Commission approves 13‑unit Sheridan Avenue project after contentious hearing over Shoreland height and neighborhood impacts
November 03, 2025 | Minneapolis City, Hennepin County, Minnesota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Minneapolis Planning Commission voted 4–3 to approve a package of applications for a proposed four‑story, 13‑unit building at 4109 and 4113 Sheridan Avenue South, including a conditional‑use permit (CUP) to increase the allowable height in the Shoreland Overlay District for the rear portion of the building.
CPED senior planner Lindsay Silas told the commission the site spans two parcels: a vacant lot at 4109 and a parcel at 4113 that contains a duplex and detached garage. The proposal calls for a four‑story building with a single unit on a recessed fourth floor, 13 dwelling units total and 26 parking spaces (some counted as stacked/stand spaces). Because part of the site lies inside the Shoreland Overlay District, the applicant requested a CUP to increase height for that portion from 2½ stories (35 feet) to three stories (40 feet, 6 inches); other requests included administrative increases to floor‑area ratio (FAR) and to the height outside the Shoreland district using an energy premium.
Silas said staff found the proposal met the CUP findings and that the site is on the very edge of the Shoreland Overlay District, with steep topography and mature trees limiting visibility from Lake Harriet. Staff reviewed shadow studies submitted by the applicant and concluded there was no meaningful difference between the proposed building and alternatives that could be built under existing zoning. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District commented that the applicant must address erosion control and stormwater management during subsequent permit stages.
The applicant team, represented by Josh Siegel (JLS Design Build) and architect Josh Jansen (Collage Architects), said they had refined the design to be compatible with Sheridan’s rhythm, would use warm materials, provide setbacks (9 feet on both sides) and proposed renewable energy measures (50% building energy from renewables to meet a premium). The applicant presented shadow models showing minimal new shading on the neighboring solar array except for limited hours on the winter solstice.
About 19 neighbors spoke against the project during the public hearing. Speakers raised these recurring concerns: the building’s scale is out of character with adjacent single‑family and small multi‑family homes; shadowing and loss of solar generation on the property immediately north; traffic and pedestrian safety on Sheridan (including the effect of 26 additional vehicles entering/exiting a single driveway on a busy corridor); parking spillover and tandem parking practicality; stormwater and drainage impacts; potential damage to an existing retaining wall and basements; and inadequate early neighborhood outreach. The Linden Hills Neighborhood Association asked that more time be given to address the issues; neighborhood speakers repeatedly asked the commission to deny or table the CUP.
In deliberations commissioners debated the difference between a CUP and a variance (CUPs must be approved if findings are met; variances are harder to grant), the limits of the commission’s purview over site plan elements, public works review of garage and traffic interface (including a recommended pedestrian alert on the garage door), and the methodology of the shadow studies. Several commissioners said they sympathized with neighbors’ concerns about scale and safety but concluded staff had met the CUP findings for this edge location of the Shoreland Overlay District and that the project aligns with the 2040 plan’s direction to focus density on corridors.
On a roll‑call vote the motion to approve staff recommendations passed 4–3: Connelly, Shepherd, Wagner and President Meyer voted aye; Forney, Gordon and Vice President Baxley voted no. Commissioners recorded reasons during the debate: opponents cited shoreline protection, visibility and neighborhood fit; supporters cited corridor zoning, transit access and the limited visibility from the lake. The applicant will proceed to city council review as required; the Watershed District and permitting processes remain as conditions for addressing erosion and stormwater during building permit review.
Provenance: Staff presentation began at 00:19:57; applicant presentation began at 00:39:34; public comment started 00:46:49 and extended through 01:30:11; roll call on the motion occurred 01:56:32.
CPED senior planner Lindsay Silas told the commission the site spans two parcels: a vacant lot at 4109 and a parcel at 4113 that contains a duplex and detached garage. The proposal calls for a four‑story building with a single unit on a recessed fourth floor, 13 dwelling units total and 26 parking spaces (some counted as stacked/stand spaces). Because part of the site lies inside the Shoreland Overlay District, the applicant requested a CUP to increase height for that portion from 2½ stories (35 feet) to three stories (40 feet, 6 inches); other requests included administrative increases to floor‑area ratio (FAR) and to the height outside the Shoreland district using an energy premium.
Silas said staff found the proposal met the CUP findings and that the site is on the very edge of the Shoreland Overlay District, with steep topography and mature trees limiting visibility from Lake Harriet. Staff reviewed shadow studies submitted by the applicant and concluded there was no meaningful difference between the proposed building and alternatives that could be built under existing zoning. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District commented that the applicant must address erosion control and stormwater management during subsequent permit stages.
The applicant team, represented by Josh Siegel (JLS Design Build) and architect Josh Jansen (Collage Architects), said they had refined the design to be compatible with Sheridan’s rhythm, would use warm materials, provide setbacks (9 feet on both sides) and proposed renewable energy measures (50% building energy from renewables to meet a premium). The applicant presented shadow models showing minimal new shading on the neighboring solar array except for limited hours on the winter solstice.
About 19 neighbors spoke against the project during the public hearing. Speakers raised these recurring concerns: the building’s scale is out of character with adjacent single‑family and small multi‑family homes; shadowing and loss of solar generation on the property immediately north; traffic and pedestrian safety on Sheridan (including the effect of 26 additional vehicles entering/exiting a single driveway on a busy corridor); parking spillover and tandem parking practicality; stormwater and drainage impacts; potential damage to an existing retaining wall and basements; and inadequate early neighborhood outreach. The Linden Hills Neighborhood Association asked that more time be given to address the issues; neighborhood speakers repeatedly asked the commission to deny or table the CUP.
In deliberations commissioners debated the difference between a CUP and a variance (CUPs must be approved if findings are met; variances are harder to grant), the limits of the commission’s purview over site plan elements, public works review of garage and traffic interface (including a recommended pedestrian alert on the garage door), and the methodology of the shadow studies. Several commissioners said they sympathized with neighbors’ concerns about scale and safety but concluded staff had met the CUP findings for this edge location of the Shoreland Overlay District and that the project aligns with the 2040 plan’s direction to focus density on corridors.
On a roll‑call vote the motion to approve staff recommendations passed 4–3: Connelly, Shepherd, Wagner and President Meyer voted aye; Forney, Gordon and Vice President Baxley voted no. Commissioners recorded reasons during the debate: opponents cited shoreline protection, visibility and neighborhood fit; supporters cited corridor zoning, transit access and the limited visibility from the lake. The applicant will proceed to city council review as required; the Watershed District and permitting processes remain as conditions for addressing erosion and stormwater during building permit review.
Provenance: Staff presentation began at 00:19:57; applicant presentation began at 00:39:34; public comment started 00:46:49 and extended through 01:30:11; roll call on the motion occurred 01:56:32.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
