One minute voice check. >> Sounds good. Thank you. Before we begin the meeting today, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater part 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.
So with that, good afternoon. This is the May 14th, 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 may verify the presence of quorum. >> Board member Callahan, >> present. >> Board member Ikez >> here. >> Board member Hutchkins is absent. Board member Ingram is absent. Board member Israel
>> present. >> Board member Samir Carva. >> I. >> Vice Chair Wang >> here. >> And Chair Perry >> here. >> There are six 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? >> So 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 March 26, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> 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. Any abstensions? If you were not at the last meeting, you should abstain. >> Callahhan abstains. >> Israel abstains.
>> Thank you. So, we have two abstensions, but the motion passes. So, the meeting minutes from the zoning board of adjustments March 26, 2026 meeting are approved. A reminder to applicants and others that
if you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in on the sheet over by 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 with any after the hearing with any questions you have regarding your projects. Lastly, if you have something like this, if you could turn it off or turn it on silent, I'd appreciate it. Let's review the agenda. I will read the
agenda number and the address of the project and state whether it's slated for consent, continuence, withdrawal, return, or discussion. And I'll just talk a little bit about what those are. Consent items are items that will be
passed without discussion by the board. We will be adhering to the staff recommendation found on your agenda under the items recommended motion section. Importantly, any applicable conditions will be listed in the same section. If you agree with this
recommendation, including any applicable conditions, you need to do nothing and the board will pass it as recommended. After the item is passed on consent, you're free to leave the chambers. Please check in with the staff member
assigned to that item if you have any questions following the decision. If you disagree with the recommendation, please indicate you would like to speak and we'll put it on the discussion uh item list.
So, what are discussion items? These are items that will 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 that 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, I'm sorry,
after the public hearing for an item is closed, board members will then discuss and act on motions. and the chair does not vote except in the case of a tie. So, let's look at the land use uh items
on our agenda and their recommended dispositions. Agenda item number four is 4710 Humboldt Avenue North. This is a discussion item. Agenda item number five is 35 I'm sorry.
Yes. 35 uh14 uh Grand Avenue. Let me just make sure that Yep. 3514 Grand Avenue South. This is also a discussion item. And agenda item number six is 633 Pulk Street
Northeast. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? >> I see no one. Okay, >> Chair Perry. >> Yes. >> I I will just want to make one mention. We do have one public speaker signed up
for item number 6, 633 Pulk Street Northeast. I'm not sure if they are wanting to speak to any of that >> or approval. >> Do you want to speak? >> Uh we'll put it on the discussion list
and have you speak then. So, we have no items for consent. They're all discussion. And we'll start off with our first one. 4710 Humboldt Avenue North. Thank you, Chair Perry, board members.
Uh my name is Miles Campbell. I'm a member of the zoning administration staff. Um so the first item before you tonight, 4710 Humbled Avenue North. This is a variance to the city's uh screening requirements for refuge, recycling, uh storage, and compost containers. Um
again, the property, as noted, is at uh 4710 Humbult Avenue North. It is a apartment building uh with eight dwelling units included in it. Um built back in the 1960s. Um the applicant in this case is Mr. Wayne Carlson. uh the uh representative of the Her Carlson Family Partnership
LLP who has owned and operated this building for over 25 plus years. Again, the uh variance in this case is related to the uh screening for an existing dumpster enclosure. You can see on the rightmost image here, a picture of that dumpster provided by the applicant. Um
so there's a dumpster as well as a couple of recycling storage containers on the lot for again those residents of the building itself. Um, back in, I believe 2024 was when the initial, uh, citation came in from our zoning enforcement team, um, we were notified
by, uh, I believe regulatory services of, uh, complaints around garbage, uh, being located in the alley. Uh, and they also flagged that again the zoning code does require that garbage containers be screened uh, for specifically apartments and commercial type properties. would
not apply if this was a a single family home. But being eight units, um we typically require that any sort of garbage uh refuge container is screened entirely or enclosed um such that it is not visible from uh the adjacent street
or public rightways as well as adjacent uh residential properties. One thing to note here is that this dumpster has been in generally the same location for all of those 25 years that uh Mr. Carlson has owned the property. It has not been screened previously. Um, this only again
was flagged uh in 2024 as a zoning issue. Although there have been other complaints over the years related to garbage. Um, it was just never flagged with the zoning department. Uh, this property is zoned UN2 and falls within the interior 2 built form overlay
district. Um, one thing that is relevant to the request is kind of the surrounding mix of properties. So, this is located just east of Shingle Creek um and the parkboard property related to the creek, but also to the southwest, and I'll apologize, this is kind of a
oblique photograph. So, north in this case for the main photo is to your uh left essentially. Um to the southwest of this property, um on the other side of Humbult and on the other side of the creek is a number of industrial use properties. Um those do have a a large
amount of truck traffic, semi-truck traffic going through. Um, and this does kind of play into the request from the applicant. Screening that dumpster would require the loss of at least one parking space as far as staff can tell. And um, I know the applicant has some quotes from fence contractors that suggest
