Good afternoon. Before we begin this meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. And with that, this is the February 26, 20 26, 2026 zoning board of adjustment regular meeting. My name is Matt Perry and I'm chair of the board. I will now call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the role so that we can make verify the presence of quorum. >> Board member Callahan, >> present. >> Board member Izz >> here. >> Board member Hutchkins >> here. Board member Ingram is absent. Board member Smeir Carva is absent. Vice Chair Wang >> here. >> Chair Perry >> here. >> There are five members present. >> Let the record show we do have quorum. And with that, we'll 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? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any against? Indicate by saying nay. >> That motion passes and the agenda is approved. I believe all the board members have seen a copy of the minutes from the February 12th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in the favor of the motion indicate by saying I. >> I. >> All against indicate by saying nay. Any >> abstensions? >> We have two abstensions. And that motion passes. The minutes from the zoning board of adjustments January February 12th, 2026 meeting are approved. Quick reminder to applicants and others that if you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in on the sheet available from the clerk and speak clearly into the microphone. If you have not signed in, you can do so on your way out. Also, to applicants and others, please contact staff after the hearing with any questions regarding your projects. So, if we go to our next agenda item, it is actually the um uh land use request uh agenda item number four, which is 204th Avenue Southeast and and this is being uh recommended as a discussion item. Mr. Campbell. >> Uh thank you, Chair Perry and members of the board. Um yes, I'm here to discuss the item before you, a variance request regarding um the city's rules and regulations around parking locations. Uh the property in uh effect here is 2045th Avenue Southeast, which is zoned UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3. Uh B uh BFC 4 corridor 4 built form overlay district. It also falls under the university area overlay district and the uh Mississippi River critical corridor or corridor critical area overlay district. So, a couple of different overlay districts. Most of those, um, the only one that really comes into play here is that Built Forum District being corridor 4. I'll note this is a lot of just under 12,000 square ft in area located in the Marcy Holmes neighborhood. U, the present use of the property is as a single family dwelling as well as a detached uh, carriage house. This is a a historic property and is considered a contributing property in the St. Anthony Falls historic district. So, both these structures quite quite old. They believe the permit records for the city show that the principal structure was actually moved to the site in 1902 with the carriage house actually predating even that um principal structure move. Um in terms of the lot itself and kind of existing conditions um again this is a corner lot on Fifth Avenue and Second Street Southeast. There is a lot of topography going on and at play here. So especially from the um second street side on the south of the property into kind of the interior of the rear yard. I think it's ranges from like 10 to 20 ft and change of elevation. Um and a lot of that is being held right now by a set of again kind of historic retaining walls along both of those um main thorough affairs. In terms of the request, the applicant is seeking um some leniency from the uh city's parking location requirements for a new um parking pad location that would be uh to the kind of northwest of the home itself facing towards Fifth Avenue Southeast. Um, one thing I do want to clarify here and that we kind of went back and forth with as staff because this is in the corridor for built form overlay district. The required front yards when we talk about kind of a setback from a property line is 15 ft from that front property line. And this parking area would be outside of that required front yard area. Um, it's fully outside of that 15 ft yard, but it is still located in between the principal structure and the street, which is in this case the section of code that's being buried. The language in particular reads, "Except as otherwise allowed in the zoning ordinance, on-site surface parking facility shall not be located between a principal structure and a front or corner side lot line." So in this case, the variance is not from a like a yard variance as we commonly see here at the board, but really just that location being in between structure and street. Uh in terms of the proposal, the applicant notes that they're um seeking this uh improvement mostly because the existing carriage house with that enclosed garage um is not set up to accommodate modern vehicles and also having concerns about access from that existing garage to the principal house. Again, there is a lot of topography in that backyard area. So currently the only connection point between that uh detached garage is a set of stairs to the main house itself. Um they note as part of their application that they are proposing to close that curb cut on Second Street Southeast. The carriage house would still be there in the form it is today, but it would no longer be used for parking of vehicles um in any fashion. Um and then similarly they are talking about having kind of the fencing that exists right now along uh Fifth