I say it every time but your curiosity your participation your feedback is vital to this process as we navigate change here together in Edina specifically regarding the ways in which people would like to use their land

I am Alex Schultz I am a senior at Edina High School this will be my first time on the Planning Commission I'm really interested to see how the city interworks with Urban Development and everything like that I'm just excited for a good time

there were 202 properties 106 of them were the original home still existing at either not added onto or remodeled 96 were tear Downs in process or tear down new construction and so almost half of them have been teardowns the tree loss and I could not walk into everybody's yard I wasn't going to do that I was counting basically front yard and sides as much as I could eyeball of the back if I knew that there had been for instance a very large oak tree original growth tree and I have lived in this neighborhood since 2002 so I remember what used to be there I walk a lot I bike a lot so as far as a hundred percent tree loss we've got almost half almost half 60 to 90 percent six percent so that's add those two together and you've got over 51 that seems extremely high to me and um not looking good the neighborhood's getting warmer climate is not getting any cooler we need those trees the city needs to do something to try and retain these trees

staff does not believe it is Justified the Provo the proposed variance will not relieve practical difficulty that prevents reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements the proposed use is permitted in the R1 zoning district and current the and currently complies with the zoning standards with the exception of the maximum 25 percent otherwise they would meet all the requirements

the property in staff's mind is not unique in size shape or location the building area is currently compliant with the preference of the applicant and not the conditions of the property that drive the need for the variants the request is self-created and not as a result of some unique aspect of the lot and will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood

granting the variance May alter the essential character of the neighborhood there has been a general impression on the part of residence and City staff hears this almost on a daily basis from residents that are concerned about overbuilding on properties that everything is too big Too Tall covering too much of the property and how could all of these improvements actually conform with our current code let alone you know it has to be over those requirements

my name is Randy Gurton and I resided 42-39 Scott Terrace with my wife jamae who is currently out of town for medical reasons and my daughter we have lived at this home for over 25 years um like Chris said our home was built in 1947-48 depending on which records you look at uh we did do an addition back in 2002 and now we're hoping to screen in Our Deck

we looked at that and because of the current opening on the back side of the house you know if we only did only win as far as three columns you know architecturally it would not look very pleasing to the eye versus having you know the full structure you know across the entire width of that open area I know that in Chris's statement she says the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code in that the proposed use is reasonable practical difficulties in quote may include functional and aesthetic concerns I think it would look terrible and we have invested many many dollars into our home to have just three quarters of a structure and to have this big opening on the side for an entry so I think it does have practical difficulties because aesthetically it would not can be complete and like I said we're talking 97 square feet pushing over here

our desire is we do a lot of large entertaining we we have a couple of different groups that we're involved with we normally have anywhere from four to six couples so that anywhere from eight to twelve people the concern is if we go any smaller it's going to get so tight and so we thought you know what let's try to build it as big as we can with the current footprint that we have we didn't know initially when we started this process back on May 1st that it was going to be an issue just building structure issue didn't come up until mid-summer and by that time we were kind of sold on what we wanted to or we kind of knew what we wanted and so that's what we're trying to get

I appreciate the thresholds that need to be set at a Pacific level and 25 percent is the level that has been chosen but I believe the variance process was established for a scenario exactly like this one this seems like a very modest request above the permanent level Additionally the home is one of the few homes on the Block that hasn't been torn down in rebuilt in the last decade allowing the owners to make the space more livable with a negligible variance to the permitted amount of space seems far less disruptive to the environment and neighbors then encouraging the tear down of homes that still have substantial remaining useful life

Mr Gordon thank you I think this is probably best addressed um thank you for your presentation but I did not hear why this could not be built to conform what is there something there's no structure there's not particular engineering issue is sort of you've chosen the dimensions you've chosen you were City evidently presented their requirements to meet a certain coverage why can it not be designed and built to meet the requirements without requesting a variance

if this were approved and like I said it's just a screened in porch today if they wanted to convert it into part of a house with windows and doors and whatnot would they need an additional perimeter variants they would probably need a permit but they would not need a variance okay because right now is when we're looking at it as part of the house right okay and if they built another story on top or a future owner built another story would it be it's not coverage it would just no then it would not have to go in front of the Planning Commission

as far as the aesthetic goes could you bring up your blueprint again real fast or some I think we're just want to make sure that's highlighted so you said your aesthetic concern was the width right in the number of columns that you had there centering around the house is there a reason you can't just simply not go as far back into your property extend quite as far rather than to take you know a chunk off the side from an aesthetic point of view to meet your you know extra square feet that you want to get here

the first one I think you mentioned that um this wood alter the character of the neighborhood Ava was interpreted that as being more design focused where if you're going to design something that was completely different from what university neighbors have it's a real character change this change or request really is in the back of the property it's in your backyard you can't see it from the front and I think he mentioned that part of that definition of the character alter the existing character was about how people felt about over development so could you just share some more your thoughts on like how does the city staff interpret altering the existing character of our neighborhood what that has always meant if it doesn't meet the current ordinance requirements then it doesn't meet the character of the neighborhood that it would need to meet the standards for height width coverage now impervious surface which is a new ordinance that defines the character of the neighborhood

just only 25 percent coverage ratio that we're talking about and this is 25.97 um I totally get we have to put a number right 25 is what the standard is today but could you share some more insights of why we have that is it truly to help manage water issues water absorption issues like why do we have that 25 or that particular coverage ratio in place

oftentimes will have a project that will be over the 25 or whatever the maximum coverage might be and it might be again just a little bit it might be one or two percent and it's a common question well what is the threshold what is your fudge factor which we don't have that it's it's a very you know it either meets the requirement or it does not and staff doesn't have the administrative authority to allow anything beyond that