maybe two of those eight parking spaces would need to go away. Um, again, there's not a required off- streetet parking um, needed for multif family anymore in the city. Um, it's not a requirement that there is eight spots for eight residents. Uh but the applicant does note that the combination
of that truck traffic which there has been a couple of accidents on the street itself along with parking limitations. So here um these street areas highlighted in red are areas where there's not street parking allowed. So on Humboldt Avenue as a whole there's no parking allowed. Um and directly in
front of the building uh there is a restriction on parking due to a bus stop. So there is a limitation to a certain degree of how many residents could actually park on the street reasonably without having to travel a great distance. Um I did also include here uh just uh coincidence of the
timing for that oblique photograph. You can see a semi-truck making that turn um onto Humble or onto excuse me that would be um the Shringle Creek Parkway uh from Humbult Avenue. again having to take a pretty wide turn um leading to some of
the concerns from his uh tenants and residents about parking on the street. Um again this is the relevant code section regarding screening of those refues and recycling storage containers. Again, we say that they shall be enclosed on all four sides by screening compatible with
the principal structure not less than 2 ft higher than the refuge container or shall be otherwise effectively screened from the street. Adjacent residential uses uh or conditional residential uses. Uh as noted, single and two family dwellings and three or four unit multif
family dwellings are not included in this provision, but because this is an 8-unit building, the code does require that that uh dumpster be screened from view. In terms of staff findings, this is uh maybe a more unique case than usual where we do feel that finding one in
terms of unique circumstances is being met. Um obviously with all of the uh truck traffic going on and those parking restrictions on the nearby streets, while we do not require that the applicant have eight parking spaces for eight tenants, uh the options for on street parking are impacted here. Uh
additionally, this isn't a regular lot in terms of its uh shape and the development of the site is rather tight. So there probably is the opportunity to shift that parking lot further to the south. Uh but that has its own costs and um requirements regarding uh existing
utility lines on the site. I think you can actually see here on the uh leftmost image that would be kind of on that south side of the parking lot uh an existing utility pole that would need to be removed, buried, etc. to actually get any more parking on the site itself.
That said, we are recommending denial based on the second and third finding. So the the reasonable use uh the spirit and intent of the ordinance here is pretty clear that we are trying to mitigate visual blight or those spillover effects from refues on adjacent properties. And again, this is
coming out of uh zoning enforcement in terms of an action. So there is clearly has been some impact on those surrounding properties. Um, one thing I will note here is that, you know, again, screening is the obvious option in staff's eye to mitigate for those factors. Um, but again, if there were
another kind of opportunity or option provided by the applicant to manage the site in some way, um, again, the limitation here is there's only so much that we can actually condition any sort of an approval on. Um, but again, we do see that as it stands today, those
findings are not being met. Um happy to answer any questions you all may have. >> Thanks for the presentation. Uh yes. >> Um can you just give some additional information on the amount the number of complaints the nature of them? Um I know the main one that was been flagged was
the one that then got flagged for zoning. Um but can you give some additional sort of either themes or trends amongst the um issues that have been flagged? >> Yeah, absolutely. um Chair Perry and board member Callahan, we did take a
look back um in the city's record. So, we have going back to the earliest I was able to find in terms of a mention of a a nuisance complaint or a case that mentioned garbage was 2002 and we found um five cases related to nuisance from
2002 to the current date essentially. Um again, those were 2002, 2010 and then more recently 2023, 2024 and 2025. It was that 2024 complaint that then uh I believe was forwarded to zoning staff essentially. And again, this might be a
little bit of uh one part of the city not talking to the other where clearly there was violations from a a nuisance code standard, but those staff persons weren't flagging it with our zoning inspectors. Um at least until this most recent case.
>> Any other questions? Uh I I think uh for now we will u have you sit down and we might have you come back up. So the way this works uh is the applicant speaks first then anybody else
who would like to speak in favor of the application speaks and then anybody who wants to speak against it speaks. So um sir I assume you're the applicant. I am, your honor. >> Okay. So, if you could get yourself in
front of that microphone and give your name and address for the record and your testimony. I'm Wayne Carlson. I live at 523 Coventry Lane in Adina. Um, I uh am 83 years old. I've been in the
business for 65 years. I've owned this building for 25 years. Um, I'm a hands-on owner. I try to get to the building. Actually, I I'm pretty good at getting to the building at least
once a week. I do all the um lard mowing, all the all the snow plowing, cleaning the lot, and all those kind of things. And I over the years decide that's the best way that I could keep in contact with the people in the building.
if they have a complaint or something, I can try and solve it or or take care of it. Um, this issue um creates some problems for me and I hope that you would help me with it. Putting in a new enclosure takes two of
the parking spots which I have showed an exhibit there. If I do that, then two tenants have to move out in the street which in my mind puts them in hazard of all the truck driving. I I was out there like 20 20 minutes and I estimated
there's like 16,000 car trucks that go by there. I went up Humble Avenue one day and turned on the Shingle Creek and there was a 58 uh length truck there and I could not even get into the to the uh
driveway to the back of the building. What it creates is basically I have two spots there which I could have people park but that seems like I'm taking people that have a safe place to park and put them on the street and then they
have the opportunity to get hit by a truck. We've had three accidents up there in the last year. Um, and I kind of feel like that that's uh from my point of view that's a matter of integrity if I'm putting these people in danger.
