Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpermitted Unit Legalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance to legalize unpermitted fourth unit at 3514 Grand Ave S
Summary
A request to legalize an unpermitted basement unit at 3514 Grand Ave S was denied after staff found the application failed to meet variance findings; staff said approval would require building permits and rental-license updates while opponents warned of legitimizing post-facto construction.
A staff presenter addressed the board about a variance request for 3514 Grand Ave S.
The presenter (addressed as Miss Brandt) explained the application seeks to legalize a fourth unit that was constructed in the basement without building permits. Brandt said the parcel is 5,842 square feet with a 44.9-foot width in a built form Interior 2 district; staff found the lot does not meet the "unique circumstances" finding (finding 1) and concluded the proposal did not align with the ordinance's intent, and thus staff recommended denial.
Public commenter Praneh Bhargava spoke in favor, arguing the existing unit provides housing and that legalization would be consistent with Minneapolis's broader goals to expand housing supply. "This does exactly that," Bhargava said, urging the board to allow the already-built unit to remain licensed and inspected.
Board members asked whether approving a variance would trigger building inspections and rental-license updates. Brandt told the board that, if the variance were approved, the owner would be required to pull building permits so city inspectors could verify construction met the International Building Code and then update the rental license; if denied, staff said the unpermitted unit would need to be removed.
Members expressed mixed views, acknowledging housing supply concerns but expressing worry about a "slippery slope" of after-the-fact conversions and unlicensed work. A motion to support staff findings (deny the variance) was moved and seconded. The clerk called the roll; the motion passed and the request was denied. Staff noted the owner has options for follow-up under normal channels, including permits and inspections if pursued.