Avenue be remained potentially working in some sort of a gate for that driveway again to try and minimize some of that visual impact from parking a vehicle in a front yard so to speak. Um I'll note here in terms of public comments we did receive one comment um in advance of the staff report being published from the East Bank Neighborhoods Partnership. the kind of local neighborhood organization for this neighborhood as well as a few others over there on that side of the river. Um they were in support of the application and we also did receive a um a second written comment in advance of the meeting that um was posted as part of the agenda and should have also been shared with you all. That comment also was in support of the application and noted um in general kind of the difficulties of street parking in the university area. Moving to staff findings. Right now, staff is recommending denial of this application primarily on findings one and two. So, to start with kind of finding one here first, um challenges exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. Um there certainly is I would say the topography is a very unique circumstance here. Um there's a lot of great change um in place obviously and that can make it difficult to locate a parking facility. staff's biggest kind of uh hesitation here is there is that existing carriage house structure. Uh we did talk a bit with uh our historic preservation staff and there would be obviously approvals needed to make improvements to that structure, but that's not to say that it isn't able to be um kind of retrofitted and improved in such a way to allow for modern vehicles or larger vehicles to um be able to park there. There is currently a very undersized um almost like barn door on that south side of the building. Um, obviously it would be kind of a process for the Heritage Preservation Commission to look at upgrading that to an actual overhead vehicle door, but um that is a potential that exists out there and that's kind of where staff is at the tripping point here of do those unique circumstance prevent um an alternate route here with that garage. Second, in terms of keeping with the um intent of the zoning code or in the comprehensive plan, uh staff will just note that the zoning code really is intended and again we reiterate this in a lot of different places in the code to have parking be to the rear of uh structures to try and be kind of off of the streets. Um also in cases where it can be enclosed, that's generally a benefit in that kind of scenario. Um and really is trying to encourage that uh location for parking. In terms of the comprehensive plan, uh the staff report did pull out a couple of policies from that document um that felt relevant in terms of um action steps related to policy 5 visual quality of development um regulating setbacks, orientation pattern, material height and scale of smallcale residential buildings to ensure consistency with built form guidance to encourage detached garages and discourage attached garages from smallcale residential buildings. Uh policy six, pedestrian oriented building and site design. So, orienting buildings and building entrances to the streets, discouraging the establishment of and minimizing the park size of surface parking lots. Um, and then while this is getting again more towards the heritage preservation's purview, um, policy 93, stewarding historic properties, uh, protecting historic research resources from alterations that are not sensitive to their historic significance, uh, and encouraging retrofitting existing buildings to increase resiliency to climate change. um defining three in terms of essential character staff really doesn't have an issue here. Again, as mentioned, the applicant is looking at maintaining that existing fencing that's along the street already, which should do um a fair bit to kind of shield that, you know, vehicle parking to a degree, especially because of that elevation change from the street. While it's not as significant on the Fifth Avenue, there is about a 5 to eight change foot change in height. So um again finding three we feel is met. There are some concerns on staff end about finding one and two and as a result we are recommending um this item for denial. One thing I would note for the board as you're kind of looking at this item uh if you do choose to approve this item we would make a recommendation that a condition regarding that curb cut closure be included um with this approval. just to again reiterate that point of removing that second curb cut which in itself would be a whole another can of worms of requiring its own variants to have two separate um access points. >> So just thank you for your report um in your presentation. Uh I I'm just curious. I we we've gone through this before where a curb cut has been sealed up and a new one has been opened up as a result of the variance being granted. I thought that was something that uh was taken care of by traffic or public works as a matter of a completely separate process. Is that not the case? What why would we be doing that? Correct. Uh I would say here the condition is kind of in nexus to because that is a argument in favor of the kind of removing that option as parking um to reinforce that. Although to your point that would require uh permits and approvals from the public works department in terms of actually removing it. >> I I thought so. Anybody else have questions? >> Yes. >> Um hypothetically, let's say we're talking about retrofitting the garage. In your opinion, would do you think that there would be additional variance required to