The other alternative is that that I expand the parking lot and I looked into the cost of that and it's about $140,000 because I have to move a whole bunch of uh Comcast lines, move trees, do the
parking and to me that is is not something that I personally am able to take care of. Um so that that's one alternative. The other um so those are really the two
alternatives. I either they my tenants go out and park in the streets which I as a matter of integrity I don't think that I as owner would like to see that happen to them. Um I've talked to uh council person veto
and she suggested as one alternative that I don't have a caretaker in the building but she suggested that I have a person in the building that she also knows from on our campaigns that is
really been there for years and has gone beyond. He does things around the building that I would not even ask for. And I think based on her suggestion, I could I could hire him to in addition to what I do to pick up the trash on a
daily basis and that perhaps would solve the problem. Um the expenses of this thing even putting putting in in the surround is costly. I'm I I have had financial problems with
this building. I've had to turn over a lot of a lot of people there. I have had problems with the co I had problems with with uh with the Floyd thing, Floyd George things with people moving out and
uh I'm to the point it uh uh I think I've been a really good landlord in that area and I think the community appreciates that. I initially went to all the neighbors around trying to get support for not having the dumpster
included and I think I all of them have signed on a letter but then I guess that something has changed since then. So I'm either looking at that or the other thing the only other thing I can do is
is is sell the building. And if if if somehow you can't help me, I think that's what I'm going to have to do because I don't I' I've took out I mean, you don't really care, but I just spent 16,000
putting a mortgage on my house. 16 6,000 paying the mortgage the taxes on the building, and I am I am I am tapped out. And I would guess that if if the the what I'm proposing here,
if it's not possible for me to take on hiring a caretaker to clean up on a daily basis that that um you give me a year's time so that I can sell the building and and uh
and uh of the proceeds pay for this surround. Those are not uh choices that I like because I I actually have some attachment to this building. People have tried to buy it in the past and take out
my tenants and put in elderly and I thought that was something I didn't want to do to dispossess my my people though. So I have kind of a I don't feel like that I continue the ownership even if I and put the people out in the street to
be hit by semis and cars. So, it's like a matter of integrity. I mean, I really don't want to own the building if that that's a choice I have to make. Um, it great for me to have to do that. So,
I'm asking that that if uh they possibly can to allow me to keep the keep it the way it is and and I'll take on hiring someone to clean up on a daily basis. I think I have someone who's been there a long time that uh could pick up trash
and and make that even a little better than than I have right now. And currently uh right now we've had some problems with tenants. So we've had to put out like six tenants out of eight. And that that
creates some problems with trash with him to clean up. But I think we've got that problem solved. And I think uh Alan Garcia, my one of my tenants would be he has a really good attitude about making things better. And I think I could hire him to pick up on a daily basis and and
solve this problem without having to do the enclosure. Or the other thing is that I'll just have to go out of the neighborhood. I think uh council person veto respects what I'm doing in the neighborhood and would like
to keep me and I would wouldn't mind staying there but I think it's a matter of integrity and it's a matter of my ability to take on take on the cost of doing this. So I ask one of two things. ones. You either either let me take on
the caretaker to solve the problem or that you give me some time that I can sell the building and and uh and pay pay the money out of the proceeds to put in the dumpster. That would not um or the the surround that would not solve the
problem about the people being in the street and subject to being harmed by semis. But at that point, I I'd felt that it would not be a not a matter of my integrity at that point in time. So, >> okay. >> I appreciate you listening to me and
>> Sure. >> and uh if you I guess if you have any questions you'd want to ask me or >> are there any questions? >> I don't see any. Thanks for your testimony. >> Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> I appreciate all the detail, too. That's
helpful. Um, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against this application? I see no one and so I will close the
public hearing. Board comment. >> Yes. >> Um, I have a question for staff. If I can invite Mr. Campbell just back up. Um, >> absolutely. I you know I appreciate the um applicant sharing a lot of the nuances around this issue. Um I think
that screening of trash can only go so far to actually fix trash issues on a on a property. And so I'm not sure that screening and zoning are actually the right tool to be addressing the tool the issue that's at hand at the site. Um cuz there's lots of places that get
screening and then have trash overflowing and you know not you know and into alleyways etc. So I guess like what are the other resources available here for the applicant in terms of like addressing the trash issue on site because that
seems to be like the actual nexus of the issue not really like the visibility and aesthetics of the trash itself. >> Yeah absolutely. Uh, Chair Perry, board member Callahan, I think certainly kind of top of mind as the applicant noted, having a a person on site would be a
major step towards kind of being able to actively manage that on a day-to-day basis. Um, uh, otherwise, again, you know, I know there's always the option of kind of uh, with any sort of commercial pickup for um, trash services, there's always options to kind of look at, you know,
increasing the rate of that pickup. So, having multiple pickups in a week if that is the issue here. Um the maybe the challenge here is that I don't know what you all can actually um condition an approval of a variance on in terms of know that variance is kind of tied to the land is usually those conditions
have to be tied to the the physical circumstances of it. I certainly would defer to uh Mr. Verkota if there's any options there. But again to my knowledge at the very least um again we can't condition an approval on something like hiring a caretaker. Not to say that you
all can certainly make your own findings and um I don't have any doubts that uh Mr. Carlson does want to address the problem in the first place, but I don't know what legal um conditions we can place on that. >> Thank you. >> Any Yes.
