Planning Commission approves 34‑unit, four‑story development at 734 and 800 Tyler St. NE with transformer setback variance

The Minneapolis Planning Commission on Aug. 4 approved a proposal to demolish an existing house and build a four‑story residential building with 34 dwelling units at 734 and 800 Tyler Street NE, and granted a variance allowing an electrical transformer to sit within the minimum front yard setback.

The project — presented to the commission by CPED planner Lindsay Silas — would replace a single‑family home and detached garage on the 734 parcel and develop the adjacent vacant 800 parcel. The applicant, Footprint Development, said the building is proposed to be Passive House certified, all‑electric, include rooftop solar accounting for about 40% of the building’s energy consumption, and provide a mix of studio, one‑ and two‑bedroom units with more than the required long‑term bicycle parking.

CPED’s recommendation and why it mattered

Silas said staff recommended approval of the site plan review and a variance for the transformer because the site lacks a public alley and is constrained by a rear rail spur and other access limitations. “There’s no vehicular access to the site, so there’s no other way for trucks to get into the site to service the transformer,” Silas said, and staff concluded the variance findings were met given both site constraints and Excel Energy’s servicing requirements. Staff also recommended alternative compliance on several ground‑floor standards because of the site’s irregular shape and lack of alley access.

Applicant and neighborhood testimony

Cody Fisher, president of Footprint Development, told the commission the transformer variance is necessary to allow the parcel to be developed and highlighted the project’s environmental features. “It will be about 70% more energy efficient than typical code‑minimum new construction,” Fisher said. He said the project will be all‑electric, include solar panels and exceed long‑term bike parking requirements, and that the applicant had engaged the neighborhood housing committee and made changes based on feedback.

Several nearby residents testified in opposition or with concerns about impacts. Andrew Sibioni, the homeowner immediately south of the site, said he has lived at his house for 22 years and expressed worries about construction noise, potential interruption of his electrical service fed from a pole near the proposed demolition, parking, garbage access and emergency vehicle access: “My power pole is next to the garage proposed to be tore down. … Has anyone talked to Excel about the access to my power pole and my connection?” Sibioni asked. Arlene Zamora, who lives nearby, raised similar concerns about parking and emergency access on the narrow street.

Applicant and staff responses to concerns

Fisher described the typical process for converting pole‑mounted service to a ground transformer when Excel upgrades service in the area and said there would likely be a several‑hour transition period when service is transferred. Silas told the commission she had not yet contacted Excel about specific neighbor service connections but offered to coordinate a follow‑up conversation if the neighbor reached out.

Commission consideration and vote

Chair Chris Meyer framed the decision as focused on the land‑use applications before the commission — the variance and site plan review — and noted policy support for infill near quality transit and the project’s energy measures. Meyer moved to adopt staff findings; the motion passed on a roll call vote with Commissioners Baxley, Chowdhury, Conley, Jones, Shepherd, Thompson, Wagner and Meyer voting yes (8–0). The commission recorded conditions of approval, including transformer screening that meets mechanical screening opacity standards and eight conditions tied to site plan review outlined in the staff report.

What the vote does and next steps

The commission’s action approves the land‑use applications under city procedures, subject to the listed conditions in the staff report; building permits, engineering review and other departmental approvals (public works, fire inspection, etc.) remain required through the city’s Preliminary Development Review process before construction can begin. Staff noted the project had submitted for Preliminary Development Review and will need to respond to comments from public works, fire and related reviewers.

Clarifying details from the hearing

• Proposed building: 4 stories, 34 dwelling units (mix of studio, one‑ and two‑bedrooms). • Bicycle parking: applicant proposes to exceed required long‑term bicycle parking and provide short‑term bike parking on the site. • Transformer variance: required because electrical service upgrades and maintenance by Excel Energy make the northeast front corner the only suitable transformer location; required front yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed transformer sits approximately 1 foot from the property line as presented to the commission; staff required mechanical screening on all four sides. • Alternative compliance: staff recommended granting alternative compliance for ground‑floor window/active frontage standards and for the drop‑off/pick‑up curb cut standard because of lack of alley access and irregular site geometry.

Speakers at the hearing included CPED staff, the applicant, and six public testifiers who raised both support for the project’s climate goals and concerns about neighborhood impacts.

The applicant must meet the stated conditions and secure building permits and agency approvals before construction begins. The timing of construction and any utility transition work will be coordinated with Excel Energy and is subject to Excel’s operational schedule.