Minneapolis council denies variance for JPMorgan Chase sign after extended debate over precedent

The Minneapolis City Council voted 8–5 on March 14, 2025, to deny a variance appeal that would have allowed JPMorgan Chase to install signage on a non‑primary building wall in the North Loop, adopting the staff findings that recommended denial.

The item prompted an extended, often heated discussion about land‑use precedents and the difference between making legislative changes and ruling in a quasi‑judicial capacity. Council member Cashman moved to grant the appeal; that motion initially passed earlier in the meeting. After a motion to reconsider, the council ultimately voted to deny the appeal and adopt staff findings supporting the denial.

Why it matters: Council members who opposed the signage relief said a case-by-case variance would set an uncertain precedent for downtown signage and that a citywide ordinance change would be a clearer, more defensible remedy. Supporters said the request was narrow, would aid wayfinding to a new employer expected to create jobs in the ward, and that the property’s configuration presented practical difficulties for conventional signage placement.

Council member Cashman, who moved approval of the appeal, argued the property presented “practical difficulties” tied to a utility corridor and shared mechanicals and said the sign size and lighting proposed were less intrusive than other allowable signage. “This is a very unique situation where an organization should have the opportunity to at least identify themselves as most businesses do and to help their clients find their location,” Cashman said.

Council member Ellison opposed using a variance to change what he described as a legislative question, urging colleagues to protect the legal standards that apply when the council acts in a quasi‑judicial role. “When it comes to zoning…and the rules and how we apply them, I think that it would be a bad precedent for us to proceed in this way,” Ellison said. He recommended the council pursue an ordinance amendment to explicitly allow the signage downtown rather than grant a variance.

Joel Fussy of the City Attorney’s Office told the council that, legally, a close case could be defensible either way but that the staff recommendation remained with the denial. “I do believe this is one of those scenarios where probably each decision set could be legally defensible,” Fussy said, describing how variance decisions hinge on findings about the property’s uniqueness and practical difficulties.

Council members highlighted the contrast with a separate, recent quasi‑judicial appeal involving a homeowner (the Catherine Hill matter), which several members said illustrated the importance of consistent standards. Some council members pressed that if the council were willing to relax rules in one case it should not do so only selectively.

The council also debated timing: several members and staff said the planning and licensing staff were drafting an ordinance amendment that could permit the type of sign the applicant sought; council members said that change could be in place by June, providing a legislative remedy without changing the quasi‑judicial standard midstream.

Votes and procedural history: An initial motion by Council member Cashman to grant the variance passed on a first vote (8–5). Council member Ellison subsequently moved to reconsider; the reconsideration passed (11–2). A later motion to deny the appeal and adopt the staff findings, moved by Council member Choudhury and seconded, passed 8–5, producing the final outcome on March 14.

Next steps: Council members and staff said the city will pursue a legislative path to clarify downtown signage rules so similarly situated applicants would have a clear statutory path. Multiple council members and staff also recommended additional training for council members on the differences between legislative and quasi‑judicial decision making.

Ending: The denial leaves the applicant without a variance; council members who supported an ordinance change said they would work with staff to produce language allowing the sign through ordinance amendment rather than case‑by‑case variances.