>> Thank you. Um you mentioned that there have been five complaints over 24 year period and those were um as my colleague stated
were those all trash overflow or can you give more details of what the complaints were? >> Yeah, Cher Perry board member Israel. Yes, those were all related to again there were other service requests and inspections over that time. Uh but five specifically mentioned um trash in the
alley or trash in the kind of area around the dumpster itself. In terms of having a city staff person come out to do an inspection. >> Okay. One other followup within the um within regulations. I notice there's only one container there
and there's eight departments. Is there is there a tie in between? Like I own a four-unit building. I have that same container and I have overflow that flows over into the enclosure. So, as my colleague said, it doesn't it hides it,
but it doesn't doesn't resolve the the issue. But with eight with eight households, it seems to be perhaps that's inadequate. And I didn't know if there is is that just something between the owner and the refuge company. >> Right. Uh board members, I'm not aware
of anything in the zoning code that require, you know, a certain number of bins per household. I know there is obviously other sections of the city code that might hit on um refuge management, but again, in terms of the zoning code, we the only provisions I'm
aware of would be the language in terms of the screening as well as um and kind of related to this request, uh enclosures for household refues are considered a permitted obstruction in required yard. So essentially we allow those to exist in a setback area as long
as they have I believe it's 20 ft from the nearest habitable home. Um otherwise the zoning code is kind of silent on these. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Uh so
can you say what the intent you could not find for intent? Um what is it? What is the intent? Is the intent to have no garbage or is the intent to have it screened? What exactly
is the intent? Yes, Cher Perry. I think probably more the I mean >> in any ideal world I think both would be kind of the goal from this in terms of kind of containing but also obviously the language screening here really to me speaks to the visual aspect more than anything where we are saying this needs
to be taller than the container that it's holding. Um again is effectively screened from adjacent residential uses. Um, I think the idea here is more that visual blocking above all else really in terms of the intent or not having that kind of negative spillover.
>> So, one other thing I'd like to bring up, the the city is very focused on not um in reducing the number of cars and cars parked. Um where does that weigh in to
this particular issue? >> Yeah, absolutely. And we did, I think, note it in the staff report from the perspective of again the city does not require a minimum amount of on street parking. Um I think maybe that's the the disconnect between finding one and finding two here where finding one there
certainly is difficulty with that street parking situation with the traffic on streets. Um but again the code as it's written today and how it's currently set up um the idea is that you're not necessarily having to provide onetoone parking for all of your uh residents in any given building. >> Sure.
>> Okay. All right. Um I don't see any other questions. Um so is there a um a >> I'm sorry. What >> do you take any more comments from here or is that closed? >> The public hearing is closed. I'm sorry.
>> Okay. It's okay. >> Um so, um is there a motion? I'll just uh I'll say where where I'm at, which is that um I think that as far as I can see it right now, I think staff
has found correctly. Um, if somebody has uh another angle at it, I I'm not necessarily seeing anything within the legal findings. Uh, I'm I'm open to hearing if anybody has any ideas, but as far as I can see right now, I I think that they're reading the uh the
interpretation correctly. So, that's where I'm at currently. >> Yeah. Uh, you know, I'll just weigh in very briefly on this. It it seems that the uh desire to have a clean contained area
and the parking requirements have buted up against each other and we're not really the body to unscramble that mess unfortunately. So, um I would say that working with the
council member is a good thing to do. Um and uh and I and I think maybe uh having this addressed by the full council when it comes to traffic
patterns is something that they should look into. >> Sure. I I mean, if I were to look at this, I don't agree with staff findings, but to chair Perry's note, too, I don't think that we're really the body to make
the decision for this. But right now, as of this moment where we're trying to make a motion, I can't find an argument for two or three, which is what we have to make a motion for. So then therefore I would agree um to move
with staff findings solely because we don't have a reason for two and three based on what we're confined and dealing with in this situation. >> Yeah. So um Oh, did you want to comment or make a motion?
