City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. This is the January 15, 2026 zoning board of adjustment regular meeting. My name is Matt Perry and I'm chair of this board. I will now call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the role so that we may verify the presence of quorum. Member Callahan present. Eicholds is absent. Grants Korsch here. Hutchkins here. Ingram hi. Smarova here. Wong here. Chair Perry here. There are seven members present.

We do have a quorum. And with that, we will proceed to our agenda, a copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative information management system, available at limbs.minneapolis.gov. Is there a motion to approve this agenda? And before we do that, um we have a um we have to do nominations at this meeting. So, I would entertain a motion to amend the agenda to include uh item number six, um nominations. So, move second.

Uh so, we do have a motion on the floor. Uh and I would ask if you could vote in favor if you agree with the motion. I I Any against? Any abstensions? That motion passes. Now on to the full motion of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve this agenda as amended? So moved. It's moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. I. Any against indicate by saying nay.

That mo motion passes. And the agenda is approved as amended. I believe all the board members have seen a copy of the minutes from the December 4th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? Can I make a motion to amend uh the minutes to take out uh Chair Perry's uh uh yes votes um because he only votes in case of a tie. Yep. Um so if we correct that um then I move to uh adopt uh u adopt that adjustment. So we'll we'll do the amendment first. Um is there a second for that?

Second. All in favor of the motion say I. I. Any against? Abstain. You abstain. And do I need to abstain because I wasn't at the last meeting? [laughter] Uh or no? Technically no. I think technically no. Okay. Well, also I then I guess so now on to the main motion of approval of the uh minutes from the December 4th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion to approve as as amended? Second. It's moved and seconded. And all in favor of the motion indicate by saying I.

I. Anyone who would like to disagree with that say nay. Any abstensions. Abstain.

There are two abstensions but the motion passes and the minutes from the zoning board of adjustment December 4th 2025 meeting are approved. Got through that. All right. Uh reminder to applicants and others that if you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in uh on the sheet available from the clerk and speak clearly into the microphone. If you have not signed in, you can do so on your way out. Also, to applicants and others, please contact staff after the hearing with any questions regarding your projects. And I'd like to talk about what discussions are. Discussion items are these are items for which the board will take public testimony, deliberate on and make a decision. After the public testimony has been heard for each particular discussion item, 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 only votes in the case of a tie. Okay. Thank you. So we have one land use request. Um and the recommended disposition for this is that it is a discussion item and that's agenda item number 4415541st Avenue South. So this mot this item was already um opened and it was continued. So we can just go straight into the uh

presentation from staff and for the public what we'll be doing is uh staff will give their presentation uh and then the applicant or their representative will have 10 minutes to speak. Following that, anybody who is in agreement with the application has two minutes to speak. We use that clock over there. Um, and after that, anybody who is in a disagreement with the motion with the application can speak again for two minutes. So, we'll start off with that. Mr. Miles or Mr. Campbell.

Uh, thank you, Chair Perry, members of the board. So, as mentioned, this is a item that was continued from our previous meeting. Uh, subject property is 415541st Avenue South. Uh, there are two variance requests before you tonight. Uh, one to increase uh the maximum lot cover and want to increase maximum impervious surface. One thing I'll note here and I will also remind the board um at the end in terms of our recommendation um the applicants in between that previous hearing did revise their plans, reduce that um overall footprint for the addition itself that's proposed. um that has changed the uh essentially the allowed um maximum in this case. So 67% for the lot cover and 71% for the impervious surface just to give some ex existing conditions and some context for the site. So originally this was built uh as a uh dwelling. The original portion of the building is um the lower flat roof portion. Uh it was then converted into a place of assembly in the 1930s with a later addition in 1951. and that's the the larger um portion on the kind of western side of the property. Uh the lot itself is 10,168 square ft and that existing structure has a footprint of approximately 5,545 ft. Um I will note that the uh structure as it stands today is already non-conforming in regards to both lot cover and impervious service. Um and those were defined in the staff report but uh just for the benefit of uh our audience and for the board. Lot cover refers to the footprint of any structures on the property. So in this case the church primarily but also any sheds or accessory structures. Uh the impervious surface maximum is that plus any hardcape any pavement areas really anything that is going to not allow um infiltration of rain water into soil. This is a look at the main floor of the church itself and highlighting specifically here a large part of the the need for the variance in the uh

request from the church is in order to bring this building into um compliance with ADA requirements. So currently there are two entries to the church itself. One again the uh kind of north stair entry highlighted on the top of this slide and then the south stairs. in both cases that entry from the street and in both cases even off of the street itself there is a couple of steps up from the sidewalk. Um but then more notably inside the building itself there is um these uh stairs that require um access for the rest of that building for the rest of the church itself. So, a large part of this is to uh there plans to install a elevator in the off of the south entry specifically and also an ADA ramp for that south entry to allow for better accessibility for the congregation. Again, in between that first hearing in December and this, we have seen a change in the the actual footprint that was proposed by the applicants. This is the uh again the original proposal was for a roughly 1,700 square f foot addition on the northeast portion of the property itself. Um again the highlighted here in yellow is showing actually that location for the um ADA ramp or the um accessibility ramp for the structure itself. One thing to note here is that that would be located fully in uh the city's public rightway rather than on the property. Um, so there's not a setback variance in this case because it's not on the private property. Um, the applicant would need to receive approval from the city's public works department to actually install that infrastructure itself. Again, beyond that ADA ramp and again the um, uh, elevator in that lobby area, there are some other additions uh, in terms of that uh, building edition. Originally was planned for more community space, some more classroom space. And in the original plans, they also called out a potential rain garden to help mitigate um that increased kind of roof cover for the purposes of storm water management. Looking now at kind of the revised

proposal, again, the uh addition has really been scaled back um again from that 1,700 to,200 uh75 square ft. Again, this would still be um essentially a two-level addition where there would be one level off of the main floor of the church and then one for the uh the basement level itself. Um they are now showing also a potential retention infiltration basin in that to top corner, but otherwise that would largely remain as kind of landscape vegetated areas under the current plan. And uh moving forward for the rest of these slides where we're looking at existing versus proposed floor plans, we're going to be using this revised um floor plan for the church. So this is showing the main level uh existing. Again, you can see in kind of greater detail that south entry with the stairs. Uh they now would be reforming that entry to have a elevator as well as um stairs up and down to access both floors. Um on that main level, they have kind of scaled back again the original plans. Um, one other portion of this uh design was seeking to get bathrooms on the main level of the church. Currently, there are no uh restroom facilities. They're all in the basement. So, again, having kind of a onele option for those people that might have um accessibility issues was important for the church. Looking now at the lower level. Again, uh the scaled back version is on the right here versus the existing uh layout of the lower level. And this is uh the entire lower level of the building here shown again more classroom space um more connection to the um north entry in this case which used to just kind of dead end into restrooms uh and have to kind of move through that community room to have access but again scaled back in terms of the overall um floor area being proposed. Uh, one thing I will note here in terms of the changes, I think staff sees these as generally a very positive improvement compared to the first round of the plans. Um, as we'll talk about with kind of the uh, statutory findings for