achieve that or is that kind of dependent on what the Heritage Preservation Committee says? >> Uh, Chair Perry, uh, board member Wang, that is probably a a broader question. Um, I don't foresee, again, it's an existing structure. It is, uh, it has a certificate of occupancy for the the dwelling unit above. Um, in terms of kind of its location today, it is probably considered what we'd call that legally non-conforming structure. So, it has all the rights to be kind of maintained and replaced. Whether um something like swapping out a the door for an overhead door, if that would trigger either um we do also have something called an expansion of a non-conforming user structure. I don't foresee this triggering that necessarily, but it would be something we'd want to talk to our um uh staff, you know, counterparts in historic preservation about. There certainly would be um approvals required for that type of project on the HBC side. And to give a a bit of context for this request with the um the driveway and parking pad, we did talk a bit with um historic preservation staff. They don't anticipate that this would require a separate public hearing at the HPC necessarily, but it would require essentially administrative review and approval for some of those elements like the fence replacement and putting the parking pad in itself. So there would still be another stop, so to speak, if this were approved. Um, but not necessarily at a public hearing. >> Can I just follow? Sorry. Yeah. >> Um, on the garage, just being familiar with this property, there is also a retaining wall that impacts the access to that carriage house. Um so is that retaining it based on just from street level it looks like that retaining wall is also serving a purpose in terms of the significant slope that's on site is that I guess in terms of this question of retrofitting the carriage house just based again on looking at the the building itself to my eye it looks like you would have to expand and get rid of part of that retaining wall in order to expand access for a modern vehicle. Is that correct? >> Or I guess like what are your what are your what's your opinion on that? >> Sure. Uh Cherbury and Border County I think the part at least of that retaining wall and even I think there's a tree on kind of like what would be to the east of the kind of retaining wall in the driveway probably needs to be some amount of kind of reconfiguring of that uh side specifically. I mean whichever side the other side has a staircase up to the actual rear yard. So, in either event, there probably is some amount of reconfiguring that would have to happen on that in order to again increase the usability of the garage. >> Can I just do a follow-up question on that? In terms of, you know, the reconfiguration of the retaining wall, like I imagine there also might be impacts on the structural uh integrity of that historic uh building in terms of the retaining wall there like the reconfiguration of that. Is that a consideration in terms of the design or or like this proposed alternative? to the design. >> Sure. Uh and it's probably getting a little bit outside of my area of purview in terms of kind of structural stability for that. I know there has been a bit of work done in the past probably decade on this property. Um I know when we talked with historic preservation staff, the actual the door that is there today on that southside is not original to the structure. It was added after the fact. Um but certainly that would need to be um considered as part of that project of how are you again maintaining that structure and still maintaining structural stability especially given that there's a a dwelling unit above. >> Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Hutchkins. >> Thanks Cher Perry. Thanks for your presentation. Uh I struggle to see where you could put uh this exact parking pad on the property other than the location they're proposing. Am I missing something? Is there somewhere that could serve a better spot? a feasible spot, >> right? Uh Cherbury and board member Hutchkins, the location on Fifth, I think, is probably the most probably readily accessible to the home itself. Otherwise, you'd be looking at again modifying that existing retaining wall along Second Street to run a driveway to the rear yard, which I think is feasible. It obviously has um probably a higher overall footprint in terms of impervious surface. Um, but that starts to be where the code comes into conflict with itself a little bit, right, of we want to encourage parking to be to the rear, but we also want to limit the amount of impervious coverage on a lot. Um, I'll note this lot is a larger than average lot at uh just under 12,000 ft. They're definitely fine on impervious surface. Um, so there is that potential to run a driveway to the back. Although, as discussed with the garage, there would be kind of larger um it's a bigger project, right, in terms of what's involved. So, just to make sure to follow up, the back we're calling it would be uh the furthest area away from Fifth Avenue >> behind the house. >> Yeah, kind of behind both carriage house and principal structure. >> Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. >> Any other questions? I don't see any. Thanks. Let's open the public hearing. Um, if you could state your name and address for the record and um, we're going to give you an opportunity to present your case. You have 10 minutes and that is set for two now, but it'll be set for 10. Um, when the beeper goes off, I'll have to ask you to uh, wrap it up. Um and um you can assume that we have read the material that you submitted to us. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Well, thank you for uh listening here. Uh I got myself into this uh situation. We bought this house and we discovered the garage is not uh usable for modern vehicles due the size and configuration. It can't fit our standard sedan or crossover and rendered the garage functionally obsolete, giving us zero off- streetet parking spaces at all. On the project description, I don't think it was listed correctly on the background report. Uh the request for the new parking area is or the proposed location is driven primarily by preservation concerns and the unique physical conditions of the property. The limestone retaining wall was structurally tied into the foundation of the carriage house. The carriage house is from 1876 and we're both committed to and required to you know preserve those historic elements. Uh disturbing any of that area uh would compromise the foundation of the structure and that has been standing for 150 years. Uh in addition to the preservation, the proposal provides important secondary benefits for us which are improved ADA access, safer, more practical access to the yard and these benefits enhance the functionality of the property. The pictures there are just the retaining wall where it buds in to the house and the secondary retaining wall which you were speaking of is not historic but it does hold the property up and then that that his retaining wall just runs all the way down second. The the first uh part of the variance I disagree with the staff finding uh all the avenues have been explored. The property does have not or does not have any alley access and the great change from street level makes it quite unique compared to most other Minneapolis houses. The modification to the carriage house would involve removing the other retaining wall non-historic and just uh possible risk to damage and foundation of the entire structure which is finished at this point. The modified curb cut from second wouldn't work. the elevation from the street to the backyards over 16 ft and creating a driveway there would be unfeasible. It would require eliminating most of that limestone. Um there again, it's just the limestone all the way down second. And you can see like the fence how high it would be. The This is on fifth. It goes all the way up fifth. And that second photo is where the steps are. to the left of those steps would be the only place where there's no historic limestone and the only place we could get the parking pad. Uh the second uh part of the variance I also disagree with that the request was based off the physical constraints of the property which create a hardship that aren't experienced by any other properties on the block. It does appear the yard has ample space on the north side, but the north side's unusable for the driveway due to the home's foundation and the proposed curb cut represents the only possible location uh where it would avoid any disturbance in the limestone. Constructing a driveway to access the rear of the property would require a long winding driveway that goes through the front yard, sideyard, and backyard. That would just require a lot of grading and excavation, a lot of imperous surface would alter the appearance of the backyard, sideyard, and create uh quite high construction cost. In in regards to the 2040 plan, we do feel like it supports that and consistent with minimizing the surface parking area and impervious spaces. Uh it does improve access uh in a practical and reasonable way. Preserves the historic home through owner occupancy and rehabilitation. Uh eliminates the other curb cut and supports long-term neighborhood stability. The this is on the left is where we would have the proposed cut proposed curb cut and parking pad. And then that kind of shows the front yard. And there's a little video here that just shows you how far you would really need to get to the back of the house here. So just creating a driveway right there is uh quite a project in itself. Uh I agree with the staff finding on the third part of the variance on Fifth Avenue. There's three homes without any curb cuts and there's a parking lot for a forplex. The 500 and 600 block of Fifth Avenue Southeast has front parking pads um that are not in their backyard and that's due to them also not having alley access. This is just the houses on our street with their front, you know, driveways and then the the parking for the other one. They have a entire parking lot at the end of our street. And then our house is at the very bottom of this. And those five circles up at top are the other, you know, houses that are three blocks away that do have the front parking pads and they're not covered. Ours would be fenced in still, but these are all within three blocks. And then the the letter from the president that the someone commented on this was from Franklin Avenue. I know it's not close to our house, but it is in southeast still. And uh just to wrap it up, I I do think the variance request is reasonable given the unique circumstances specific to the property. Uh since we've acquired the home, we've worked closely with Aaron at the HBC, made significant investment to preserve uh the remaining elements inside and out, and our goal is to, you know, thoughtly restore and maintain the house. So remains uh there for another 150 years. We ask that you consider the property's unique constraints in totality uh including the significant elevation change, lack of alley access, historic limestone retaining wall and the risk associated with excavating those. When viewed together, these conditions create a practical hardship that was not self-imposed and we do uh believe the proposed solution is the most practical and least intrusive option available. It is consistent with the existing streetscape, has neighborhood support with no objections, and aligns with other precedents uh that were similar applications have been approved under comparable circumstances. >> That's it. Thank you. I think it was only seven minutes. >> Thanks for getting done on time. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Um are there any questions of the applicant? No. So, is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against this application? I see no one in each case, so we'll close the public hearing. >> Awesome. Thank you, everybody. >> Yep. Uh board comment. >> Yes. >> I'm not ready to make a motion, but I am leaning towards supporting the applicant. And I know historically when we look at one we think about challenges that are natural like topography trees but I think this is a very unique and different circumstance of where we're talking about historic elements um and things that kind of butt against the um purview of the his heritage preservation committee. Um but again I'm still trying to formulate um how I would respond to one and two. Okay. Yes. >> Um I think their staff finding report was very comprehensive. I think this is an example of a great case for the zoning board to be hearing because um I find compelling in the case in the first finding that the retaining limestone wall, the existence of trees of the slope all to me are perfect examples indep of of just themselves and collectively an example of constraints on the site on why this variance is needed. In terms of the second finding, I do find that this is in the spirit of our um of our zoning code and in terms of the desire for uh preserving the historic nature of this building for also returning on Fifth Avenue the curb cut that exists. There largely aren't any other curb cuts that exist on that side of the street. So the curb cut that is there which I agree is non-functional as it is used today given the prolifer the parking that uh overlaps with access to that garage uh the restoration of that curb cut would preserve and restore the uh public access and public streetcape versus on the second it is I think more natural to have a sec a curb cut there considering that there are existing curb cuts for other houses that are on that street >> and second >> and second Okay. Yeah. >> Yes. >> I think I heard a justification for a motion from board member Callahan. >> Do you want me to put it together? Okay. So, uh >> and I would before you do that, I would uh request that that motion include the condition. >> I agree. >> Okay. >> Um I'd like to make a motion to reject staff findings and approve this variance. um with the condition that the curb cut be um the existing curb cut be restored. Maybe the staff will tell me exactly what they want me to say. >> The existing curb cut will be eliminated. >> Yeah. Eliminated. Closed. I think neither would work in that case. Yeah. >> Swapped. Yeah. Back to a normal street. um um um in when the other cut is made. >> Okay. >> And I second that. >> Um board member SM Carva has joined us but unfortunately uh a little bit too late to vote in my estimation. Um so uh we do have a motion and it is seconded. So we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Board member Callahan. >> I. >> Board member I Colts. >> I. >> Board member Hutchkins. >> I. >> Board member Ingraham. In Ingram is absent. Board member Smeir Carva is absent. >> Is present. >> Isn't that abstain? Abstain. Thank you, Vice Chair Wang. >> I >> and Chair Perry, >> I sure uh the um the results on the call is four four eyes. No, I won't abstain. >> So, with that, your uh request is approved and good luck with your project. Thanks for coming down and uh presenting. >> Thank you. Okay, we have a couple of other business items that we need to attend to. One is our 2025 zoning board of adjustment annual report. Have people had a chance to look at that yet? Any comments? I would uh say that we someone make a motion to approve it. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? Second. >> All in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any against? Nay. Uh any abstensions? And that uh motion passes. Mr. Ellis, do you have any updates for us? Chair Perry, members of the board, yes. I have two updates for you this evening. Um council has uh moved forward and indicated which uh candidates they would like to see uh serve on the board. So, we will be moving as quickly as we can with that. Uh, unfortunately, we do have to go through the planning commission before going to council. So, it'll take a little bit longer than we would hope, but um we should have somebody here as soon as we can. And then the outcome of 3906 York Avenue uh appeal, which I had noted probably quite a while ago, um that that had been appealed that was the uh corner sideyard fence. >> It's a fence that was 6 feet throughout the entire yard. >> Yeah. throughout the entire corner side yard and it was um but the board denied it and it was um it was moved forward without recommendation at the committee of the whole uh from council but then denied at full counsel. So uh board the board was upheld. >> Any other questions of uh Mr. Ellis? >> I see none. Our next meeting is March 12th, 2026 and I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. Second. >> It's moved and seconded. All in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. We are adjourned.