>> I just a comment and it may be just cuz I'm new to the new to the um group here. So for the standard number three for potential for injury or detriment? >> Yep. >> Um can someone just give me a highle
overview because there were comments about injury and safety as it relates to that that corner? >> So it seems like that speaks to that but I'm not sure. >> Okay. Um certainly Mr. Campbell, if you
could, but uh I will point out um we need to find for all three. Um if we find for two of three, that's not good enough. >> Uh Cherberry and board member Israel. Uh
and I do think it's a it's a very uh pertinent question, especially at your first board meeting. So finding three and I I can read the the full language from the code yard says the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. If
granted the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property of nearby or the property or nearby properties. Um, so to translate code speak into kind of more lay language, I would say the
idea for that third finding is again what is the the spillover impact? If the variance is granted, what is the uh potential consequence on adjacent properties? If there is not a a negative consequence or an issue, then that finding is met essentially. uh if there
is perceived by you all as the board of adjustment that there would be that um negative impact or that uh effect on the health, safety, welfare of surrounding properties, then that finding would not be found. You know, I would just mention one other
thing too as you folks are thinking about this is that this situation is um where if it was um found for the applicant
with it contingent on them picking up trash. I mean, we're granting a variance not on picking up trash. we're granting a variance on not having it uh shielded. So, I I just think we got to keep that
in mind as well. >> I'm ready to make a motion. I think I agree with a lot of the things that have been said. I said this in my comment in my comment question of staff about um this is a case that is I think not well suited to zoning. Um in this case,
because we're talking about trash, we're not talking about how a trash receptacle looks. And there's lots of screen trash receptacles that still have trash that impact the enjoyment of neighboring properties, but there is only so much that we as a body can add as contingent
on approvals of variances which then run with the property. And um I guess I agree with staff findings and the way that they have interpreted this case. And so I would make a motion to uh deny this variance uh based on staff recommendations.
So, you're uh supporting staff recommendation? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Second. >> There's a second. Any further discussion? Will the clerk please call the role? >> Board member Callahan. >> I.
>> Board member Izz. >> I. >> Board member Israel. >> I. >> Board member Smeir Carva. >> I. >> Vice Chair Wang. >> I. Chair Perry. >> Uh, I don't vote except in the case of
the tie and um so that motion passed. >> Mr. Carlson, you can see staff about what your options are going forward. Um, I did mention uh talking to your council member is one thing, but you should talk to Mr. Campbell about what your options
are going forward. And I appreciate you coming down and giving testimony. So, let's move on to our next one, which is 3514 Grand Avenue. Miss Barren. Good afternoon, Chair Perry, members of
the board. Uh, I will be using the doc cam uh just as an aside for whoever is running the uh um technology up here. >> What the heck is that? >> Right. Wow, we're going we're in the way back
machine. >> Yep. Um the application before you is a variance for 3514 Grand Avenue South, which is a midblock parcel with alley access. The current development on the site is a triplex with a threecar garage, which
was permitted initially by the city in 2005. The parcel is 5,842 square ft in area and 44.9 ft in width. Um, in the intervening years since the property was constructed in 2005, um, a
fourth unit was constructed in the basement without pulling building permits. Uh, the application before you is proposing to legalize this fourth unit. Um, the property is located in the built form interior 2 zoning district. Um, and in this district, a dwelling of
four or more units is only permitted on a lot which has at least 7,500 square ft of area and at least 50 ft of width. Um, so the applicant is requesting to vary both of these provisions um which are permitted or um established
variances provided that um you are not varying these requirements by more than 30%. So the um the quantity of the area the lot area variance is 22% and the width uh of the variance application is
10%. So they are both within the the confines of uh what can be varied. With regards to the first finding staff finds that there are not unique challenges associated with this lot. Uh this lot is both larger and wider than a
standard Minneapolis lot. Um the inability to enlarge the um to enlarge the property is not uncommon. Uh Minneapolis is a relatively builtout city. Um and so being able to
increase the uh size and width of the property is not a unique circumstance. Um and just as a reminder, the um the ordinance itself cannot function as the applicant's challenge to complying with
the ordinance. So the fact that this um proposal requires a variance does not in and of itself satisfy the um finding for a variance. Um the second finding staff finds this does not uh comply with the intent of
the ordinance. Um the int the ordinance intends for the built form interior 2 district to be a transitional district between the built form interior 1 and built form interior 3. Um which are our three sort of um
residential density um a lotments. Um so in in its role as a transitional zoning district um buildings of four or more units are permitted but only on those larger lots as we discussed previously. Um and
that's intended to provide sort of a smoother transition between the low density interior one and the high density interior 3. Um, with regards to the third finding, staff does find that this would not alter the essential character of the area or have an impact on health,
safety, or welfare. Due to the fact that findings one and two have not been met, staff recommends the denial of this application. >> All right. Thanks for the presentation questions. Yes. Um so besides the lot with um the lot size of the property,
does the building itself comply with zoning the design code? >> The um >> in terms of like setbacks and everything like that, >> the legalization of the fourth unit would not require any construction and so therefore it would be subject to the
rules which were um uh allowed when it was constructed. Okay. So the the setbacks it has um it was compliant with the setbacks in 2005 when it was constructed and those would not be changing. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> I see none. Thank you. Is the applicant present? The applicant is not present. Okay. Uh is anybody want here to speak against this item? I see no one. Uh I should have opened
the public hearing but I so I'll open it. Ask the same question. Anyone here to speak in favor? Any Oh, you are speaking in favor of this? >> Yep. >> Okay, great. >> You caught my nuts opening the public
hearing. >> I am surprised that the uh guy who owns this, whoever it is, uh isn't here for his own property. I think that's a little weird. Um, but uh anyway, thank you to the board for giving the public a platform. Uh, my name is Pne Barava and
you can as you can see by my shirt, I am in favor of legalizing housing because people live in houses. Uh I I brought this case up actually to my 89year-old Indian grandmother and explained it in Hindi and everything and she was baffled even at her age and with her limited
understanding that all of this process has to happen for what is essentially a basement conversion. Um I've read the staff report and I am frankly a little surprised by what it says uh especially because it opened by saying this is within the confines of what a typical
variance would be. Um which is I guess why we're we're at this board today. Um, but let's put the arbitrary and and frankly outdated minimum lot size requirement aside for a moment. Um, this building, if you go stand in front of it, is flanked on both sides. Uh, and
across the street by denser, more intense uses. In fact, I very briefly lived two blocks away at 33rd and Grand. And, uh, this is a dense residential corridor. Uh, even with four units, this building would be less dense than surrounding buildings. And um this is a
transitional zoning district as the staff member said and this would remain a pretty low density use on the block. Uh but I think the most important thing here is that this unit has already been constructed. Uh and it would be extremely silly for us to leave a perfectly good home empty when it could
instead be used as a house for someone as intended. The Minneapolis 20 240 plan uh was in spirit about expanding housing supply to meet the needs of the community so that we could continue to have affordable housing here in our wonderful city. This does exactly that.
