Welcome to the June 24th meeting of the Edina Planning Commission. The city's committed to continuing to receive and hear your input on matters. We have been collecting public input through voicemail and our engagement website bettertogether.org. It's important you know that all comments submitted have been received and read prior to the start of this meeting. You did not need to submit the same feedback in another way. All feedback is considered equally regardless of the way in which it was submitted. Tonight, there's a public hearing. If you would like to speak during community comment or a public public hearing, please note the process has changed. All public commenters should state their name when beginning their remarks, but we no longer require commenters to state their address. Instead, please fill out a speaker registration card with your address and hand it to Senior Communications Coordinator Lauren Sebenaler before speaking. So, I'm going to call the meeting to order. And ask for a roll call, please. >> Commissioner Padilla? >> Here. >> Commissioner Bennett? >> Here. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Here. >> Commissioner Just? Here. Commissioner Day? >> Here. >> Commissioner Felt? >> Here. >> Commissioner Hanneman? >> Here. >> Commissioner Brennan? >> Here. >> Chair Alkire? >> Here. Next item of business is to approve the meeting agenda for tonight's meeting. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Padilla? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Bennett? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Just? Aye. Commissioner Day? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Felt? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Hanneman? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Brennan? >> Aye. >> Chair Alkire? >> Aye. Next item of business is to approve the meeting minutes from our May 28th Planning Commission meeting. Are there any changes to recommend? And if not, we'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve the meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Padilla? >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett? >> I. >> Commissioner Smith? >> I. >> Commissioner Just? >> I. >> Commissioner Day? >> I. >> Commissioner Felt? >> I. >> Commissioner Hanneman? >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan? >> I. >> Chair Alcott? >> I. Next item on our agenda is community comment. Is there anyone here for community comment? No? Okay. Okay, so we're going to uh move on to the next item on the agenda, which is our first and only public hearing for the evening. Uh it is a public hearing to consider a variance request from 82 482 Woodland Circle. Uh and Chris Acker is here to provide us with some information. Chris. >> Thank you. The subject property is uh 82 Woodland Circle. It is a variance request from the front yard setback requirement, which is in an established neighborhood. It is the average front yard setback on either side of the home. Uh the ordinance does say though the minimum front yard setback is 30 ft. There's a caveat on that. It's for new undeveloped subdivisions. This particular project did come in as a building permit. I think the assumption was that the minimum setback would be 30 ft. Excuse me, 30 ft. However, >> [clears throat] >> that is not the case. It is an established neighborhood, so any improvement to the front of the house is subjected to that average. So, this is a photo of the subject home's front facade as it exists today with the homes on either side. It is a rambler that was built in 1952. The home has an overhang with a door that's a little bit recessed. The request is actually for a 13.55 ft front yard setback variance. The requirement is for 43.6 ft. And that would be to allow for an overhang with columns at 30.1 ft. To allow for a front porch. The homeowners have indicated that visitors stand at the front door and there's no protection from rain or snow or other elements. And the walkway and steps at the front door is fully exposed to ice. Excuse me, and snow accumulation. Increasing chances of slips and falls and the addition to the front of the house faces east, so it gets hours of direct sunlight in the windows and is permanently weathering the front door. So, the whole basis for the for the improvement would be to allow a much deeper overhang with four with three columns along the front and then they would also be putting a little bit deeper overhang over the front of the garage. And they'll be changing the roofline, so they'll be gable ends facing the front. So, here is an top view looking down. You see the three posts, the larger porch area. Now, the ordinance does allow an 80-sq-ft maximum encroachment into the front yard area for a porch. However, they needed a wider and deeper front porch in order to meet their goals. So, that it it is not an exception to the front yard setback requirement. So, what they have to do then is meet the requirement of 43.6 ft or ask for a variance. And the reason why the average is so deep is that the homes to the south are at a much deeper setback than the subject home and the home to the north. The All of these homes back up to Minnehaha Creek. Some of them are deeper, some of them are shallower, some of the homes are closer to the street, some of them are deeper on the lots. So, this is a front elevation, a new proposed east elevation of the house with the new gable roofs used over the porch area, the new porch area, and then also a new roof area with brackets along the front of the garage. And then here's a colored rendering of what they hope to accomplish. And then the rendering in context with the homes on either side. So, staff does recommend approval of the requested variance. Approval is based on the following findings. That the variance is in harmony with the general and purpose and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain an existing streetscape with additions to the front of existing homes consistent with existing front yard conditions on the block. This should not change any of that um along the block. 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 goal of providing an attractive living environment and promoting housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance given that they would like and need a larger, deeper porch, um so they're not able to meet um the exception, nor are they able to meet the average front yard setback, which is primarily uh deeper because of the home that is located to the south. The plight of the land owner is due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the owner. The buildable area of the property is reduced by the required setback from the front yard requirement. And the addition is minimal with limited impact in the front yard area. It's an open structure. It's not, you know, a three-dimensional addition to the house. