Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee upheld and denied parts of variance appeal for 40130 Third Avenue North; findings not yet before full council

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Business, Housing and Zoning Committee issued mixed findings on a variance appeal for 40130 Third Avenue North: fence-height and driveway-width variances were denied, patio and reduced pervious-surface variances were partly granted. Staff said the committee's findings are not yet finalized or sent to the full City Council.

A staff member told the Minneapolis City Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 6 that the Business, Housing and Zoning Committee issued mixed findings on a variance appeal for 40130 Third Avenue North.

The committee upheld the denial of a variance for fence height and for the required front yard and denied a driveway-width variance, the staff member said. The committee partially granted a request to increase the maximum allowable pervious surface but approved 75 percent rather than the 90 percent sought. The committee also approved a patio in the required front and corner side yard, staff said.

"Correct. It has not yet gone to full council. But, that was the outcome of the the biz and it was it was unanimous vote," the staff member said, noting the city attorney's office is still working through findings before they are formally recorded.

A board member who spoke after the communication raised concerns about equity in the appeal fee structure, saying the $600 variance appeal fee is the same for modest single-family properties and for much higher-value commercial or residential projects. "It is wrong, in my opinion, that we charge the same variance fee," the board member said, and urged staff to consider whether fees could be structured more equitably.

The staff member confirmed the committee's determinations were prompted in part by the lot's substandard size (about 3,500 square feet compared with a typical 5,000-square-foot lot), a factor that informed the committee's decision on pervious surface and yard-related variances. Staff emphasized the findings are not yet the final city record and must be processed before appearing on a full-council agenda.

No formal vote on the committee's findings occurred at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting; the board received the communication as information. The board's annual report and other routine matters were scheduled for future agendas.