The footprint of the building itself remains unchanged. Um and I guess technically it becomes non-compliant when you add a fourth unit in the basement. But if we can house more people just by doing a basement conversion, I don't see why we shouldn't do that. Uh so let's be smart about
this. I think approving this variance is a no-brainer. It's more housing in the exact same place at the exact same size. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for your testimony. >> Um, would anybody else like to speak in favor of this?
>> Would anybody like to speak against it? Okay. Uh, let's close the public hearing. Board comment. Mr. Israel. I have a question for for staff. Um
>> so with the unit already being in under um constructed if the variance were granted, wouldn't that fourth unit then be under the purview of the rental license on the property?
Chair Perry, board member Israel, if the variance were to be approved, the um the owner or his representative would be required to pull a building permit to have uh city inspector verify that uh the unit was properly constructed in accordance with the international
building code and then the the uh the owner would be required to update their rental license to then ac encompass this fourth unit. >> Thank you. and absent. If this body were to take the staff recommendation and deny the variance, then that unit would
not undergo th those inspections. Correct. >> Uh, Chair Perry, board member Israel. The unit would need to be removed. There was additional work done without a building permit in several of the other units which comprise parts of the basement of this. Um, and so we would like to see a building permit for those
uh additional spaces. They added several bathrooms. um that are um attached to some the units on the main floor. Um but so we would we would like to see a building permit to uh accommodate for the work
that was done which did not require a variance um which would then still be inspected as part of the normal construction process. >> Thank you. Any other uh questions of staff we have Okay. Any other comments?
Yes, >> just just a comment. Um, it's it's an odd case. Um, I can understand providing more housing and not having to expand a footprint. I
think that it feels like it could be a slippery slope to um subpar um housing that pops up with unlicensed landlords and um not regulated building
construction. I think that something like an in-law suites or um extra space that you finish out because you want a playroom or something like that is the direction that you would
start to. but to completely renovate several units without permits and then attempt to get a license for or um something that's like uh let's turn this into an Airbnb. I
mean, all the all the different ways that you would end up with trying to legitimize this construction after the fact. Um, yes, it provides more housing, but it is a slippery slope to the quality of that
housing and to this happening over and over again. And then you find that there are several buildings across the city that just aren't working. um it doesn't seem like a significant amount in the sizing that's required
versus the sizing of the housing, but I think that there are these kind of rules and these kind of standards put in place for a reason. They're also updated as often as they can be so that they can be adjusted for how comfortable people
are living in smaller units and that kind of stuff. So, I I really want there to be more housing. I really want there to be different kinds of housing for multiple folks, but this seems like it could end up with housing that is good
enough but not maintained and then it's not good housing at all. So, I listen to my um colleagues comments, but I would move that finding. >> Thanks for those comments. Anyone else? Yes. >> I'm so sorry. Can I ask a question of
staff again? Not to have you keep going back and forth. >> Um I just have a question in response to some of the comments made by um board member that I like in terms of the size of the units um are there minimum
>> uh unit sizes that we have written into the zoning and like do these units that are in this building comply with that based on the bedroom size? Chair Perry, board member Callahan, we do have minimum unit sizes within the zoning code. The minimum is 300 square feet. It
was recently reduced with the uh new zoning code that came into effect about two years ago. Um so the the minimum is 300 ft for the entirety of a dwelling unit, which does allow for some uh studio units. Um all of the units, including the one that was not permitted, do meet this minimum
threshold. >> So it's the same minimum size regardless of the bedroom size. So >> correct, >> even if it's a one bed, it would also still have the 300 foot as the minimum. >> Chair Perry, board member Callahan, there are um
minimum bedroom sizes within the construction code, the international building code, as well as the city's housing maintenance code, okay, through the rental license, but those aren't within the zoning code. >> Okay, great. Um I just want to echo in terms of Thank you. I mean, I have no more questions. Um
I agree in part I agree with what my board member colleagues have already said about there is a slippery slope here. I also am greatly concerned that the applicant is not here to speak in favor of the project. um which um to you know
there's a variety of reasons why folks don't come to these hearings but I think that combined with some of the building permit um issues that we are also flagged by staff are both concerning when otherwise I do find that there is