variances, especially in light of kind of reasonleness with the code and um, impact on surrounding properties and essential character, uh, we do see this as kind of a positive change in reducing that overall footprint. I know the applicant did provide some um shade studies in terms of lights uh being able to access that property to the north. I'm sure they'll uh be able to talk a little bit more on those with detail. Um staff still remains kind of stuck and we'll talk a little bit about staff's recommendations on that first finding, but again, overall, I do want to emphasize that staff is supportive of the changes that were made here. In terms of public comments, we did receive 21 written comments in advance of that first meeting in December. Um, generally speaking, I would say those were mixed in terms of um, we certainly received some in support. We received um, a number against from kind of immediate neighbors. Um, again, those that were supportive often highlighted the existing lack of accessibility features at the church itself, accessible restrooms, um, access for wheelchair users, as well as, um, noting some potential for security improvements at the entryway itself and for, um, individual classrooms. Those that were opposed to the plan generally tended to highlight kind of impact of shading on adjacent properties. Um maintaining kind of green space more generally in this neighborhood as well as some issues with flooding in the alley in terms of kind of storm water runoff, rain runoff during those larger rain events. Uh we did receive 12 additional written comments which were provided to you before the meeting itself. Um again those are largely mixed in a similar fashion. Um I don't want to kind of go through all of those. So again, you have those available to you. In terms of staff's findings and our recommendation on this item, um again, the one that I'll mostly um focus here on is the first finding. So whether the site exhibits unique circumstances, again, the church and the materials notes that the existing building itself has some unique challenges in terms of meeting um accessibility requirements and was built prior to uh for example,

the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Um generally speaking though staff doesn't see in terms of the site itself. This is a a large lot. It's a regular shape. Um in this case the existing building is again already over those allowed lot cover in a maximum impous amounts. Um we did not see that um practical difficulty standard met in this case. Um the other thing that I will note here is uh for reasonable use and for essential character again I think the changes that were uh made by the applicant team were um generally positive. Um, one thing we will note is in terms of reasonableness and the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan. Um, there are certainly portions and goals from the comprehensive plan that this kind of meets on its own in terms of policies around social connectedness and being able to age in place. There are certainly some other uh portions of the comprehensive plan though, however, that focus on managing storm water um reducing imperous surface. Um and in that way staff does feel that it's very important that uh were the board to approve uh variances for the site um making sure that those again um rainwater improvements that are called out here is possible or potential on the plans are made a condition of the approval. Um essentially that second finding is met by virtue of uh providing improved storm water maintenance on the site. Uh as mentioned I I said I would bring this back up again. The recommendation from staff is to deny the two variances uh the increase in lot cover to 67% and the increase in maximum impervious service to 71%. And happy to stand for any questions.

Thanks for the presentation. Other questions of staff? Yes. Thanks for your presentation. I always appreciate it when you do a good job. Uh can you educate me? It says increased to 67%. What is the existing requirement they could meet that they would have to meet?

Sure. Yeah, I can provide a couple of different numbers here. Uh, Cher Perry, board member Hutchkins. So, the code requirement for lot cover here, if we're talking about that one first, 45% is the maximum in an interior one built form overlay district. So, again, this would be um about 22% over that um or roughly 2,244 square ft over what would be allowed. Um, again, the existing building is also over that number already. um in this case um and that is scaled back from I believe the the original proposal was for 72% lot cover um the maximum for impervious there it's a bit less of a kind of overage so to speak the maximum would be 60% of the lot as impervious surface what do they add on the impervious surface today without any additions

uh I would have to double check the applicant's materials but I can certainly do that or the application team might also have that on their end um I believe is included as part of their materials okay then the last question is you said there's 12 more additional comments that were provided to us. I I don't think we did. They're not in the digital packet. They were uh emailed to your city accounts. It's not available online either for this for the public to view either. Uh that's probably true. Yes. What I looked at was they were not there. They were mailed to our city email accounts. I haven't logged into that thing in two years. I couldn't even tell you how to get into it for all the digital issues that come up with the city.

So noted. Okay. Thanks for your pres. Are there any other uh Yes.

Okay. Hi, thanks again for your presentation and I am just I've spent a lot of time on this one because I am truly confused especially when I look at the comp plan talking about social infrastructure and community benefit and I understand you have to go by the letter of what regulations you have but again I go back to our name is supposed to be adjustment here so I don't know if we can adjust it or not so my questions are a couple I've got a Just to be sure and and and Commissioner Hutchkins mentioned it, the existing lot. Okay, this was an existing single family dwelling zone area when it was done. There was no probably zoning and the building got built 100 years ago and it's okay, right? I mean, no big deal. Now it's 45%. But that's because it's mostly single family dwellings. Is that not correct in this area, in this zone? Right. and the fact that that they're 60% is right now they're they're out of compliance right now. So they're going to 607%. So the reality is that they're only going 7% over the existing and that's correct right

uh to clarify chair Barry and council member or board member grant squares the 67% is the lot cover which would be normally restricted to 45%. So on lot cover they're over by 22%. On the impervious service it's 60 to 71. Let's do lot coverage p first. Can we do lot coverage first because that's what I'm trying to understand. But the lot coverage right now is 60%. Right. Right now they right now it's 60%. And they're going up to 67%. Is that not correct? That's what I read. I mean that's what I read here. And I don't mean to be

correct. And so, uh, chair B, board member GR's course, in this case, again, the existing is permitted. It's what's considered a legally non-conforming structure under the zoning code. So, it was constructed legally, um, and then changes to the zoning code have now made it legally non-conforming, but essentially the city can't come in and expose facto say you need to cut off, you know, 7% of your building. Um what we do restrict is any expansion of a legally non-conforming structure and that's where the variance comes in. So so the reality is that because they're at 60% they're literally they would have to go for a variance even if they went to 62%. Correct. Any additional

again please let me finish. I mean so 7% so that's what we're arguing about here is a 7% additional coverage once they scaled back the project. I mean, they scaled back the project, right? And so, it's 7% is really that's what we're talking about here is 7% on the whole entire lot because they're already out of compliance with 60%. So, it's 7%, right? Uh, correct. I believe so. And I pulled up the existing lot cover here.

Okay. Let's go to the that my other Oh, sorry. My other piece of that is that I'm trying to understand too the the permeability the piece again in the revision because it was kind of hard to understand. They added a rooftop component, right? That's going to collect rainwater and then dispense it to the west and north side. Is that not correct? That is the proposal from the applicant. Right now we don't have a lot of details on what that would look like other than again a call out on the site plan.

Okay. All right. But that's that is something. So when you referred to that the second f finding could be met maybe if we take all of that into consideration because it's unusual. It's not unusual. It's actually a good uh green building technique to put um a system so to speak instead of underground up on top of a roof that would catch water and then distribute it. So it it actually is serving almost like the permeability piece. Right. In so much as it would help to mitigate that increase in the overall roof cover, but again it's still considered an impervious surface.

Sure. Sure. Sure. Now, and you also didn't mention I mean they reduced it by 28%. They they reduced it so it's really only 704 square ft the size of a large efficiency. Um because I didn't get I also too did not get into the the email. Um so I don't I didn't look at the 12. The original project letters that came in I counted has three were against and 18 were four. So the project I mean so that was what I got. So I wish I I wish I could tell not that we I know we don't pay attention completely but I was interested in that the people on the north side had very you know they did an eloquent um original letter with photographs and everything. Now they've scaled back significantly. Right. And so did you receive a letter from the north side because they scaled back and showed the sun rate the they'll get sun for their garden all summer long? I

correct. We did receive another um letter from both the neighbor of the north as well as a legal representative for that property owner. Um so we have received more comments there um not fully um supportive of the new design but okay

but but in from my look at the drawings and from understanding the sun in the south I mean maybe in this winter they won't be able to get direct sun but anyways then the other piece that I wanted to understand too is we talk about the open space the two of the letters in the first goound talked about open space but when I looked and drove by the site the only people that because the building encompasses the west and south side, the only people that see that open space are literally two lots across the alley and one lot in the lot north. Is that I mean, so in other words, I I read that, right? Right. And I saw that that that open streets, right? Okay. And then I also saw in the revision that they kept the the driveway for the people on the north. Right.

