Edina City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Setback Variances for 4004 Grimes Avenue
Subdivision with Variances at 316 Madison Avenue
France Avenue Underpass/Pedestrian Separation Project
Zoning Code Update Contract Approval
Votes (3)
Setback Variances for 4004 Grimes Avenue - Preliminary and Final Plat
Dissent: Commissioner Day voted against, arguing the variances did not meet the legal standard for practical difficulties and that the requests were driven by personal design preferences rather than inherent property constraints. Commissioner Elker also expressed concern about the second-floor variance but ultimately voted to approve.
Moved by Commissioner Nelson [1:06:17] · Seconded by Unknown [1:06:24]
Planner Chris Aer presented a detailed staff report analyzing both approval and denial criteria. The applicant, Melissa Schaefer, explained that a previous owner's interior remodeling (adding mudroom and laundry to the garage) reduced the garage depth to 16.9 feet, making it impossible to park a car and close the door. She proposed extending the garage 4.8 feet forward and adding a second floor at the existing non-conforming south sideyard setback (6.3 feet instead of required 9 feet). Staff noted the home was built in 1953 and conformed at that time; current code changes made it non-conforming. The Commission debated whether the practical difficulties were inherent to the property or self-created by design preferences. Commissioner Day argued the second-floor variance failed the legal standard because conforming designs were possible (though costly and less functional). Commissioner Honaman countered that the foundation's location created a genuine practical difficulty, and that the 30-foot setback (city standard for new subdivisions) was being achieved. Commissioner Bennett noted discretion applies to variances and that the homeowner's desire to preserve rather than demolish the home was sustainable. A neighbor, Tara James, testified in support, noting the garage would not be visible from the street due to topography and landscaping. The Commission voted 7-2 to approve.
Subdivision with Variances at 316 Madison Avenue
Dissent: No dissent; Commissioner Day voted in favor despite earlier concerns about discretion, citing the unique circumstances of the property having been previously combined and the confluence of comprehensive plan goals, neighborhood consistency, and affordable housing benefits.
Moved by Unknown [1:43:57] · Seconded by Unknown [1:44:09]
Community Development Coordinator Addison Lewis presented a request by Homes Within Reach, a nonprofit affordable housing organization, to subdivide a single-family property into two lots. The original West Minneapolis Heights plat (1950s) had lots approximately 46 feet by 130 feet; the current property combines two of those original lots. The applicant proposes to reestablish the original lot configuration to construct a permanently affordable home on the southern lot through a community land trust model (buyer purchases home, leases land at nominal fee). Current code requires 9,000 sq ft minimum lot area, 75 feet width, and 130.57 feet depth; the proposed lots would be 5,988-6,064 sq ft, 45.96 feet wide, and 130.27 feet deep. Staff analysis showed 12 of 18 other properties on the block have similar dimensions, indicating the proposed sizes are consistent with neighborhood character. The proposal advances comprehensive plan goals for infill development and affordable housing. Steve Brown, a neighbor, testified in support, calling it a 'slam dunk' and noting the historical context of lot-size increases as potentially exclusionary. Commissioner Day raised concerns about applying discretion to override code standards without addressing the underlying ordinance, arguing the council should change the law rather than the Commission working around it. Other commissioners emphasized the confluence of factors: neighborhood consistency, comprehensive plan alignment, housing affordability goals, and the fact that the property was previously combined (not newly subdivided). The Commission voted unanimously to approve.
France Avenue Underpass/Pedestrian Separation Project - Discussion and Deferred Action
Dissent: Commissioner Day expressed skepticism about the project based on prior discussions but agreed to review materials. No formal dissent recorded.
Chair Bennett raised the topic of a presentation by Development Director Bill Nandorf regarding options for separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic at France Avenue and Gallagher Road. Four commissioners attended an informal work session (not a full Commission meeting) where Nandorf presented four design options. Commissioner Honaman noted that one option (lowering the road to create a pedestrian underpass) was preferred but deemed too costly due to the five-foot elevation change required across multiple blocks. Commissioner Elker expressed support for separating pedestrians and cars whenever possible. Commissioner Day stated he had not attended and did not listen to the presentation, and expressed skepticism based on prior discussions about the project. Commissioner Padilla noted that community input is being accepted until June 30th and that the city council may discuss the matter before the Commission's next meeting (late July). The Commission decided to defer formal action, allowing all commissioners to review the recorded presentation before reconvening discussion at the next meeting. No formal memo or letter to the city council was approved at this time, though individual commissioners may communicate their views independently.