um a there this does speak with oh sorry she's coming back up >> board member Perry chair or chair Perry board member Calahan I do just want to clarify that the current owner um purchased the house with this condition in in >> Oh, so they did not put it in. >> Correct. As far as I can tell, as far as
my knowledge goes, the current owner uh is a fairly recent acquisition for them and they were not as far as I can tell the owner who established this unit. Just >> interesting. >> Uh to put that on the record for you guys. >> Okay, that's interesting context. Um
I have a I have trouble with this case. Um, I think odd case is a good way to put it. Um, because we do have a housing crisis nationally and in Minnesota. And, um, this is a
great way to add housing within the confines of our city without adding increasing density, which is often a concern with adding housing. And there are many cities across the country that have removed minimum lot sizes as a requirement of zoning because
of this issue. At the same time, um I don't currently find a path forward for the first finding, but I do think it fits finding findings two and three. So I would look to my colleagues who if there is a a path forward here on the
first finding. >> Okay. Yes. Yeah, I was going to say basically all the same same things. I can get there on number two. Um I think that you know especially with the uh adjacent um you know with the the intent being that this you know being a transition and the
other ones already being as dense or more dense. I can I I could probably get there on number two. um you know we are not a policymaking body so we have to just interpret you know would the lot size requirements be what I would you know would want uh if that were up to me
you know who's to say but uh you know we don't have that in our purview unfortunately so um I I I'm yeah like you said I I really don't know how to get there on number one you know it's got to be something something with the physical property that's unique to this
property that doesn't allow them to to meet the the code. And I I we haven't really even broached like what even a possibility of that would be. And I I don't know how to get there on that one. So, um I don't like that uh to have to potentially likely remove a housing
unit, but I I don't know how to get there currently. So, if anybody else has any ideas, also open to it, but that's where I'm at currently. >> Thanks for those comments. Anyone else? I would entertain a motion then.
Yes. >> Um given that nobody has been able to find anything for um number one challenges, it is a very simple square or rectangular property, very typical for this area of Minneapolis. I agree
with you on findings two, obviously with staff on findings three. So based on what we have here, um I'm going to make a motion to support staff findings. >> Okay. Is there a second? Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Uh, any further
discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the role? >> Board member Callahan. >> Nay. >> Board member Eicult. >> I. >> Board member Israel.
>> Nay. >> Board member Smeir Carba. >> I. Vice Chair Wang >> I >> Chair Perry. Oh are you? >> So that motion passed which means the
request is denied and um uh that will be communicated through the normal channels to the property owner. Uh they do have options going forward
from us. We're not the last stop. Uh so now we go on to our last item which is 603 633 Pulk South or Street Northeast.
>> Mr. Wlette, >> Chair Perry, board members. Um I'm Nicholas Wlette, CPAD Zoning Administration. Um item number six regarding 633 Pulk Street Northeast. The project is to subdivide the existing parcels into two lots. Um the applicant
is requesting two variances. The first is to reduce the required lot width from 40 ft to 39.39 ft and the second variance is to reduce the required lot area from 5,000 square ft to 4,919 ft. The subject property is an interior
parcel 9,835 ft in size with an existing single family dwelling. Um the parcel is comprised of two platted lots which were subsequently combined to create the existing parcel. The property and surrounding parcels are zoned urban
neighborhood 2 and consist of predominantly low and medium density residential uses. I do have the um survey up here on the document scanner if that could be shown on the television screens. Um regarding the variance requests, the underlying platted lots
were created with lot areas less than 5,000 square ft of area and 40 ft of width. The previous platted lots were established prior to the establishment of the city's first zoning ordinance in 1924. And the conditions of the underlying parcels were established prior to the applicant's interest in the
property. The resulting parcels will um result in a lot area that is 1.5% smaller than the required area and a lot width 1.6% um shorter than the required width. The resulting lot areas and minor deviations
from the minimum standards um provide adequate area for the functional needs of lowdensity residential development. uh division of the parcel to the underlying plat would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of nearby properties. Um with staff with
that staff recommends approval of the variances from minimum lot areas and minimum lot width uh to permit the proposed subdivision. That concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> Yep. Thanks for the presentation. Questions of staff?
I see none. With that, we will close. I'm sorry. We will open the public hearing. Um, is there anyone here to speak for this >> item? You want to speak? >> Are you the applicant?