That is correct as opposed to the original plan. That's really a a kind thing that they did. So Okay. Um Okay. And I'm and I'm also struggling too. The F on this is just the floor area ratio.

Yeah. And I can provide some more details there. So the floor area ratio in this case is uh compliant essentially in a UN1 interior 1 property. Typically we'd look for a single family h home to have an F of 50% or.5 but for an institutional use that's increased to 80% or8 for the F. Um here I believe with the addition they're still at roughly 72% or 72. Um that's largely because the um basement floor area is excluded in this case. So, it's only looking at the floor area of the main floor as well as that uh mezzanine balcony area. Where where did I see that? It was actually down to

uh that would be at the bottom of this page here. The the floor area ratio calculation. I thought it was 1.25 though. I can't I can't read that far. Sorry. I thought it was 1.25 instead of 1.73. They reduced it anyways square footage by 28% in order to make this thing work. Okay. So, okay. So, I'm still So, really I'm going back to

the piece that I'm just struggling with is that we're literally 7% when you talk about it being not being a unique property. Um did you take into account the comp plan com comments about community and social connection there because that is I mean ultimately you know modest variances for this kind of purpose to keep a community resource in the neighborhood and to also apply for federal AIA I mean ADA stuff. Um

yeah and in terms of that first finding again staff would really draw a line of uh in terms of the comprehensive plans direction that really is more under finding two which talks about the reasonableness of the proposal in light of that guiding document and the ordinance. Um finding one is very um specifically tailored to talk about the unique circumstances of the building, the site, the property itself um that are physical in nature and not created by the applicants. And certainly again, I'm sure the applicant will come up here in a moment and argue that they do have those physical circumstances that necessitate the variance. Um, in this case, staff did not agree. Okay, we can all disagree. Cool. Does anybody else have any uh comments? Sure.

I have one comment and a question. I I just want to make a note that we are ultimately held to three findings. Um it takes a lot of heart out of it, but ultimately we're bound by that. My one question for staff is the applicant noted that one of the challenges is that it's a single building on two combined lots. Can you explain um why it is or isn't a challenge? Um, [sighs] Cher Perry, uh, board member Wang in staff size. Uh, that didn't come into play a lot in terms of again, these are two different properties, but they are today got, you know, treated as one. Essentially, they were replatted and um, combined into a single property. In terms of that lot's area, again, it's over 10,000 square ft. So, we're not talking about a post postage stamp or very small property. This is overall larger than our, you know, minimum directions in terms of lot sizes for uh UN1 interior 1 properties. Again, staff did not see that as a difficulty, but I would leave it to the applicant to kind of describe their own thinking.

Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a question. So, uh, what the applicant can probably address this as well, but I'd like to hear staff's position is it seems that there is an effort to have the entrances ADA compliant. Um, and that's the plan that we're looking at today. What about the other what what ties that ADA effort to the additional part of the building? Why why is that necessary? Am I missing something?

Sure. Uh Chair Perry, I think part of it is the kind of supporting improvements with that. So again, we mentioned the existing church does not have a a bathroom on that main level. So part of that uh kind of reconfiguring of the area is also just understanding that the addition of an elevator in that lobby is going to require it to take up a bigger floor footprint. Um not wanting to lose that space elsewhere in the church itself. So again, there are um some of those tangential connections between uh in terms of kind of the basement area, there is a bit of a better flow, I would say, in terms of the revised plan having a connection to that northern entrance, but again, that's not directly tied to the um the ADA kind of request. Again, I think part of this is

it's it's almost like finding two for that is overriding finding one for that. I I see a little bit what you're saying. I mean, in terms of the the reasonleness of the ordinance, and I think the staff report called this out, there are a number of um goals and policies in the comprehensive plan that talks about um social connectedness, and I think while not directly tied to the the accessibility ramp, for example, um improving that classroom space that they do have on the the lower levels does tie into that kind of social connectedness, community building um goals from the plan. Okay. Yep. I think that Oh, yes, Mr. Hutchkins.

Thanks. Just one more question. So, looking at the zoning map, uh are they is that lot zoned poorly and would it be resolved potentially with a reszoning?

Uh it would have to be reszoned pretty significantly I if I recall to get to basically to where there wouldn't need to be a variance. There certainly could be the argument of um I believe it's adjacent to Interior 2 and UN2 directly. So then uh once you're getting into that category, I don't know if that um I would defer to Mr. Ellis uh if he has access. I don't off the top of my head, I don't know if Interior 2 changes those built form restrictions in terms of a bump up. Um I believe in order to make this an addition totally by rights but for a reasonzoning they'd be looking at more um like a corridor um built form district which generally allows a higher [snorts] degree of lock cover and there is I believe it's once you get over a few blocks to the west there is corridor

four I want to say if I recall there's just a CM1 kitty corner for them essentially in the two I was curious if that zony would have the ZM1 The tricky thing here is that there is a little bit of interplay between built form and zoning codes, but the build form is largely going to determine what is allowed for the structure itself. Okay, thanks. I think that's it. Uh, so thank you for answering all those questions. Um, can we have that clock set up to 10 minutes? And is the applicant present or the representative? Yes.

If you could give your name and address for the record. And what we'd like to do is have one person speak at at a time if we can. For sure. Yeah.

Great. Hi, my name is Chris Walker. I'm the lead and founding pastor of Hayawa Church. And uh just a couple of things from the church's perspective. I can let Tom speak to some of the technicalities, but um uh some history. We we started Hayawa Church in 2006 purposefully in Longfellow. Uh even naming the church after our neighborhood because of our love for the city and a desire to be a church for the community and for all kinds of people uh to come to church and access our space for different needs. Uh we purchased the building as is and on a contract fordeed basis with our denomination, but in more recent years, the building's increasingly becoming a hindrance as a gathering space. um to even some of our own members um not being able to attend services and to us letting other groups use our space uh like community organizations, Girl Scout troops, senior groups, a capella groups, uh neighborhood garage sales, grad parties, and even weddings and funerals, which uh we believe these are things churches can and should be able to host for the common good of the city and the community. But due to the shape of our building with its split level entrances, lack of accessibility, and outdated security features, it's just becoming increasingly problematic for our church and for other groups to use the space. So, our church's leadership uh work with Station 19 to choose a design with accessibility with dignity. And that meant a solution that included a glass lift at our main entrance and added ADA compliant bathrooms on the main level because right now we have none as as you just heard. But this also has a negative domino effect kind of downstream on our space um in that it it eats into kids classroom spaces and bathrooms and office space and lobby space. Things were kind of already pinched for and so to kind of recoup that space we needed um a solution with an addition into our courtyard. The other ma major priority is kids safety. Uh right now our kids are split across different levels and non-connected rooms and so to provide secure contained classrooms with a

single check-in point. All kids needed needed to be on one connected floor. Um adding another story to the building on the east side would not accomplish that. It would push kids onto multiple floors and require substantial space for new stairs and uh further elevator access. So expanding into our courtyard on on the other hand provides the safest and most functional layout without altering the building's overall scale or character. Um and then last, as you know, um since last month's continuence, we've scaled back the designs to seek to be less imposing to our neighbors. Uh we valued this highly even if it's not as ideal for us, but also knowing our goal is to serve the broader community of South Minneapolis, uh Longfellow in particular. And this project with its updates and improvements um we believe would not only meet the needs of the church, but would benefit the common good of the neighborhood and match the city's commitment to things like diversity and inclusivity and safety um you know right away when it's done but into the future for uh decades as well. So um so thank you for listening and for your review of the request and for your consideration. Appreciate it.

