--- ## title: City of Edina Staff Report Template author: City of Edina date: D:20260730135700Z --- ## Staff Report Date: 8/12/26 ## To: Planning Commission ## From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner ## Subject: Variance request Staff Recommendation: Motion to deny a 37.9-foot setback variance from the 50-foot setback requirement and a 196 sq ft building coverage variance at 5620 Woodcrest Drive based on the findings in the staff report. ## Information/Background: The property at 5620 Woodcrest Drive backs up to a pond and contains a one-story rambler with an attached two car garage built in 1974. The property owners are hoping to add a 14’ x 14’, 196 sq ft, four season porch and a, 8’ x 8’.5”, 66 sq ft deck, (excluding steps), to the back of their home. The existing home is 26.1 feet from the pond edge. The improvements will reduce the existing nonconforming setback by 14 ft to be within 12.1 feet of the pond therefore; the owners are requesting a 37.9-foot setback variance from the 50-foot pond setback. The requested variances reduce the existing nonconforming setback of the home to the water body, encroaching closer to the pond edge. The project also requires a 196-square foot-building coverage variance from the maximum limit of 2,250 square feet increasing the existing nonconforming building coverage of 177-square feet for a total of 373-square feet of coverage over the allowable 2,250-square foot limit (32.92%). ## Surrounding Land Uses ## Northerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Easterly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential/Pond ## Southerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Westerly: Single-Family; Water; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential ## Existing Site Features The property contains a one-story home with attached garage built in 1974. The property is 7,967 square feet in area and backs up to a pond. There is a 50-foot setback required from the pond located in the rear yard. The existing home ## Staff Report is nonconforming with respect to front yard, side yards, and pond setbacks and currently exceeds the maximum allowed building coverage by 177 sq ft. ## 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 30.8 feet 10 feet 10 feet **12.1 feet *30 feet no change *9.6 feet no change *9.7 feet no change ## Building Coverage ## Hard Cover 30% but not to exceed 2,250 sq ft 50% *2,247 sq ft existing/177 sq ft over ** +196 sq ft = 2,263 sq ft (total: 373 sq ft over existing + proposed) = 32.92% 46.8% Building Height 35 feet No change * Existing nonconforming **Requires variance ## PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION ## Staff Report ## Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? No, staff does not 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 variance will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the water body setback ordinance is to maintain an adequate distance from a water body to provide a proper buffer area between structures and the water’s edge. Prior to 1990, a 25-foot setback was required from water bodies. Many of the original surveys of homes backing up to the pond indicate setbacks ranging between 25-28 feet from the pond edge. The homes were built in conformance with pond setbacks required in the mid-1970’s with a DNR mandated ordinance change in 1990 to a minimum 50 ft setback causing properties to become nonconforming. In 1974, even with a required 25 ft setback, most of the homes surrounding the pond were built with little opportunity to expand closer to the water body. The primary purpose and intent of the maximum building coverage ordinance is to maintain a consistent maximum amount of building area per lot regardless of size or configuration of a lot. Beyond the maximum is considered over-building on a lot. It is not the intent of establishing maximum building coverage to allow more building area, which potentially opens expectations of neighbors believing there may be opportunities for similar coverage variances. This property is currently over the maximum allowed coverage of 2,250 sq ft by 177 sq ft. The property is already benefitted from exceeding the building coverage cap. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. ## Staff Report 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 property owner is not proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner The applicant is proposing to add more building area to a structure that currently exceeds the allowable building coverage. Staff are unable to identify a unique circumstance specific to the property that could not be replicated by other properties in the vicinity to also exceed coverage and allow reduced setbacks from the pond that would require similar variance requests. 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 expand the main floor to gain a 4-season porch and small deck on a nonconforming property that is currently “over-built” given the amount of building coverage. The new home addition and deck are proposed to be closer to a water body than the existing home. Conditions around the pond are similar for neighboring properties who share similar circumstances of proximity and coverage. iii. The variance, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variance may alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing improvements that may motivate similar variance requests from setback and coverage. Building coverage and setback changes may alter the existing character of the neighborhood. ## Staff Recommendation Staff recommend denial of the requested variance. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain an adequate buffer and distance from water bodies and not over build on a lot. The proposal will reduce the already nonconforming setback from the pond and increase building area and intensify the already nonconforming building coverage. 2. Staff agree 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. ## Staff Report 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to reduce setback to the pond while intensifying existing building coverage over the maximum allowed. 4. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property but are instead created by the landowner. The buildable area on this property is consistent with other properties in the vicinity. 5. The variance may alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing to exceed zoning ordinances on a nonconforming property in a neighborhood of similar properties with similar nonconformities, and with no specific property-based characteristics unique enough to grant exceptions.