[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:15]
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR MONDAY, THE 24TH, 2025. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>
[D. Declaration of Quorum]
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
>> ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM , APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.
[F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]
>> ANY OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMUNICATIONS BILLS AND
EXPENDITURES. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A REQUEST TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE THIRD ITEM REGARDING THE LEGAL ADD . IT WAS PRINTED A WEEK LATE BUT EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE SUCH AS THE MAILINGS AND SIGN IN THE YARD WERE POSTED BY THE PROPER TIME.
>> OKAY. >> WE HAVE A REQUEST TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR THIS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DO THAT? THANK YOU. A
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
>> OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT PASSES. REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT, AND DEPARTMENT CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU BREAD REGARDING THE FIRST ITEM, THE TOM WOOD SIGN VARIANCE. THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO HAVE THE AGENDA REORDERED TO BE HER LAST. THEY ARE RUNNING LATE .
>> ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF REORDERING THE AGENDA TO MOVE TOM WOOD POWER SPORTS TO THE END .
[H. (V) Connection Pointe Church Sign Variance.]
>> AYE . >> ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. PASSES.
ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL BEGIN WITH CONNECTION POINT CHURCH SIGN VARIANCE. DID I SKIP OVER? OH, YEAH. CONNECTION POINT SIGN VARIANCE . DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2024- 000243 V . GO RIGHT AHEAD.
THANK YOU. >> TURN ON YOUR MIC. HIT THE BUTTON ON THE MIC. PERFECT. YOU ARE GOOD.
>> THAT EVENING. STEVE FROM EVANS ON BEHALF OF CONNECTION POINT CHURCH BUT ALSO WITH ME IS SARAH ZIMMERMAN FROM CONNECTION POINT PROJECT MANAGER . WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A WALL SIGN THAT IS ON THE CHURCH'S BUILDING LOCATED AT 2955 EAST 98TH STREET . SO THIS PROPERTY -- CONNECTION POINT IS ACTUALLY REHABBING AN EXISTING CHURCH THAT WAS THE LIGHTHOUSE TABERNACLE CHURCH SITE. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, IT IS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 98TH STREET AND KEYSTONE. DOING A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY REHABBING THE INTERIOR OR THE EXTERIOR. DOING SOME OTHER MODIFICATIONS. REDOING THE PARKING LOT. SO THE CHURCH FILED AN APPLICATION FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BACK IN DECEMBER OF LAST -- ACTUALLY DECEMBER OF 2023 AMONG OTHER THINGS INCLUDING NEW SIGNAGE . INCLUDING A LANDSCAPING PLAN.
THEY RECEIVED ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ON THAT IN JULY OF 2024. PROCEEDED WITH THE PROJECT, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT ONE OF THE WALL SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY . IT WAS TOO LARGE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A COPY IN YOUR PACKETS. YOU SEE MY NOTES HERE.
SEE THAT. SO THIS IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. SO THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED . THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PANEL ITSELF. IF I CAN EXPLAIN IT , THE PANEL WHERE THE SIGN IS ABOVE THE DOORS. THAT PANEL SIZE . UNDER YOUR UDO, SIGNAGE CAN ONLY BE 70% OF THE
[00:05:04]
WIDTH OR 70% OF THE HEIGHT. WELL, THE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED ACTUALLY HAVE -- THIS IS ON PAGE NINE OF THE PACKET OF THE PDF PACKET. IT HAS THE CORRECT SIZE THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED. THE PANEL ENDED UP BEING SMALLER. ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT. BASED OFF THE 70% RESTRICTIONS, THE PERMISSIBLE SITE SIGN WAS 102 INCHES. 100 -- OR, 109.2 INCHES TALL AND 294 INCHES WIDE. THE ACTUAL SIGN OF THE CIRCULA SIGN IS 117.6 INCHES TALL. AND 120 INCHES WIDE. SO IT IS 97.5 SQUARE FEET. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS REALLY A SIGN THAT ENDED UP -- SPECIFICALLY 8.4 INCHES TOO TALL ON THE TOP BUT BECAUSE IT IS A CIRCLE, WE ARE ONLY USING 43.7% OF THE ALLOWED SPACE ON THAT PANEL. SO CARMEL RAISED THE ISSUE WITH THE CHURCH . SO THE CHURCH FILED A VARIANCE APPLICATION IN DECEMBER . GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE BACKGROUND HERE HOW WE ENDED UP HERE TONIGHT. SCHEDULED FOR THE HEARING OFFICER AT THE JANUARY MEETING. THE STAFF REPORT THAT CAME OUT A FEW DAYS BEFORE THAT HAD SOME CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPING. SPECIFICALLY THE LANDSCAPING COMPLIANCE WAS REQUESTED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL . AND THERE WAS PROBABLY INSIDE OF YOUR PACKET THE CHURCH WAS PROVIDED WITH THIS DRAWING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ON TOP OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS APPROVED. IT IS THE RED PLANS , I CALL IT, THAT CALLED FOR SEVEN RED OAK SIGNS TO BE A LONG THE KEYSTONE. THIS IS KEYSTONE RIGHT HERE. TO BE A LONG KEYSTONE. THE CHURCH HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. SO WE ASKED THAT IT BE REMOVED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE FULL TO BE HEARD UNDER THE UDO IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS OF A REQUESTED COMMITMENT OR CONDITIONS, THEN IT GETS MOVED AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE FULL BZA. SO WE ASKED FOR THAT AND THEN WE USED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO STAFF. SPECIFICALLY, WE WORKED WITH DARREN , I THINK IS HIS NAME , IN HER STREET DEPARTMENT. ULTIMATELY CAME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY . THAT IS THE BLUE PLAN, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PACKET. ONE OF HE CONCERNS THAT THE CHURCHES HAD WAS VISIBILITY ALONG KEYSTONE. WHAT WE HAVE AGREED UPON IS FIVE RED OAK TREES FURTHER TO THE SOUTH . WITH SOME FLEXIBILITY TO EASEMENTS. IF YOU READ THE LANGUAGE IN THE NOTES, IT IS FIVE RED OAK TREES AND 2.5 INCH CALIPERS . LOCATIONS GENERALLY DEPICTED ON THE MAP WITH A 25 FOOT TO 50 FOOT SPACING AND LOCATIONS ALSO MAY BE ADJUSTED TO AVOID EASEMENT CONFLICTS BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE MAYBE SOME EASEMENTS THERE ALONG KEYSTONE. ULTIMATELY WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS THAT THE BZA IMPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST . WE ARE AGAIN WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN WHAT I CALL THE BLUE PLAN . THE FIVE RED OAK TREES FURTHER TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? OKAY. SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DEPARTMENT REPORT , PLEASE. THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. I REALLY HAVE NOTHING MORE TO ADD. PLANNING STAFF DOES RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST ALONG WITH ADOPTION OF THE NEW
LANDSCAPE PLAN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
>> BOARD, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION?
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH COMPLIANCE OF THE
NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN. >> I WILL SECOND.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> AYE . >> AND HE OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.
[H. (V) Pagryzinski Room Addition Variances.]
THAT IS APPROVED, 5-0. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I PRACTICED THIS . DID I GET IT? ROOM ADDITION VARIANCES. DOCKET NUMBER PZ[00:10:04]
2024-00244 AND 245 . APPLICANT SEEKS VARIANCES TO APPROVE A REAR SUNROOM ADDITION . WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP UP HERE AND PRESENT YOUR INFORMATION? THE MIC IS ALREADY ON, SO YOU DON'TNEED TO DO ANYTHING. >> JEREMY PLACE. I AM HERE TO REQUEST THE VARIANCE. THE LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR THE ROOM ADDITION IN PLACE OF THE CURRENT SCREEN CLOSURE THAT IS THERE CURRENTLY. THIS WILL BE GOING ON A CONCRETE SLAB THAT IS ALSO THERE. WE ARE ALSO ADDING FOOTERS FOR THIS NEW STRUCTURE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION ? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CAN WE HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT GIMMICK
>> AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THEY ARE SEEKING VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AS WELL AS REAR YARD SETBACK. THERE IS A 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE BACKYARD AS WELL. THEY WILL SEEK TO ENCROACH APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL . SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCES WITH THAT CONDITION OF THE CONSENT TO ENCROACH APPROVAL.
THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> JUST SO IT IS ON THE RECORD WITH THE CONDITION OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT TO ENCROACH AND ADOPTIONS OF
FINDINGS OF FACT. >> OKAY. FIRST AND SECOND.
DISCUSSION, PLEASE. >> YES. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN WITH REGARD TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT. I REQUEST LEGAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW THAT FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> DO WE NEED TO ADJUST THE MOTION AND SECOND BASED ON THE CONTENTION UPON REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEW.
>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT AFTER I APPROVE THEM, THEN YES. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO SO. YOU DO NOT
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER
[H. (V) Tom Wood Powersports Sign Variance.]
DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. 5-0 APPROVED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE MOVED FROM THE TOP OF THE AGENDA . TOM WOOD POWERSPORTS SIGN VARIANCE. DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2024-00224 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. IS THE PETITIONER HERE NOW? ALL RIGHT. WILL YOU PLEASE STEP UP AND PRESENT? YOUR MIC IS ALREADY ON.>> APOLOGIZE FOR MY DELAY AND POOR PUNCTUALITY. I WAS NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK OR ANYTHING. ALSO FORGIVE ME. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND -- SORRY, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT ON MY SCREEN EITHER. IT APPEARED THAT ACCORDING TO THE ZONING THAT THERE WAS ALLOWED TWO SIGNS AND THE PETITIONING FOR THREE . TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDING SIGNS AND A MONUMENT SIGN . I BELIEVE ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE IN THE PACKET ALONG WITH THE DRAWINGS.
WE HAVE INSTALLED TWO OF THE APPROVED SIGNS. I HAVE SENT COMPLETION PHOTOS WITH THOSE AS WELL. I THINK ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS IN THE PACKET. FORGIVE ME FOR NOT BEING PREPARED TO SPEAK. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT I CAN
CLEAR UP FROM THE BOARD? >> BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. FIVE SIGNS REQUESTED.