Okay, there there might be some questions for you. Are there any questions of the pastor? I don't see any. Thank you. For sure. Name and address, please. Sure. Uh name is is this uh Thomas Peterson uh 2017 Princeton Avenue, St. Paul. Okay. I tried to live in Longfellow but ended up in St. Paul. 22 bungalow on a 40 foot wide lot similar to the neighbors. Um let me uh address this and control L. [clears throat] Is that showing up on your screen?

It is.

Okay. Um and a lot of this is a uh similar to what was presented. This is a new slide um kind of itemizing the things that kind of speak to some of the unique uh aspects of this. Uh, Station 19's been around about our architecture firm has been around about 50 years focused on serving uh, churches and um, so we've worked on hundreds of churches and dozens in the city of Minneapolis and this is my 32nd year of doing that and uh, uh, so we've done a lot of things and understand with fear and trepidation needing doing a design that requires a variance uh, and so uh, it wrote goes to the point of importance to to submit this to you for your consideration. Um generally people uh see the uh zoning code as the limit and uh basically since it was adopted in 70 for the 70s for the recent one it basically sets general guidelines but uh there's instances where you consider um adjustments to that and uh variances uh and special consideration. So, that's why we're here. We recognize it doesn't fit the letter of the law, but we think it's uh uh reasonable within the guidelines of the zoning code, and that's why we're here you for you to decide that. So, thank you for the time for doing that. Um, usually variances, uh, and I've heard a lot just going with the shape of the land or topo. Uh, but really variances also consider kind of the unique situations of the building itself. And since the church bought an existing church, they have to kind of deal with

how that church was cited onto the to the property. And um it's been 75 years uh since there was any significant work done to the church. So within those 75 years, a a lot has changed. Um uh we've talked about the inaccessibility of it and kind of making it a welcome place. Uh when the original building was built, um it was built tied up against the uh south property line. Uh, and this is actually original picture back in 38. Here's a house and then what was called a a chapel here and then this portion of the building was added to the chapel. And then in 51 the chapel and the house were removed for the church just for some orientation. So, it's kind of aggregated from uh uh kind of two buildings to kind of the single one as shown. When the addition was done in 38 or 39, it basically was tied up against the alley, tied against the south property line. the church uh structure when it was added in 51 maintained against the south property line but also stretched up to the five foot setback couple inches over that setback um and then held to the uh setback along uh the street uh to the west. So we're kind of built tight up against the edges except for this northeast uh corner of the lot. Um, one of the nice things by pushing it tight without a setback from the street, it it has allowed for decades, many decades, 100 year, not quite 100 years, but 75 years of a nice sunny open space

that the neighbors could enjoy, including the uh the paving area. So um when we come into a project we analyze the needs of the people uh and the facility and kind of work through a number of the options and what we came up with the original proposal was kind of meeting their people needs um and uh kind of push the envelope. Uh the north set back is five feet. We were proposing 6 foot7 to align with the building and with this revision we're pulling it back to 20 feet from that north property line. So about four times what the setback is with the exception of this kind of narrow triangular um portion that we're uh linking linking the uh hallways uh to that space. So um this is kind of a a sketch of the massing of that. So we pulled down the roof of that linkage to bare minimum even maybe a little bit low and then kept the massing uh pulled back. We're allowing for a setback along the alley to have green space and infiltration and then a uh finally get a enclosed trash enclosure along there. Um, a lot of the garages are right tied up against Eller within a foot or two. Uh, so we've looked at kind of the sun angles. This is kind of a diagram at noon and we're looking at uh trying to maintain uh what set the 20 foot is setting that equinox or kind of March through September of noon light not being on the property. We've extended that into the uh the drawings that I think you received with the reduced that kind of dynamically show it uh because it's different sun angles. Uh so our

goal was to make sure that we're not shining on their raised gardens that were added about uh 2020. Um, and uh the space uh just because of the sun angles, it does affect uh the rest of the yard in kind of the late uh late fall uh winter months, but outside of a typical growing season. So, um we did look at some options of potentially adding a third floor, but that casts even more shadows on the neighbors and it doesn't help with accessibility. It creates a more uh uh ob uh obscure space within the space. And these were some of the sun angles that we showed in June. Essentially no angles uh on there. And then uh at the equinox we can see where in this center bottom one the shadow is shy of there with a little bit of shadow from this this pointed. But in the afternoon, in both cases, that tall 51 edition takes over the backyard. So, there's nothing we can really do about that besides cutting it down. Um, and then the winter uh you can see there's uh exposure to uh some some of the shadow on the house, which is probably the biggest concern, as well as the garden. Um, I'd say 60% of uh uh the daylight is cloud cover in the wintertime. So that kind of takes shadows a little bit out of the picture and the sunlight is distributed without kind of that glaring cut off. So I think we're we're still allowing some very usable light.

Um let me just uh Mr. Peterson, I just wanted to be okay aware that you've got two minutes left and you still haven't addressed the uh finding number one that staff is disappearing with that's where I where I'll go here and uh

you've been able to see the plan and understand that. So, I just wanted to get to the ear. So, part of uh what we're dealing with um kind of giving that background is we have an existing building that's um that was built by others. So, it's not of our own making to address that portion of the the finding. And it was built as a split level tight against the property lines and setbacks. So, when we're trying to make connections without significantly reducing the building, uh we're going to have to do some additions. Uh because the main uh entrance um is on that south side and it's tight against the property line. Often times we would build out uh an accessible entrance, but in this case we have to build into the building and upset the apple cart of the inside spaces creating a vestibule landing, uh space for the lift, space for the stairs and accessible restrooms. Um so all those things are kind of unique that typically we'd add out but in this case we have to add in and as we add in we have to we displace uh functional space that we we're kind of limiting to this uh interior uh addition. Um and I've kind of enumerated him in the list that you're looking at. Uh there's some other things for a 75 I don't know there's a lot of 75 year old buildings that have not had new windows or or walls or treatments. Um but part of that is uh we're addressing some of that with about 30% of the wall area. Um some of the other things unique to this

are uh the need for safe child safety and security uh within the churches and we have isolated that north entrance is isolated. And then we also have storm water management. Back then you could just dump dump water out in the street and and manage it. So part of what we're doing is uh taking some of that uh the existing roof that dumps onto the the public space and trying to manage that on on site on site. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but that's kind of my main intent of addressing that first finding.

Are there any questions? Yes. So, where I think we're going to have problems uh on the first finding is pretty much everything you've listed is what the problem is to comply with the building the way it's built today. And I think uh we tend to not uh be able to take that into account. It has to be the property itself. So, is there anything specific about the property that hinders you from complying with the zoning code?