>> The applicant? >> Oh, yes, absolutely. >> If you could give me your name and address for the record. >> Yes. Uh, Kyle Dalstrom, address of 1702 Selby A in St. Paul. >> Okay. >> Um, so I own the property. Um we bought it around a year and a half ago. Um
single family dwelling, previously two lots. We have since remodeled um that single family dwelling. Um we have a tenant in there. Um based on the best use of the entire property, we determined it doesn't make sense to, you know, bulldoze the existing and big
build some big home. It makes more sense to find uh remodel a starter home essentially what it is. There's not many of those around anymore. and um separate the other lot so then we can add additional housing to the neighborhood. Um I'll just comment the next door
neighbor directly next to us is an 11 unit building. Um to the other side is a duplex and across the street is a multif family. So um I'm not personally concerned with adding more uh buildings there as it's already as um was mentioned uh you know multi-unit type
buildings in the surrounding area. >> So okay only comments. Thank you. Um, there might be questions. Any questions? >> No. >> Thanks. Thanks for your comments. >> Um, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? I see no one. Uh, I
know there's one person who would like to speak against. If you could give your name and address for the record, please. >> Yes. Yes. Uh, thanks for having me here. Uh, my name is Aiden Nelson. I live at 653 Pulk Street. Um, yeah, I'm not I'm
not particularly opposed to uh them splitting the lot. Um, it's more so uh just setting the precedent of lowering the minimum um lot size. Um, if any of you know this neighborhood, it's a it's quite small. It's kind of subdivided by
the tracks and um Central and Broadway. Um, there's a lot of multif family homes. Understand Northeast is a a renters's paradise. Um, we encourage it. Um, however, some of the things that do happen is that you end up getting um giant apartment buildings stood up next
to your your single family home um if you're not careful. Um, obviously in this one um I wasn't sure uh the intent uh of um of the individual applying for this. Um when you see it splitting a lot um especially for individuals that don't live in the neighborhood um it just
gives you a little concern. So, uh, my biggest issue, um, is just splitting is is is is lowering the minimum and setting the precedent that we can continue to lower this minimum, um, you know, to avoid any future, um, issues with maybe larger home uh, larger apartments or anything like that because
as as we already heard, um, there are uh, large units in the neighborhood already. Um, and I just particularly and my my my fiance and I particularly don't want one stood up um, next to our home in maybe 10 years or whatever it may be. if that isn't, you know, what the future holds. So, um, that's really the one
reservation that we have. Um, just trying to keep the neighborhood a neighborhood, especially since there's a park a block up the road. Um, again, we encourage, you know, people to come into the neighborhood as, uh, you know, the Minneapolis 2040 plan. More housing is better. Just want to make sure that we're following the minimum standards
that are set. um so that you know it's fair for the rest of us that you know maybe don't want a giant triplex or um a giant apartment stood up in our neighborhood. So that's all I have. >> Appreciate it. Thank you so much. >> Appreciate you coming down and giving comment.
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Um is there any elsebody else who would like to speak against this? I see no one. So I will close the public hearing board comment or motion. Can I just I want to just follow up on
the comment that was made and just ask a question of staff to just confirm this for the um person that just came up to speak. This is just for the subdivision of this lot, but any future development would also need to go through um permitting including if there was any it
would be subject to any of the setbacks and um uh zoning requirements for development on this property. Uh, Chair Perry, board member Callahan. Uh, that is correct. Um, there are no proposed developments that have been submitted with this um at the time of
this application. Any subsequent applications for development on the new parcel um will be subject to review under all requirements at the time of submittal. >> Thank you. Um, with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve staff findings.
>> I'd second it. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh, will the clerk please call the role? >> Board member Callahan. >> I. >> Board member Izz. >> I.
>> Board member Israel. >> Hi. >> Board member Israel. >> I. >> Thank you. Board member Smeir Carva. >> I. >> Vice Chair Wang. >> I. >> There are five eyes.
>> Great. that uh motion passes. Good luck with your project and thanks to everybody who came down to this hearing. Really appreciate it. I know it's not an easy thing to get to uh to uh city hall. Um so, Mr. Verota, are there any
updates? >> Uh Chair Perry, members of the board, staff has no updates or communications at this time. >> Okay. We do have, as you might have noticed, uh already a vocal uh member, new member of the board, Mr. Israel. Uh
would you like to uh tell us a little bit about yourself and why you are looking forward to serving? >> I love being put on the spot. No. Um I'mma Israel. I have been a Minneapolis
resident for 30 some odd years. Um, I started my career in real estate sales and investment and I've stayed in that general contracting, um, landlording, um, and now I'm a real estate attorney. And so I've sat on boards in the past
and I've, this is the highly coveted board that I can ever be a part of. Um, so the these decisions are are things that um things that are near and dear to my heart and I think really speak to how the city functions and h how it
functions and how policy meets people. So it's it's important. All the decisions are really important and um just here to lend a lend my humble opinion. >> Yeah. Well, welcome aboard. uh good
contribution and um we're looking for more of that. Um we also have a another uh uh what's George's last name?
>> Chair Perry uh board member Shannon. Is that who you're referring to? George Shannon. >> George Shannon. Um who was not able to join us tonight. Um but we have a second. So now we have a full slate of our board. So
and with that, unless someone else has something else to uh uh bring up, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor indicate by saying I. I. I. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We.
We are journed.