FOUR WALL SIGNS AND ONE GROUND SIGN. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANGIE?
>> THANK YOU. AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THEY ARE SEEKING FIVE
[00:15:03]
TOTAL SIGNS WHEN ONLY TWO ARE ALLOWED. RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE TWO AT THIS -- EXISTING WALL SIGNS. THEY ARE REQUESTING FOUR WALL SIGNS AND ONE GROUND SIGN. PLANNING STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THESE VARIANCES. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THE SIGN. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD NOT REDUCE THE SERVICE SIGN DOWN TO THREE SQUARE FEET. THEN IT COULD BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT SIGN AND KIND OF A FREE SIGN. PLANNING STAFF THINK THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP . IF THE PETITIONER CHOOSES, THEY CAN INSTALL TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, WHICH ARE ALSO FREE EXEMPT SIGNS , AND THOSE CAN BE THREE FEET TALL AND THREE SQUARE FEET IN AREA. STAFF FEELS THAT THAT CAN BE A SOLUTION THAT THEY CAN DO AND COMPLY WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE . WITH THAT BEING SAID, PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING NEGATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD BE WRITTEN UP BY THE BZAATTORNEY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS. GO AHEAD.
>> PETITIONER, DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP HERE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ANY SIGN OPTIONS THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOU D.O.? I NOTICE YOU'VE GOT TWO REALLY BIG HONDA SIGNS ON THE BUILDING. CHANGING ONE OF THOSE OUT TO BE YOUR SERVICE SIGN OR USING THE THREE FEET EXEMPTED SIGN THAT DEPARTMENT HAS THROWN OUT. HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO WHAT A SIGNED PACKAGE MIGHT LOOK LIKE GIMMICK WOULD IT WORK IF IT DOES COMPLY WITH UDO ? WHY IS THAT NOT FEASIBLE FOR YOU?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS THE DYNAMIC AND WHO I REPRESENT. I AM SIMPLY HERE TO REPRESENT PATTISON SIGN GROUP IN LIEU OF TOM WOOD. THE TOM WOOD GROUP AS WELL. WE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE . BUT AS FAR AS ANY SIGNAGE, DESIGN , OR APPROACH, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE SIGN COMPANY AND TOM WOOD, WHICH IS PATTISON SIGN GROUP . WE ARE THE INSTALLATION COMPANY. OF COURSE BEING THE MIDDLEMAN OR JUST THE REPRESENT HE FOR THE COMPANY. I DON'T WANT TO DANCE AROUND YOUR QUESTION. THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO BEING ANOTHER CUSTOM SIGN COMPANY TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN SOME GUIDELINES FOR BA COMPROMISE. BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR THEM. SO THAT IS THE LONG ANSWER. DOES THAT
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MY SUGGESTION IN THE FUTURE WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY HERE WHO CAN
ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION
-- >> THAT WASN'T A QUESTION. NONE
QUESTIONS? >> I SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENT IN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ONE EXCEPTION. I THINK I WOULD LIKE FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER THE GROUND SIGN TO BE ALLOWED BUT NOT THE OTHER FOUR THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED AS A COMPROMISE.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT , I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR STAFF'S THOUGHT.
>> I MEAN, THE BZA CAN CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES . THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR RECOMMENDATION. IT IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION. BUT THAT IS JUST BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE IN HISTORY WITH THIS PETITIONER. SO WE STILL STAND BY OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT YOU CAN
OF COURSE VOTE AND APPROVE. >> I HAVE HAD A LOT OF DEALINGS OVER THE YEARS WITH TOM WOOD, AND IT IS USUALLY MUCH MORE PROFESSIONAL THAN THIS. I HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING ANYTHING WHEN THEY ARE NOT HERE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES.
>> THEY ARE ACTUALLY CONTRACTED WITH THE NATIONAL SIGN COMPANY.
>> THAT WASN'T A QUESTION. THAT WASN'T A QUESTION.
>> OKAY. >> SO I DID NOTICE IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT ALSO THAT THE GROUND SIGN ITSELF DOES NOT MEET THE UDO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS . FOR EXAMPLE, THE MASONRY BASE OR DELINEATED . AND THERE IS NO LANDSCAPING PLAN. SO I CANNOT SUPPORT APPROVING EVEN THE GROUND SIGN. THERE IS NOT A HARDSHIP HERE. AND THERE ISN'T ANY COMPLIANCE OR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK WITH THE CITY. >> I AGREE WITH YOU REGARD TO THE GROUND SIGN. THE UDO STANDARDS ARE SET FORTH. THEY ARE PRETTY CLEAR IN WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROUND SIGN.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ? IF NOT, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
[00:20:09]
>> I JUST OFFERED IT AS A COMPROMISE. THAT'S ALL.
>> THANK YOU. >> MADAM PRESIDENT? I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY WE MAKE MOTIONS IN THE POSITIVE . IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, YOU WILL VOTE YES. IF NOT, VOTE NO. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ 240-0224 .
>> SECOND. >> FIRST AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR .
>> NAY . >> THAT PETITION IS DENIED, 4-1.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.