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: that the plans submitted at the time of the building permit shall be consistent with the plans and survey date stamped May 15th, 2026. These are the same plans that were submitted for permit, um and compliance with any engineering comments, and compliance with the tree permit review. So, we did get one comment on Better Together Edina, um which was a comment in support of the request. And we have uh Amy Close, the homeowner here, as well as Ryan Tyler, who is the contractor, um and I will stop and answer any questions you may have. >> Uh you say the applicant is here. Does the applicant have a presentation or is just here for questions? >> [snorts] >> Okay. Thanks for coming. Uh did anybody have any questions for Chris or the applicant? Claire? >> Sorry, Chris. I was just having trouble tracking the how much What is their current front setback versus the proposed? >> Sure. Let me go back to the survey. So, their current is at 32.8 ft to the front of the garage. That's the closest corner currently. Uh the farthest corner is the corner to the south, and that's at 38.3 ft. So, the uh addition, the porch would come out to at its closest point 30.1 ft. The house to the south is um at a much deeper setback at 50 54.9 ft, and then the house to the north is at 32.4. So, both um the the house to the south is um much further back. The house to the north is just a hair closer. Mhm. >> Other questions? I think I had one. So, just building on Claire's question, the house to the south is really driving the front yard setback here, right? >> Yes. >> I feel like if the house to the south were 5 ft closer to the street, we probably wouldn't be here. >> Possibly. This >> Or something like that. I didn't do the math, but something like that. >> It's one of the more typical variance requests we get because we have this more elastic front yard setback requirement. >> Mhm. >> And it's usually a surprise to some home- home owners to find out that they have to rely on their neighbors setbacks in order to do something with their house. >> All right, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, well this is a public hearing. We'll now hear from residents who'd like to provide comment on this public hearing either in person or by phone. To provide comment by phone, please call 312-535-8110. Enter access code 2866-531-5654 followed by the password 5454. Then press star three on your telephone keypad to indicate you would like to speak. To provide comment in person, please first give your speaker registration card to Lauren. All speakers must state their full name before beginning their comments. You'll have up to three minutes to three minutes to speak. When your time begins, the green light at the podium will turn on. When you have 30 seconds remaining, the yellow light will appear. And when your time has expired, the red light will turn on. Is there anyone here to provide public comment? I don't think there is. So Lauren, is there anyone on the phone? >> There is no one online to give any public comment, but I recommend waiting another 30 seconds or so, and we can move on. >> Great, thank you. >> It has been 1 minute, and nobody has joined the call to speak, so I believe we're safe to proceed. >> Great, thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> A roll call, please. >> Commissioner Padilla? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Bennett? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Just? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Day? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Felt? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Hanneman? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Baron? >> Aye. >> Mayor Allred? >> Aye. So, the motion carries. So, we're ready to deliberation. Would anyone care to get us started on discussion here? Jimmy? >> Yeah, this is kind of a straightforward one we've seen many times. Um one specific detail is a road being on a curve. You know, we tend to apply a little more discretion in that matter because it's a little hard to tell if one house is protruding out past the other. And so, typically, we're a little more forgiving there. And really, the request is like they're moving the closest part of the house to the street only 2 and 1/2 ft closer, while the variance request is deeper. So, the house itself is non-conforming conforming. And what they're doing is very respectable and modest and kind of achieving all the other goals we'd like to see in the comprehensive plan of like adaptive reuse. So, I just fully support it. And yeah. Love to hear what others think. >> Thanks, Jimmy. Anyone else? Merriweather? >> I think porches are very welcoming and um appreciated in the neighborhood, and I'm sure visitors and um neighbors would appreciate this as well. And within the 30-ft standard for new development, which we allow in some other areas if it was a straight street. Um so I think that an exception here is warranted. >> Okay. Anyone else? Right. >> I'll make a m- >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me. Make a motion. >> Just if we're ready. >> I think so. >> Okay. >> So I'll motion to approve the variance request for 82 Woodland Circle subject to the findings of the staff report. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Paleyo. >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett. >> I. >> Commissioner Smith. >> I. >> Commissioner Just. >> I. >> Commissioner Day. >> I. >> Commissioner Felt. >> I. >> Commissioner Hanneman. >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan. >> I. >> Chair Alcorn. >> I. So the motion carries. Thanks for coming and congratulations. And I shall also say the drawings look fantastic. I think you're going to like it. So that is our public hearing. We don't have any reports and recommendations tonight, so we're on to chair and member comments. Anyone have anything to share tonight? Quincy. >> Yeah. So um as you guys know uh myself and Commissioner Paleyo have been working on that food truck study and report. And so we're coming really close to the end. We're just doing the final reviews of it. Um we hope to finalize that. Uh we would like to get it in front of this commission um as soon as we can. And I think hopefully in in our work session. I think that might be a good spot to bring it up. And so I'll work with Director Teague and his team and see if we could fit it in. But yeah, a lot of good research and we're just looking forward to you guys input and any guidance on where we where you think we should go next um before we you know make a rec, you know, a submission, I guess, to the city council for them to review as well. So, more to come there, but we're really close to the end. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Staff comments? Curry's not here, Addison not here. Anybody else have anyone that want to have anything to share? No? Wow. Hm? >> When does Vernon happen? >> Tomorrow. What's the >> One Yes, one more comment before you hit the gavel. >> almost missed your chance. >> Um just curious, right? Like as we're working on this zoning update, I was just thinking about the changes that we're going to be making. Would something like this come for a variance review, or would it have passed with what we're looking at? Just for us to think about, right? Cuz we see a lot of these cases, as Jimmy was pointing out, where if you're on a curve and you have to look at the average of your neighbor's setback, and to make a determination of your setback, are we trying to address that? Would that be addressed in that future zoning update? >> My My recollection is we were talking about doing a standard 30 or 35. We were discussing both, and we had pros and cons of both of those, and I don't think we've made a decision yet. But if we If it is a 30, then this would not have. >> But 35 would have, right? >> 35 would have. >> Then it would have been cut and dry. There still could have been a variance, but the rule would have been clear. All right, anything else? Meeting's adjourned. >> I'm >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah.