Edina approves accessory dwelling unit setback variance
The Edina City Council unanimously approved a variance request on May 15 that allows a homeowner at 5120 44th Street West to build an accessory dwelling unit closer to their rear property line than city rules typically permit. The decision reflects the council's willingness to balance strict zoning requirements with practical constraints on individual properties.
The property owner sought permission to build a garage-based accessory dwelling unit (ADU)—a secondary residential structure—with a rear yard setback of just 6.5 feet, falling short of the standard 12-foot requirement for structures exceeding 18 feet in height. Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the variance, though one person audibly objected during the public hearing.
City staff recommended approval, citing practical difficulties created by the property's unusual layout. The lot has dual front yard setbacks that severely limit buildable space, forcing the applicant to adapt their design. The two-story portion of the structure was set back 16 feet from the rear property line—exceeding the 12-foot requirement—while a single-story section extends closer. Commissioners noted the design adheres to the spirit of the ADU ordinance even if it technically violates the setback rule.
Applicant Andrew Vic explained that the original plan for a full two-story structure "just looked overbuilt" on the property. He compromised by requesting a three-stall garage with loft space, positioning the taller section to meet setback requirements while needing the variance for the lower portion. Commissioner Padilla supported the variance partly because the rear property line abuts a railroad track, comparing it to an alley where setback rules are typically more lenient. "I don't see any homes being built anywhere on a train track," Padilla noted, suggesting minimal impact on neighbors.
The council also discussed updating the city's work-from-home ordinance (Chapter 36) to reflect changes since the pandemic, including project-based work arrangements. Staff agreed this was an area they wanted to address during an upcoming code update. Additionally, the council received updates on two development projects: approval of an Opus office building proposal at 5100 Eden and adoption of the Lincoln and London area small area plan.
Our proprietary artificial intelligence agent analyzed publicly available documents including meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts to write this story to help inform local residents. Feedback helps us improve, so please consider rating how we did with the thumbs up or down below.
Go deeper on this topic
Research related meeting documents and build a brief — without rewriting the story.
Full analysis
Votes (1)
Public Hearing: Variance Request for 6.5ft Rear Yard Setback at 5120 44th Street West
Dissent: One audible 'I oppose' was heard, but the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously, indicating no formal dissent was recorded.
Moved by Commissioner Alky [00:43:08] · Seconded by Commissioner Nelson [00:43:10]
Staff recommended approval of a variance for an ADU addition, noting practical difficulties due to the property's unique dual front yard setbacks that limit buildable area. The applicant's design adapted a two-story portion to be further back, adhering to the spirit of the ADU ordinance. Neighbors were supportive. Commissioners discussed the intent of the ADU ordinance, especially for detached structures, and the impact on neighbors, ultimately agreeing the proposal met criteria despite the technical setback deviation.
Notable Quotes (4)
I also think that they are really meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance in that um you know even though only a portion of it is the two stories and over the 18 feet in height the whole structure is required to meet that greater setback. However the portion that is two stories and is over 18 ft in height is set back more than 12 feet. It is 16 feet set back from that rear property line.
Uh yes, that was the hope and the intent was I think original plan was a full twostory structure on that and it just looked overbuilt um on that property size and I said at the end of the day if I could just get a third stall garage with enough of the loft space and we tried to build that within uh condition thus the inside of the 12 ft the taller part but to get the ceiling height to get up there was is the reason we need the 11 in
One of the things that we did talk about was a sliding scale and that if you could remember uh during the conversations we said okay for every foot you go up above the one story you go back one foot and that is what we came up with as the the sliding scale rule essentially.
But in your case, right, yes, there's a road behind there, but then there's also a train track and I don't see any homes being built anywhere on a train track, right? And so if I would have treated as an alleyway, you know, just mentally, then this again wouldn't really have an impact.
Ordinances & Resolutions (8)
Ordinance passed about a year prior, establishing ADU regulations, including setback requirements based on height.
Legal basis for variance criteria.
Local code outlining variance criteria.
City plan used to evaluate variance consistency.
Document containing staff's research, findings, and recommendation for the variance request.
Zoning section of the city code pertaining to work-from-home regulations.
Approved plan by the Council.
A group formed to help with zoning updates, for which a company was selected.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
Review of Work-from-Home Ordinance
Updates on Development Projects and Plans
Want to know when new stories arrive?
Enter your email to receive updates.
We will not use your email for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time.