## Planning Commission Meeting Agenda June 24, 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 2866 531 5654. 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. Minutes from the May 28 Planning Commission Meeting. ## 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 17 6.1. Variance request, 82 Woodland Circle 7. Reports/Recommendations ## 8. Chair and Member Comments ## 9. Staff Comments 10. Adjournment Page 2 of 17 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 1 of 3 ## Minutes ## City Of Edina, Minnesota ## Planning Commission ## Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 28, 2026 ## I. Call To Order Chair Alkire called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ## II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Brennan, Daye, Felt, Hahneman, Nelson, Padilla, Smith, and Chair Alkire. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Lauren Siebenaur, Senior Communications Coordinator, and Miriam Laredo-Fuentes, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Bennett, Jha, and Just. ## III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Padilla moved to approve the May 28, 2026, agenda. Commissioner Smith 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 Padilla aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. ## IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes ## A. Minutes: Planning Commission, May 13, 2026 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the May 13, 2026, meeting minutes. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Page 3 of 17 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 2 of 3 ## Commissioner Brennan aye ## Commissioner Daye aye ## Commissioner Felt aye ## Commissioner Hahneman aye ## Commissioner Nelson aye ## Commissioner Padilla aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. ## V. Community Comment None. ## VI. Public Hearings ## A. Variance Request – 20 Circle West Director Teague presented the request of 20 Circle West for a variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant The applicants were at the meeting but did not have a presentation. Staff answered Commission questions. ## Public Hearing None. Commissioner Padilla moved to close the public hearing. 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 Padilla aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. Page 4 of 17 ## Draft Minutes☒ ## Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Page 3 of 3 The Commission discussed the proposed variance and felt the changes were appropriate. ## Motion Commissioner Daye moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the variance as outlined in the staff memo, subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Padilla 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 Padilla aye ## Commissioner Smith aye ## Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. ## VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. ## IX. Chair and Member Comments Received. ## X. Staff Comments Received. ## XI. Adjournment Chair Alkire adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Page 5 of 17 ## Item Report June 24, 2026 ## Planning Commission ## Item Number: 6.1 Department: Community Development ## Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner ## Item Title: Variance request, 82 Woodland Circle ## Action Requested: Recommendation is to approve the variance request at 82 Woodland Road for a 13.55 foot front yard setback variance for a porch addition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to conditions listed in the staff report. ## Information/Background: A 13.55-foot setback variance at 82 Woodland Circle from the required 43.6-foot front yard setback to build a new front overhang with columns/porch at 30.1 feet to the front lot line. Staff Recommendation: Motion to approve a 13.55-foot setback variance from the 43.6-foot setback requirement at 82 Woodland Circle subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Better together link: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/82-woodland-circle ## 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. 82 Woodland Road Staff Report ## 2. Applicant submittal Board Portal ## 3. Power Point - Accessible Page 6 of 17 ## Staff Report Date: June 24, 2026 ## To: Planning Commission ## From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Subject: B-26-02. A 13.55-foot setback variance at 82 Woodland Circle from the required 43.6-foot front yard setback to build a new front overhang with columns/porch at 30.1 feet to the front lot line. Staff Recommendation: Motion to approve a 13.55-foot setback variance from the 43.6-foot setback requirement at 82 Woodland Circle subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. ## Information/Background: The property at 82 Woodland Circle contains a one-story rambler with an attached two car garage built in 1952. The property owners are hoping to offer additional protection from the elements and “dress up” the look of their home by proposing to add a front porch consisting of a deep overhang with columns and new gable end rooflines. The Zoning Ordinance Sec. 36-439. Special requirements state that if there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot that have a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback requirement shall be the average front street setback of the dwelling units on the abutting lots 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 a front porch greater than 80 square feet to overlap front yard setback. The homeowners would like to construct a proportionate portico over the front of the house to protect the front door entryway and provide some shelter and protection from the elements for visitors and for aesthetic reasons. The front door and entry area is currently quite exposed to the elements. The owners have stated that when visitors stand at the front door, there is no protection from rain, snow, or wind, and the walkway and step at the front door is fully exposed to ice and snow accumulation, increasing the chances of slips and falls. In addition, the front of the house faces east and gets hours of direct sunlight each day. This has resulted in a prematurely weathered front door, and during the summer generates a lot of heat into the entry and two front rooms of the house. ## Surrounding Land Uses ## Northerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Easterly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Southerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Westerly: Single-Family; Water; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Page 7 of 17 ## Staff Report ## Existing Site Features The property contains a one-story home with attached garage built in 1952. The property is 17,823 square feet in area and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. There is a required 50-foot setback from the creek that does not affect the request, however, impacts addition opportunity in the rear yard. ## 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. ## Compliance Table ## City Standard Proposed West (water) – East Side (Front) - ## North Side– ## South Side- 50 feet OHWE *43.6 feet 10 feet 10 feet +50 feet **31.55 feet 9.6 feet no change 12.5 feet ## Building Coverage ## Hard Cover 25% 50% 17% 21.53% Building Height 35 feet No change *Established front street setback per 36-439, (1) **Requires variance ## PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Page 8 of 17 ## Staff Report ## Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? 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 proposed project 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. The applicant is proposing to add a protection overhang in a location that already has a shallower overhang into the front yard setback. The modification will not disrupt the existing character of the street. The applicant states the property owners would use the property in the same way that they use the current house, Staff find the request to be reasonable. Page 9 of 17 ## Staff Report 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 desire to provide protection from the elements and update the look of their home with minimal intrusion into required setback. Oher properties on the block are not impacted by the proposed porch with gable rooflines. Many nearby homes have similar features and porches as proposed. 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 a minimal footprint and encroachment into the front yard setback. 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 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 minimally intrude the existing front yard setback with an open porch. 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 reduced by the required setback from the front yard requirement. The addition is minimal with limited impact on the front yard area and neighboring properties. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing to enhance the property and compliment the character of the neighborhood. 6. 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 May 15, 2026. 2. Compliance with the Engineering Memo. 3. Compliance with the tree permit review. Page 10 of 17 ## EdinaMN.gov ## Variance Request ## 82 Woodland Circle Page 11 of 17 Photo of the subject home’s front façade with neighbors on either side Page 12 of 17 Close up photo of the existing front façade Page 13 of 17 Front entry plan Page 14 of 17 East/Front proposed elevation with new improvements Page 15 of 17 Survey of subject home with proposed porch improvement Page 16 of 17 Rendering of proposed front facade Page 17 of 17