--- ## title: Tagged PDF date: D:20260522135116+00'00' --- ## Planning Commission Meeting Agenda May 28, 2026, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall, Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th St. Participate in the meeting: Watch the meeting on cable TV or YouTube.com/EdinaTV. Provide feedback during Community Comment by calling 312-535-8110. Enter access code 2865 461 4695. Password is 5454. Press *3 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A staff member will unmute you when it is your turn to speak. ## Accessibility Support: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call ## 3. Approval of Meeting Agenda ## 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes ## 4.1. May 13, 2026, Planning Commission Minutes ## 5. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. ## 6. Public Hearing During "Public Hearings," the Commission chair will ask for public testimony after staff and/or applicants make their presentations. The following guidelines are in place to ensure an efficient, fair, and respectful hearing; limit your testimony to three minutes and to the matter under consideration; the Chair may modify times, as deemed necessary; avoid repeating remarks or points of view made by previous speakers. The use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. Page 1 of 20 6.1. Variance request 20 Circle West 7. Reports/Recommendations ## 8. Chair and Member Comments ## 9. Staff Comments 10. Adjournment Page 2 of 20 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 1 of 4 ## Minutes ## City Of Edina, Minnesota ## Planning Commission ## Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 13, 2026 ## I. Call To Order Chair Alkire called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ## II. Roll Call ## Receive Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Brennan, Daye, Felt, Hahneman, Nelson, Smith, Just, and Chair Alkire. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, and Miriam Laredo-Fuentes, ## Administrative Support Specialist Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Bennett, Padilla, and Jha ## III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Daye moved to approve the May 13, 2026, agenda. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye aye ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye ## Commissioner Nelson aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. ## IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes ## A. Minutes: Planning Commission, April 29, 2026 Commissioner Daye moved to approve the April 29, 2026, meeting minutes. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Page 3 of 20 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 2 of 4 ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye aye ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye ## Commissioner Nelson aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. ## V. Community Comment None. ## VI. Public Hearings A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning & Site Plan – 4200 76 th ## Street ## West Commissioner Nelson recused himself from this item. Director Teague presented the request for a zoning ordinance amendment, preliminary rezoning & site plan. Staff recommends approval, as requested, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Ed Terhar appeared remotely at the Planning Commission. Mr. Tom Canfield of the Salvation Army, Mr. Joe Becker, and Ted Carlson of Carlson Companies addressed the Planning Commission and introduced their team. Staff and the applicant answered Commission questions. ## Public Hearing None. Commissioner Smith moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Felt seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye aye ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye Page 4 of 20 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 3 of 4 ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. The Commission discussed the zoning ordinance amendment, rezoning, and site plan, raising concerns regarding the amendment and rezoning. ## Motion Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow second-hand retail of more than 2,500 square feet in Planning Commercial Districts 2 and 3, with the limitation of 2,500 square feet to remain in the Planned Commercial District 1. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye aye ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. Commissioner Felt moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed Rezoning to PCD-2 at 4200 76 th St W. & Site Plan, as outlined in the staff memo, subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye nay ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire nay Motion carried. Commissioner Nelson rejoined the meeting. ## VII. Reports/Recommendations None. Page 5 of 20 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 4 of 4 ## VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. ## IX. Chair and Member Comments Received. ## X. Staff Comments Received. ## XI. Adjournment Chair Alkire adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Page 6 of 20 ## Item Report May 28, 2026 ## Planning Commission ## Item Number: 6.1 Department: Community Development ## Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner ## Item Title: Variance request 20 Circle West ## Action Requested: Approve a variance request subject to conditions as listed on the staff report. ## Information/Background: Natalie and Pete Kostroski, the property owners at 20 Circle West Street, are requesting a 21.6-foot variance from Section 36-439 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow an 18.9-foot setback from the front lot line where the required front yard setback is subject to the neighbor’s front yard setback of 40.5 feet from their front lot line. The variance is to allow the construction of a new home, which already encroaches the setback by the same amount as proposed. The new home is proposed within the same footprint as the existing home and will match the existing home’s 18.9 foot front yard setback. ## Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). ## 1. Staff Report 2. PowerPoint - Accessible 3. Applicant submittal (Board Portal) ## 4. Engineering Memo Page 7 of 20 ## Staff Report Date: May 28, 2026 ## To: Planning Commission ## From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Subject: B-26-01, A 21.6-foot setback variance from the required 40.5-foot setback to build a new home with similar 18.9 ft front yard setback location as the existing house. Staff Recommendation: Motion to approve a 21.6-foot setback variance from at 20 Circle West subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. ## Information/Background: The property at 20 Circle West contains a one-story rambler with a lower-level walkout built in 1941. The property owners are proposing to rebuild the lot with a two-story walk-out home in approximately the same location as existing. The Zoning Ordinance Sec. 36-439. Special requirements state that if there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot that has a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot on the same street; or the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all other dwelling units on the same side of that street, between intersections. The variance is required to allow the new home to be re-built slightly farther back than the footprint of the existing home that is located 18.2 feet to the front lot line. The lot is generous at 48,515 square feet, however, given the unique lot shape and 50-foot setback required from the ordinary high-water mark of the pond located on an eastern portion of the property, the new home is limited in site location and will therefore provide a similar front yard setback as the current home. ## Surrounding Land Uses ## Northerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Easterly: Single-Family; Water; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Southerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Westerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Existing Site Features The property contains a one-story home with a walkout basement built in 1941. The property is 48,515 square feet in area; however, a portion is occupied by water. The dimensions of the lot are nonstandard with the front lot line curving Page 8 of 20 ## Staff Report along the street. The water, with required 50-foot setback, extends to points between the front yard setback narrowing opportunity for locating the house given a required deeper front yard setback, (match the front yard of the south neighbor), which significantly limits the buildable area on this property. ## Planning ## Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District ## Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application. Full review of the grading and drainage plans will be reviewed at the time of building permit. See attached memo from Engineering. ## Compliance Table ## City Standard Proposed West (Front) – ## East Side (water)- ## North Side– ## South- 40.5 feet* 50 feet water 10 feet 10 feet 18.9 feet** 50 feet 200+ feet 10 feet ## Building Coverage ## Hard Cover 25% 50% 7.7% 12.5% Building Height 40 feet 30 feet *Established front street setback per 36-439, (1) **Requires variance ## PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION ## Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Page 9 of 20 ## Staff Report Yes, staff does believe the requested variance is justified. Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the front yard setback ordinance is to maintain an existing streetscape with new homes and additions developed to be consistent with existing conditions on the block. The water body setback is meant to protect waterbodies by ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback to allow an adequate buffer zone. A greater setback reduces the amount of runoff from hard surfaces that may carry pollutants into a waterbody. In this case, the home is respecting the waterbody setback for the new home and proposed patio. The owner intentionally kept the house and proposed patio improvements at the required 50 ft setback and instead are asking for a variance to rebuild at the existing nonconforming front yard setback instead of extending farther back to match the neighbor’s front yard setback. The new home conforms to all other zoning standards with exception of required front yard setback. The proposed home is well within the height, building, and hard surface coverage requirements. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential use. Use of the property will remain a single-family home. The request could be viewed as consistent with the following goal and policy from the ## Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan: Housing Quality and Design Goal 3: Continue to support high quality design of residences and residential neighborhoods in a way that furthers sustainability, character, and livability, and maintains long term investment. 1. Provide an attractive living environment and promote housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods to ensure the vitality and health of single family and multifamily/mixed-use neighborhoods. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Page 10 of 20 ## Staff Report The applicant is proposing to construct a new home in a location that already encroaches the front yard setback. The applicant states the property owners would use the property in the same way that they use the current house, keeping the front yard setback the same as the existing house, as well as keeping the house and patio outside of the 50’ pond setback. Staff find the request to be reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the waterbody setback, plus the required front yard setback, that extends to points on the lot that significantly reduces the buildable area of this property. Most other properties on the block are not as negatively impacted by the required setback from the waterbody, required front yard setback and curvature of the lot. The neighboring property to the south has lot shape with ample area allowing for conforming setback to the street and from the waterbody. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance should not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing the addition over the same footprint as existing home that already encroaches the front yard setback and will be slightly farther back. The adjacent property to the south dictates a deeper front yard setback for the lot, negatively impacting the subject property. ## Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the requested variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain an existing streetscape with new homes and additions to the fronts of existing homes consistent with existing front yard conditions on the block. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use of the property will remain a single-family home and the variance is consistent with the city’s goals of providing an attractive living environment and promoting housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to rebuild at the existing nonconforming front yard setback established in 1941. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The buildable area on this property is significantly reduced by the required setback from the front yard requirement and the waterbody due to how much of the property is occupied by water and the narrowing between pond and front yard setback required for the lot. Most other properties on the block are not as negatively impacted by the required setbacks and lot shape. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing the new home within the same footprint as existing living space that already encroaches the setback. Page 11 of 20 ## Staff Report Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be consistent with the plans and survey date stamped April 28, 2026. 2. Compliance with the Engineering Memo. 3. Compliance with the tree permit review. Page 12 of 20 ## Site location 20 Circle West Page 13 of 20 ## Photos 20 Circle West Page 14 of 20 Site plan with existing and proposed house footprint Page 15 of 20 Site plan with setbacks highlighted Page 16 of 20 ## New Home Elevation •Front elevation of the new two story home ## EdinaMN.gov Page 17 of 20 Front and north elevations Page 18 of 20 Back and south elevations Page 19 of 20 Home in context with neighbor to the south Page 20 of 20