Minneapolis City Council — Transcript
Thursday, June 18, 2026
Variance Request for Side Yard Setback at 4331 Blazedale Avenue
Variance Request for Parkway Access at 3730 West Benet Makuska Parkway
Variance Application Status Inquiry for 2754 Thomas Avenue South
Variance Request for Front Porch Setback at 315 44 43rd Street West
Votes (4)
Variance Request for Side Yard Setback at 4331 Blazedale Avenue
Dissent: Public testimony was heard, but no board action or dissent was recorded on the item itself.
Jaclyn Hager and Kate Getsy voiced opposition to reducing the side yard setback, citing concerns about diminished natural light and impact on property enjoyment, arguing it undermines the setback ordinance's intent. Isaac Larson and Susie Stman, representing the project, explained their design choices to minimize intrusiveness and discussed the challenges of further setbacks. A board member confirmed that any expansion would likely affect neighbor's sunlight.
Variance Request for Parkway Access at 3730 West Benet Makuska Parkway
Dissent: Public testimony was heard, but no board action or dissent was recorded on the item itself.
Edwin Bell spoke in favor of the project, emphasizing the necessity of access due to the property's unique placement on a Parkway and the lack of other utility access. He also praised the design as aesthetically pleasing and sensitive to the existing neighborhood character, drawing on his experience as an architect and realtor.
Variance Application Status Inquiry for 2754 Thomas Avenue South
Dissent: Applicant expressed frustration with the process but there was no board action to dissent against.
Megan Lquist questioned if their variance should be automatically approved, citing that the 60-day decision period had passed and this was their second deferral. Staff member Mr. Ellis clarified that an extension letter for 120 days, due to continuances, would likely keep the city within its allowed timeframe. A request for an alternative approval process via City Council was denied due to legal procedural requirements.
Variance Request for Front Porch Setback at 315 44 43rd Street West
Dissent: Public testimony was heard, but no board action or dissent was recorded on the item itself.
Pat Mackey, a designer, spoke in favor of a variance to allow a screened front porch, arguing it would integrate the home with the common character of the block. He explained the practical difficulty stems from unusually deep front yards and a 'front yard increased rule' that complicates setback requirements for screened porches, despite open porches being allowed without a variance. The Chair stopped his specific presentation due to the absence of a staff presentation for the item.
Notable Quotes (10)
A two-story structure built 3 ft from our property line will cast a shadow over my property and diminish the light that enters my home. This is a direct injury to my use and enjoyment of the property.
we made it only like 9'6 in depth, which currently the neighboring house comes back about 4 feet past. So, we're only going less than 6 ft further past their house. Um, and we also put a hip roof on the back rather than the steep 1212 pitch roof that goes on the house to keep that line down so that they could get as much light as possible.
There is no way you expand the back of the house even a foot without taking some of the sunlight of a neighbor. Right.
by our estimation, this will mean only 2 hours of light on our property um, in the wintertime in the back of our house. It's also our living quarters in the house. It's our kitchen and we only have two windows on that side. This would fully block one of those windows.
the front door is on the Parkway. It's not on Washburn. And there is no other way to get into the house... It's a very handsome design and it's very sympathetic to the neighborhood and sympathetic to the number of garages on the street and they do need access.
given that we submitted our application on April 15th, um, and we have surpassed our 60-day limit, I'm asking for a process where our variance is approved, um, as planned. Is that possible?
It would be automatically granted if he failed to send an extension letter. It was my understanding that he did send an extension letter to the 120 due to the continuences, uh, the unfortunate continuences.
That we can't do. we have to follow the process that we're following because there um are legal requirements that hold us to that process.
Theirs is the only house on the block without a porch and the proposed porch would help the home fit more closely with the established character of the block.
The practical difficulty comes from an unusual condition on this side of the block. The front yards are extraordinarily deep... Because of that, the front yard increased rule creates a self-reinforcing setback that makes it difficult to add the kind of porch that is otherwise common, almost ubiquitous in the neighborhood.
Ordinances & Resolutions (5)
General type of request being considered by the board.
Local regulation governing minimum distances from property lines.
Overarching regulations for land use and development.
Document to extend decision period for a variance application.
Regulation affecting setbacks on properties with deep front yards.