And again, the uh the working with the building affects the property. I was trained both in landscape architecture and architecture, so I kind of see them as one. But um my understanding is that variances and uh hardship can apply does apply to existing buildings as well as the property. So, it may be a city policy. Uh, I don't know that. But can you educate me on that one? Uh, just that when it says prop, it doesn't say land, but it says property and that includes the building um and the structure. So, um, that's my understanding and I can be corrected, but

is that something Brad can address? Mr. Ellis, can you provide clarification on that? clarification on uh the first finding saying uh existing property issues. Are you allowed to are we allowed to consider the existing design of the building as a component of the property?

Uh Chair Perry, board me board member Hutchkins. Yes, you you can consider uh the the the shape of the existing building. Um, I think that happens most of off often when you see maybe a variance being granted because an existing home was built 2 foot 9 in to a property line. Something, you know, we we'll take into account. It's kind of similar in a situation such as this. Um, we are taking into account the building. Um, while there's nothing necessarily unique to the property, the building exists and provides some constraints on the site. I guess

yes. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm troubled though, Mr. Ellis. I'm I'm I'm troubled here because Oh, sorry. Sorry. Um circumstances were not created by the persons presently having an interest on the property. Um you're dealing with an existing building that again is already out of compliance. We've been told that the existing is already out of compliance, but yet we would literally have to remove then other buildings in the same situation because they don't meet they can't be added to. I mean, I I don't Isn't it unique that it's already over at 60% coverage and it's already got a problem? So, doesn't that make it unique in and of itself? Because just because it's a an existing 10,000 square foot lot um doesn't mean I I don't understand this. I'm still struggling that to in my opinion just the existing building creates a unique situation and by not letting us believe that it's unique to the property going back to again I appreciate Commissioner Wong's um comment that we have to meet this this measure but it is unique because there's no addition then that we could do that would not require a variance. There is no addition that we could do on this property at all, including building. I mean, last week we we allowed a a an variance for um a church that was building out with an accessibility piece, and this has to be building in because it's of the way the situation of the building is. So, I'm struggling here.

Uh Chair Perry, board member Granscorch. Yes, there are a lot of situations within the city where no development can occur without a variance. It could be whether it's a shore in a shoreland area on a steep slope. Uh could be a situation such as this where a building exists and is already over the floor area ratio or other things or ones where uh they're currently in a setback and need the variance for the setback. Um we analyze each one individually. Um sometimes staff can make all of the findings to get there, sometimes they can't. Um if you disagree with staff findings though, that's why we have a public hearing. It's not automatically rejected by staff. um they can take to the to the public hearing to make their case. Um and if the board of adjustment agrees with that case and can make the legal findings, the board of adjustment can then approve that.

So to be clear, we could consider those situations of the existing 175 year old structure has unique and how that's forcing them to build interior 7% more. It's unique to that property. it. We could consider that you can consider a wide variety of things and if that's one of the the the considerations then you may do that as part of your findings. Yes. Thank you. So I have a I have a question um that goes back to what I asked Mr. Campbell. Um

you you have a couple of goals that you're trying to do. One of them is the ADA compliance for the entrance on the south side. Yep.

That's one of the things that's important to the uh parish. Um and then there is and and some things get moved around when you build in. I get that part. I'm having a real hard time myself understanding what all the other space that is not part of that it why that's required what what's what the hardship is there I know it's a desire but I don't know why it's a hardship

and and as I said to be clear finding number two for that is found. But the way we look at these things, finding number one really is the first prong that we look at. Yep. That that hardship, practical practical difficulty to be more accurate. And

yeah, and I think part of the practical difficult one of the things that comes with accessibility is uh not just letting them into the building for one thing, but to be a part of the the whole work. Uh some of the the aspect that I'm showing on the screen is the existing and we have an isolated entrance that as you note there's no way to get up the stairs. So really the only way to this space is through the sanctuary. Uh otherwise ablebodied people could come up go through the fellowship hall and then come up uh through this space. So, if we're providing accessibility to this space, we're arguing that this this is the route that needs to be added. So, it kind of forces an addition. As Chris said, you can't really add it over here because it's on the wrong side of the the space. So, this is the space to add it. So, we've kind of done this periscope of uh this also is a foot up from the front of the sanctuary. So, we're also needing to ramp up. So,

and I don't want to design I don't want to do you're an architect. I don't want to design this on here. Yep. But, um I can see options where you could have a hallway for that very same thing and not require the 12 the 1275 square ft. That That's an option. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a desired option by you because you have other

Yeah. And some some of that supporting stuff for the life is the accessible bathrooms, moving a kitchen up to serve functions and gatherings. Uh kind of instead of having the gathering downstairs, have it on this accessible

level. Uh and then the the secondary part is just creating a secure children's area just based on custody. I mean this is a trend in church design that we kind of secure areas for c children with custody issues as well as unfortunately the shooting stuff but just kind of making a more secure children's area especially with um the existing facility. Basically, you can't get to that north side uh without walking through the the fellowship hall, which at this point is some of the education spaces. So, um there's really the circulation goes right through the middle of the kids space where we're we're creating secure rooms along a a corridor that connects through the building. So, um, we kind of create instead of having to go through rooms in order to, uh, get to the other other side of the building or the other entrance, you can secure each of the rooms down.

I see. Okay. All right. Any other questions? I see none. Uh, is anybody else want to speak in favor of this application? if you could step forward and give your name and address. I have people who want to speak as Spencer Peterson, Becca Robbins, and Sarah Thompson. And we'll take the people who are supportive of the application first. I don't know if you can just leave that. Just leave it. Name and address, please. Hello. Uh, my name is Spencer. Two minutes.

Spencer Peterson. 3204 41st Avenue South.

Uh, thank you for hearing us out. Um, board of adjustment, I live just a few blocks of north of the church building. Uh, my family and I moved to Minneapolis two decades ago in order to be a part of highwaalth church and then we moved into the Longfellow neighborhood uh, nine years ago to be uh, even closer uh, to the church building and to live in this neighborhood that we uh, love and have been committed to for a few decades. As members of H Highwaltha Church and members of the Longfellow neighborhood, we're asking you to please uh allow us the variance that we need to make our church building accessible uh safe and hospitable to our community. Uh my wife and I both have parents who have had strokes in the past few years which has kept them from being uh able to participate in our community um because they've not been able to take any stairs or take all their stairs to go downstairs to use the bathroom. Additionally, uh I have a 4-year-old son which he went into the hall now, but he is uh handicapped and is in a wheelchair. He absolutely loves attending our services because he loves the people and the music uh his peers as well as gathering with uh people of different ages, intergenerational uh relationships. Um but because he's disabled, he cannot participate fully um without the constant help of an adult. Uh the Minneapolis public schools did not have a spot for him in their high- five program this year. So our church is the main way that he gets social interaction with uh peers as well as with many adults. Um currently our church building just keeps him from being able to participate and uh because he has a wheelchair. Our current kids ministry space just does not allow him to uh participate fully. And so, uh, speaking on his behalf, he desperately needs an elevator left, as well as larger and safer classroom space and

handicap accessible bathrooms. Um, our church's desire for accessibility and also safe and large enough children space also happens to align with many of Minneapolis's desires and values in their 2040 plan. Uh we ask that this team approve our variance and um yeah so that we can be a a church um that continues to serve primarily the neighborhood that we are in uh in South Minneapolis. So thank you for hearing us out. Thank you Mr. Peterson. Thanks for coming down. Uh let's see. We have Becca Robbins or Sarah to Thompson. Are you speaking for

