's
a
good
reason
that
it
has
to
change
and
maybe
changing
more
than
it
just
has
to
would
be
justified
in
this
case,
and
I
think
another
reason
it
would
be
justified
based
on
the
conditions
of
1315
is
the
fact
that
that
frontage
of
that
lot
is
very
wide
compared
to
other
properties
in
the
city,
especially
those
just
adjacent
shearing
and
allen.
Structures.
I
J
I
I
K
P
P
P
F
With
respect
to
the
reasonableness,
I
agree
with
mr
sandberg
and
mr
johannes.
I
think
that
the
proposal
is
reasonable.
With
respect
to
practical
difficulties,
I
agree
with
staff's
findings
and
would
echo
from
the
spring
sprinklerova's
exceptional
comments.
F
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
just
want
to
chime
in
and
say
I,
with
the
request
with
respect
to.
F
I
I
think
that
the
proposal
is
reasonable
with
respect
to
practical
difficulties.
I
agree
with
staff's
findings.
I
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
will
move
granting
the
variance
as
applied
for
I
think
we
discussed
a
few
things
that
define
that
would
support
the
findings.
C
I
just
want
to
do
a
quick
check.
Staff
have
a
list
of
the
findings
that.
C
Yes,
okay
and
it
is,
is
there
a
second.
I
K
I
I
C
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
variance
request
is
approved
as
requested
a
notwithstanding
staff
recommendation.
So
good
luck
with
your
project
and
thanks
for
everyone
who
came
to
testify
with
that,
is
there
any
new
business
or
old
business
people
would
like
to
bring.
C
C
And
the
variance
request
is
approved
as
requested
a
notwithstanding
staff
recommendation.
So
good
luck
with
your
project
and
thanks
for
everyone
who
came
to
testify
with
that,
is
there
any
new
business
or
old
business
people
would
like
to
bring
up.