Notable Quotes (17)
The purpose and intent of the front yard setback ordinance is to maintain a consistent front yard spacing to the street for homes along a block in general.
If we shifted over... the size of the addition would have to be increased significantly and a hallway would be added... the result would be the our bedroom the master bedroom would stay on the south side but it would be halfed and then the less usable space on the north side would be cut in half by the fireplace and also a bunch of lost wasted space with a hallway going around the stairwell.
I don't think we should continue to work around that [the code gap] until we do that right. We've identified a hole in the code we should fix that and not work around it.
The practical difficulty is that the foundation was built where it was and it no longer fits the current code... I find that persuasive.
For them to like provide something reasonable you know reasonable is going out instead of taking away a mudroom that was already built within so that's the part of the building that's going outside of the footprint but that's just where my discretion is and i support this fully.
When you look at the property you really don't see the garage from the top of the hill it's like behind a bunch of bushes... I would rather see a garage that's tastefully done than have their cars sitting in the driveway all the time.
Homes Within Reach is a nonprofit community-based organization that creates and preserves affordable home ownership opportunities for working households in suburban Hennepin County... they help families earning less than 80% area median income to become homeowners by acquiring remodeling and selling properties through a community land trust model.
The lots in the original west minneapolis heights plat were all approximately 130 by 46 in their dimensions... 12 of the 18 other properties on the block have approximately the same dimensions as those being proposed.
There are many people who believe that the motivation behind increasing lot size was racially driven a desire to keep certain kinds of people out of the community by ensuring that the lot size was large enough that certain people couldn't afford that lot... I would urge you to approve it.
I don't think it's up to me to decide that the law is stupid and doesn't make any sense... the solution to that is is to change the law... instead of just not apply it.
When i look at this property and where it's located and what's around it and what was the original intent and the original idea i see subdividedness as being something that's consistent with what's happening in that region... given the totality of history what's around it goals of the city and balancing that against the codes that we have today so that's just my my take on it.
This was put together by a previous owner into one one big lot now they want to divide it put two two houses here i think that's a great opportunity... that discretion piece just tips the scales here in my mind.
I think it should force the the lawmakers to actually look at the law and ask does it make sense and if it doesn't change it... instead of putting this body in a position of having to make all these exceptions all the time.
Whenever we can separate pedestrians and cars i am all for it... i think we might be able to email council individually but i don't i don't know if we'd ever do it as a well.
I don't think we're just ending the memo support right now... i mean he went to the trouble of presenting it he deserves... at a minimum some feedback.
I won't participate i'll still watch it to catch up or at least listen to it but i mean my mind's pretty made up on that matter.
If everyone can plan on that we'll just plan on reconvening about this matter next meeting probably during the same time.
Ordinances & Resolutions (5)
Current minimum lot area (9,000 sq ft), lot width (75 feet), and lot depth (120-130.57 feet depending on median) requirements; sideyard setback requirements (18 feet total with minimum 9 feet on one side); front yard setback requirements (varies by neighborhood context).
Guides land use decisions; includes goals for infill and redevelopment (Goal 1, Land Use Chapter), affordable housing development and preservation (Goals 2 and 4, Housing Chapter), and owner-occupied housing promotion.
State law establishing variance standards: harmony with ordinance intent, consistency with comprehensive plan, practical difficulties, and no alteration of essential neighborhood character.
Allows extension of non-conforming setback on same floor with limited encroachment (equal to existing or 200 sq ft, whichever is less); does not apply to new floors above existing non-conforming setbacks.
City engagement platform (bettertogetheredina.org) for public feedback on planning and land use topics; includes map feature showing proposed changes by location.