Have I Are you speaking for the application? Yes. Okay. And your name and address, please? Oops. Sorry. Um, I'm Becca Robbins. My address is 40564th Avenue South. Yep. So, right close to the church building. So,

um, my name is Becca Robbins. I am the kids ministry coordinator at Hayawa Church. Um, and I'd like to formally request your consideration of our bid for a proposed church edition. My professional background is rooted in 10 years of education specifically for children aged 6 months to 11 years and my current role at Hayawa is focused on ensuring the provision of safe, welcoming and compliant spaces for the children in our care. Um the necessity of this addition addition is in part driven by critical concerns regarding space constraints and child safety compliance. We currently facilitate programming for approximately 80 kids age 11 and under across our two Sunday services. Um we are not a daycare but based on licensed daycare standards it's 35 pe feet per um child and with those kind of what we try to stand by with keeping enough space for our kids. We are grossly inadequate in the amount of space that we have um our kids are we have a lot of kids at our church and they're amazing and they take a lot of space that we don't have. Um, in addition, a critical concern is the lack of secure formal entry and exit points in several of our spaces. Our areas, um, some of our areas are currently delineated only by curtains, um, which severely limits our ability to control the environment. The proposed addition is essential for creating compartmentalized secure spaces with formal doors. Um, this critical update will enhance our capacity to safeguard children inside the classrooms while preventing unauthorized access. In the current climate of our city and the horrors that we have witnessed in the last 5 years, we want um to be a place where parents feel safe dropping their kids off knowing that we'll do everything in our power to keep them safe. With our current spaces, we're pretty significantly limited um in case of an emergency. Lastly, the piece that we care the most about, um the majority of our children's programming is currently situated on the lower level of our facility, which lacks necessary accessibility infrastructure. this

absence of accessibility. Whoa, that was fast. Sorry. Um, [laughter] they our kids can't get downstairs to where they need to be. And so, we want them to be able to fully participate in our programming. And though intentional, we are un currently marginalizing an already vulnerable population due to our space. So, we're just hoping to correct the deficiency. So, we understand the complexity of zoning and planning decisions and neighborhood relationships, and we really appreciate the time that you're giving to us. Thank you. Thanks for your comments and coming down. All right, we have one last speaker, Sarah Thompson. Hi. Um, I'm Sarah Thompson, 3209 Columbus Avenue South, right by Floyd Square and where Renee Good passed. Um, I am the chairperson of Hayawa Church. So, I call myself the queen of the church. That's not really what I am, but I'm the governance team chair. Um, basically, um, I'm I just come in today weary, as I know most of you do. It's just a really hard time in the city. Um, and wanted to let you know that Hayawa Church is a very, very uniquely a-olitical body um, and a place of rest and um, respit and people, anyone can just come and rest. And so we're just seeking to make it safer for our kids and more dignified for everyone that comes to church um and more welcome and friendly. And so yeah, we hope that you would visit and find rest um and that you would consider our application.

All right. Thanks for coming down. Would anybody else like to speak who hasn't spoken and has not signed up? I'd like to speak against you. Did you speak the last time? Uh, no. Oh, well, please come on up. Are you speaking for or against? Against. Sure. All right. Someone help me to be able to uh someone will help you, but it won't be me. Thank you.

HDMI right there. Uh there's something and then if anyone wants I do have copies of the letters from our attorney and our letters that we wrote was the attorney letter in uh oh that was the thing that we got today. So, I think you should hand that out. I looked at it and I know some others did, but not everybody did.

Two copies there. Can you get it to display on the screens? Yeah, it's on the screen. Uh, name and address, please.

My name is Peter Dugan. I live at 4147 41st Avenue South, just north of the church. Um, kind of winging it here because not all of you seen this. Uh, the building as stands is already over. Sorry. The building that stands is already about 11,000 square feet square feet on a 10,000 foot lot. I've lost everything and we believe the church can and should make its building ADA compliant within its current building footprint. Uh there are no unique circumstances to the property. The property simply does not support the current size of the building nor support increasing the building with with a 1,275 foot addition. The building has functioned and served as a church in its current state since 1951. The congregation outgrowing the current building is a circumstance created by Hayawa Church itself and is not a reason for granting a variance to add onto a non-conforming building which is already too large for the size of the property. increasing the maximum building coverage to 67% 1.5 times that of the maximum building coverage of 45%. And increasing the maximum impervious coverage from 71% 11% over that maximum of 60% does not keep with the spirit or intent of the ordinance. The proposed addition would still cast shadows on our gardens while we are actively gardening and would also block out the morning's natural sunlight which we currently

enjoy from the windows on the south side of our home in the winter months. Both would alter the essential character of our backyard gardens and home and would be interest to us and the enjoyment of our property. Since the church has failed to meet any of any of the requested criteria, we ask that you deny the requested variance. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Any questions for Mr. Dugan? I see none. Thanks for coming down. Thank you.

And giving testimony. Anyone else? I don't see anyone. So, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Board comment. Yes, Mr. Adam. Mr. Adam, I'll take that. Yeah.

Uh, I appreciate what the staff did here. I think it's a great uh presentation. I think it's a good work packet. I will say if we're considering the building, its its existence, its timeline of when it was built, additioned, uh how it was designed in that time, use of uh ADA compliance and all that stuff. I think there is room to talk about uh finding one. Uh I think the age of the building, the location of where it's plotted and it's its uh configuration not being squared up and it's being an L creates uh circumstance issues. uh the additions, timing, and everything else. I think that adds some stuff to it. The design is unique because there's a a worship area on the first floor, which I think is a unique uh design feature of the property. So, I think uh the age and all that stuff, I would uh I would take a shot at it if we want to. I want to hear some more board comment, but I would I would go ahead and uh make a motion if uh there's no more comments.

Let's see if there's some more comments and see where that takes us.

Yes. Thanks, Jerry. Uh, board, uh, I appreciate that the church has been working with the neighborhood and, you know, revising their proposal to, uh, try to improve accessibility, safety, community in our city. Uh, my two notes are the exceptions go with the property and once granted, the request wouldn't confirm that they'd be used to aid accessibility, just that they would have this ability to improve the footprint. um and over the next hundred years. Um we don't know how that would look. And so I didn't see anything uh with the property itself. The biggest argument does seem to be that the the church is already large. And I don't think the church already being large is worthy of the first finding to grant more space. So I I I I think that's I agree with staff findings and two and three are found. Um, and maybe Hutchkins can convince me that one is possible, but as of right now, I I think I'm I'm going to go the other way.

Thanks for those comments. Anyone else like to comment? Yes.

Um, yeah, I I I definitely I get the uh the design and uh the intent is really really good. I'm having a hard time with the first one. I'm hoping maybe if Hutchkins can can maybe draw something up. I'm kind of kind of looking for somebody to to to help me get there on number one. I I don't see anything with the with the property itself and and as uh as uh board member Ingram mentioned like you know the existing property being over what it's allowed to be. I don't I don't think that in in itself is is really that convincing. Um if this were like a policy matter um and we were just setting what the code and the rule should be I would be all for this. But in in terms of a you know a judicial um in terms of the letter of the law as it is now I I'm having a hard time getting there. But I'm I'm I'm hoping maybe somebody can can help get me there, but as of right now, I I'm not. So, that's where I'm at.

Ask a question. Sure. [clears throat] Can I ask a question to staff? Um, they have a design if if they get approved today. They have to build their design as currently designed and they would be adding ADA compliance. in any reality, could they ever come back and remove ADA compliance to address uh board member Ingram's concerns?

Uh, Cher Perry and board member Hutchkins, I'll take an initial crack and then uh defer to Mr. Ellis if there's anything. Uh, generally speaking, the variance is somewhat tied to the plan. So, we allow minor changes after the fact, but generally speaking, the idea here is that it's acted upon. There's also the timing aspect here. So it's valid for 2 years after the approval itself. They would have to make the the addition as well as any kind of changes. I guess one thing staff would note if you are considering approving is we would probably tie or recommend that you tie this to a condition regarding approval of that ADA ramp by the public works department. uh to staff's knowledge, there hasn't been a a right-of-way encroachment permit that's been pulled for that yet, but um certainly if the intent here is to improve that ADA accessibility, something like a condition requiring that um that approval for the ramp would u make sense and be still connected and have a you know nexus to the variance itself. But again, to your kind of first question there, generally speaking, it's tied to the plans that are submitted. and Chair Perry, board member to piggy back off what Mr. Campbell said that he he has the right of it. Mr. Campbell's correct um we do allow minor alterations. Uh one of the key considerations here is you know putting in the ADA compliance. Um as I understand it, building code would be requiring those anyway. Um so we've got additional building code requirements that um they would have to comply with to do that. So we would have that additional set of eyes um and ensuring that ADA compliance was was met. I appreciate it. I think just to go to Mr. Ingram's uh curiosity of could they put in ADA compliance and then all of a sudden decide, you know what, we want to make it a wreck room in something that wouldn't be plausible. It couldn't happen uh because of not this zoning board, but because of AD compliance. Correct.

Uh board member Hutchkins. Yes, as I understand it, I mean, they would be running off all of the building code then too. So, we would have another arm of the city that would uh have enforcement issues related to that. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks, Board Member Grant. Korsch.

Yeah. I want I want to address the issue of the uniqueness to this property. Um the existing building at you know 175 years old is creating an existing situation. It is part of the property. And so I really did that's why I was trying to understand earlier um that and I appreciate the the people on the the single family dwelling on the north side that doesn't want it impending on them. The reality is is that the the drawings did show that it's not going to be impending any more than what is existing right now which is unfortunate but that's the way it is. Um, but but I'm going back to how they can get federally approved ADA requirements on a structure unless they build out. I mean, they have to build out. And so then it to me it's reasonable that if they're building out to create the ADA accessibility again in and it's and it's going against the existing lot size. um they the history of the building even though it's not a historical structure requires them to exceed the the limits and so it is a unique situation. I mean, even if they came in here with a 400 ft addition, it would still be it would still have to get a variance. And the fact that they're asking for safety and security and has a community resource that does make um that enhances the safety and security, the federally ADA as well as the the programmatic issues. um makes it to me really unique and that we should

allow some reasonable accommodation for the extra literally 7% of the increase of the structure that makes it a unique piece to me because the existing build the history of the building creates that. So I don't know does that help you at all? Can I just do a point of clarification just because board member Grants Corors has said this a couple times. It's not 175 years old. It's a 75y old building just for the point point of the record.

And I'm saying it's 100 plus 75 because the 1936 Okay. 1936. So it's 94 years old. It's the existing part was built in 1936 and then the other one was 75 years. So it's almost 100 years old. I said 75. Sorry.

Yeah. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Um, I think that there's a that it's been overlooked that building out in order to satisfy the ADA needs primarily, secondarily, the other pieces that are required that maybe would come in or the other pieces that are desired that make sense to do at the same time does not have to be built out. You could build inside. You could renovate other spaces inside the building. You would take away from some uses. But if your primary goal is accessibility, that leads to the second finding and the third finding, then a sacrifice of some space or some sort of reprogramming of how you use the building would be necessary because deconstructing part of the building and building an extra level, I think, goes against a F. And um generally speaking, the building is bigger than it should be. And so there is more than enough space to have a church. So if the idea is that we need to make the church more functional within the space that exists, which is too much, then you can renovate and you can reorganize things and it won't be um as easy a fix because things like the sanctuary getting smaller, things like spaces being taken away that are currently cherished, just need a little more space. Interior renovation is a possible expansion option and I don't think that it's a given that you have to go out or up in order to get to solve the goals. Um I would move staff findings because I don't think there's enough for the first

one to be met. I am going to maintain that it's property which maybe is also how the building is used but it is the land because say the church decides to relocate for a variety of reasons. Whoever the new owner of the building on the property is would get all of these rights and they might not want to use them for the same um social good uses that are described in the second finding. So, if you're talking about the variance going with the property, which is more land than it is building, then I don't think it's wise to extend even more space and square footage to the building and the use because that could change. Um, so I would move staff findings. I don't think that um there is going to be a magical solution that makes this site itself, this property unique. It it just isn't unique. Other things about the property have met the other findings, but the first one is about the property being unique and it just isn't.

Thanks for those comments. Uh I think everybody else has weighed in. Um, I'll just say I I think the uh public knows I'm a I'm still sort of thinking that there is um a way to go about achieving your accessibility uh your ADA requirements and uh not um you you might have had to ex to expand some amount but it isn't the amount that you're asking for. And we don't get to vary that here. I mean, your variance request was what it was. Um, I don't vote, but that's my two cents on what um um I would do if I were to vote. So,

can I ask a question though? Yeah, both you, Chair Perry, and and and the previous speaker have commented about redesigning. And I thought one of the things we weren't doing here was doing trying to take it at face value that this project was being presented at face value and that for us to start redesigning the interior of their building is really um above and beyond our purview and actually shows a bias too.

Yeah. So maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I said, what I mean is that to me the the church is a black box. What happens inside it is a black box to me. And so it is I'm not trying to say, "Oh, by the way, put a hallway here and put a That's what I thought."

So So I I'm not trying to do design for them. I'm saying here's the way it looks to to me it's a black box. Um uh we had a speaker say they wanted to build in and uh that would mean some space would have to be used up to do that. So uh there is a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Any further discussion?

I'm just going to once again, I've already said this a couple of times, so I mean maybe I'm being redundant here, but we have an existing community resource that is asking for modest variations. I appreciate the fact that there's a concern that it might change ownership, but there's not very many um owners that there aren't many um people that would be entities that would be allowed to move into this that would change significantly what the use is. And so it seems to me that the for the modest piece of you considering it has a unique property which I believe it is modest given given the the square footage of the existing structure the modest increase of only 7% from the existing to the the uh storm water retainage piece which is a significant cost that they're taking for the roof and they're adding in the additional um uh at the south as well as the west and as well as actually a little bit on the north side that they added additional um rain garden stuff that to me the goal of the comp plan needs to be respected on this and that we do have a social structure here that's a community resource that's been proven for 20 years um and that um it seems to me that we should be able to allow a reasonable adjustment for federal ADA requirements both for in terms of the unique property property number one finding as well as the second one on the reasonable manner of operations that will as was noted earlier um will be confirmed that they can do uh the the pot of the the the the water to be uh percolated properly. So I just want to tell you that I respectfully appreciate the staff but I I have to vote against this. Um and I just want to say that again that I think that there's a reasonable accommodation

for both number the finding of number one unique as well as um the applicant to use the in a reasonable manner uh with with the so with the um water considerations. Mr. Hutchkins.

Thanks Jerry. a risk of dragging this out further. I know um I will just throw it out there before we vote on this that I I to your blackbox uh uh scenario, which I agree with. Uh I put any use in this building. I don't see how you can bring it up to today's standards because of its age, configuration, the additions, ages, and configurations, and just that warship area. and you call it anything you want to. Square room, high walls, uh, and the way it's designed. I don't know how you don't see it as a unique feature of the property. So, I I'll vote against, uh, this one, and I hope we can vote on the other way after.

Yeah. So what I would respond to that is that um again I can't see into it so I don't know and I don't I am not an architect so I can't say that you may have background that says it can't be done and I would respect that. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor. Um, will the clerk please call the role? [clears throat] Callahan. I. IZ. I. Grant Korsch. No.

Hutchkins. Nay. Ingram. I. Smeikarova. I. Wong. I.

There are five eyes's and two nazs. So, so your requests are denied. Um, you can see staff on what your options are. Um, and I would I I probably shouldn't, but I would add you can sort of see the struggle that we are having. We want to support the community. Um, and I uh I live close to a church and it is it has begun has become for the immigrants in my neighborhood their gathering spot and it's more than just a church. It is everything that you guys are talking about. So I understand your goals and your interests and I would say that on behalf of the city as well. So uh for that I would see Mr. Campbell and see what you can do going forward. Chair Perry,

can I ask a question though because I am concerned. Did the did all of a sudden getting this uh attorney whatever six page thing? Um did it have an impact on people and does this affect us? Uh has they potentially could go for um uh to the city council for a reprieve on this varian? Uh I I would leave it up to their attorney and their representative. it affect us? I mean, I guess I'm just asking the question that, you know, I have not sat here before and had an attorney's letter thrown at me like like here. Look out. I mean, I guess that's what I'm asking. Sure.

Yeah. The comment that I'd like to make is that it was in our email. Um, so if you don't have access to it, I think that's something to talk to the clerk about. In the letters, I will note that nothing in there had really addressed finding number one that would convince me. And for me, that was the biggest thing of not being able to meet that finding. So, no, it did not sway me. Thank you. Okay. Uh we are done with land use. Um, how about um you you folks can stick around and watch us go through the rest of our business or uh you can talk to Mr. Campbell.

Um, but I will add that this is going to be my last meeting and one of the reasons it's going to be my last meeting is because of this kind of stuff. I really believe sometimes that the planning department does an excellent job of reviewing the major three findings of unique, responsible manner and assess character. So then I wonder why we are here because it just seems that we are superficial and that what happens is is that um most of the bulk of the members consistently agree with planning staff. So I'm struggling as to why we are a board that exists. There's a handful of time when the commission has disagreed with staff and it's worth listening to iate people when they come forward to us. But is that the only reason that we're here is so that we can we can we can uh just listen to people and have them complain and then we capitulate to the staff findings. Um this is my last meeting. I'm I'm not going to attend anymore. Um so you can deal with the quorum with what you want to. But you know I I'm I am concerned that many members are just predisposed to always agree with the staff and are not willing to disagree or to challenge any of the three principles. Um there is no adjustment. I don't know why we're called the Bornian adjustment because we don't adjust or very rarely very rarely unless it sort of soos ourselves. Um so I you know and I recall that we have tremendous biases on this committee. I I recall at a at a recent retreat that there was that was not publicly recorded but there was a long-standing member that actually said, "Well, I don't trust any developer that walks in the door." And so that's when I started wondering if if we should be um looking at at how the how the people are chosen on this committee and that that stay on it. I will say this that Chair Perry, I have consistently been impressed with you that you you don't show a bias. Um today is the first time I think in two years I've even heard you offer some solutions because and that surprises me. Um, but I

do think that there's a bias here and I'm questioning the superolous way in which we have this committee exist because it just seems that that there is no reasonable accommodation for the taking hold our community and helping our community thrive. And this goes to whether it's a six-foot fence uh that's that's totally see-through that we all agree is a proper thing to do in a high crime area. But no, we still just go with our three findings unless we find them it and according to the staff. Um I just question the purpose of the existence of this board and I've consistently tried to push for better community fairness, whether it's a six-foot fence or it's a community benefit like this church. Um and and it just feels like that we're we're grossly unfair to those who follow the rules and come forth. Um and and we're grossly unfair to those um that are trying to to improve the the fabric the basic fabric of our city. Um and how you cannot see that. I I I'm I'm just um I'm very sad and and I'm really grateful. I'm really grateful to not be here anymore. Really grateful.

Your passion is is um appreciated. Yeah. It's just it's just and I would also like to say that I would prefer for some that's all but not you chair. Thank you. I I would prefer that we not ascribe motivation to people's votes. I mean I don't know how you cannot well uh that leads down a very that lead that leads down to a very dangerous path that people would ascribe things to your votes which we don't want to do.

Thank you so much Chair Perry. You've been great. All right, we are on to updates. Do you have any for us? Uh Chair Perry, members of the board, uh no real updates. We're still in the process of um working through to get u the new members seated. Um we that that still has to be completed. Um everyone is applied, but um we've got to we've got to get information from uh council before we can go to the planning commission and get everything done. Unfortunately, there were delays after our last hearing. Um we weren't able to get it to the planning commission before the end of the year. So, um, you know, there'll still there are still some delays.

So, for for board members who are um wondering why we're having this problem here, it's because we have a new council and they chose new officers, new committees. they were getting their they um I think it was uh January 5th was their organizing meeting and now they are finishing up that activity so that we can get into their process and and get the candidates. We have uh hopefully I I don't step on any toes but we have two I think very quality candidates who hopefully uh make it through the process and join us. Um so we've done our part and we're now waiting on uh the planning commission and council. So with that we have uh one other thing. Um we you probably don't uh keep this at top of mind. Our annual meeting is at the end of the month. It's the second meeting of the year. What do we do at our annual meeting, you may ask? We elect officers. So what we need to do today is nominate officers. and um I'm interested in sticking around as president. So I would like to hand the meeting over to uh board member Callahan to get nominations taken and and whatever people want. Let's

Great. So I'll enter into a call for nominations for chair. I'd like to nominate Chair Perry again. Second. There's a nomination in a second. Are there any other nominations for chair? And and I'm happy to serve. Any other nominations for chair? Great. Okay. So, we have chair Perry is continuing to be chair. Are there any nominations for vice chair? I nominate anyway. I would second that. Okay. And there's a second.

Okay. Are there any other nominations for vice chair? Any other nominations for vice chair? Seeing none, so our nominations for chair are Chair Perry and our nominations for vice chair is vice chair Wang.

All right. Thank you very much. Um, we have uh I think we have all of our business concluded uh with the exception of the fact that our next meeting is January 29th. Um and we have two other meetings on the calendar uh for February um by which time we will have a annual calendar to um approve of and as you folks know it pretty much is driven by what council's calendar is. So uh but by the 20 uh by the the February the last February meeting we should have uh a c a calendar. Okay. Anyone want to adjourn?

So moved. Second. All in favor? I we are adjourned.