Edina Planning Commission Approves Garage Addition Variance Unanimously
The Edina Planning Commission voted 5-0 on Wednesday to grant a front yard setback variance for a homeowner at 549 Grove Street, allowing construction of a two-story garage addition despite the property's unusual constraints.
The commission found that the property's location on a cul-de-sac, combined with a 50-foot-wide power line easement and nearby railroad tracks, created practical difficulties that justified reducing the required setback from 38.2 feet to 27.3 feet.
Assistant Planner Chris Aker explained that the curved lot lines typical of cul-de-sac properties create challenges not faced by homes on straight streets. "The curvature of the cul-de-sac and required setback forces the addition further south on the lot with an XL Energy High Line easement restricting much of the expansion opportunity that you would normally assume the would have," Aker told commissioners.
The homeowners plan to add a third garage stall, a sport court, and office space to their property. All public comments submitted through the city's Better Together engagement website were positive, and no residents spoke against the project during the hearing.
Commissioners expressed comfort with the approval, noting they have granted similar variances for cul-de-sac properties in the past. "Cul-de-sacs always are interesting because of the curvature and we certainly granted quite a few variances along these same lines in the past," said Commissioner Quincy. "Adding a second car garage that's very practical."
The approval comes with conditions requiring compliance with submitted site plans, an engineering assessment, and the city's tree ordinance. A representative for the property owner assured commissioners that construction would not disturb an existing oak tree on the site, stating their goal is "to not disturb the tree or the critical root zone at all." The commission also unanimously approved the meeting agenda and minutes from its September 25 session.
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 (3)
Approval of Meeting Agenda (October 16, 2024)
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [2:45] · Seconded by Unknown [2:52]
Standard procedural item; no substantive discussion recorded.
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (September 25, 2024)
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [3:09] · Seconded by Unknown [3:11]
Standard procedural item; no substantive discussion recorded.
Public Hearing: Front Yard Setback Variance at 549 Grove Street
Dissent: None; all commissioners expressed support for the variance.
Moved by Unknown [22:22] · Seconded by Unknown [22:26]
Chris Aker, Assistant Planner, presented a detailed analysis of the variance request. The property is constrained by a cul-de-sac with curved front lot lines, an XL Energy high-power line easement along the east side (50-foot wide), and railroad tracks further east. The homeowners seek to add a third garage stall, sport court, and office space. Staff found that practical difficulties are caused by unique site conditions (cul-de-sac curvature, easement restrictions, railroad proximity) not self-created by the property owner. The variance would allow the addition to be set back 27.3 feet instead of the required 38.2 feet. All Better Together public comments were positive. No in-person or remote public testimony was provided. Commissioners discussed the consistency with past variance approvals for cul-de-sac properties, the reasonable nature of the garage expansion, and compliance with lot coverage and design standards. One Commissioner raised a clarification question about the front lot line definition relative to the western neighbor's property orientation. Another Commissioner inquired about plumbing for the sport court and office space; the applicant confirmed no plumbing would be installed initially.
Notable Quotes (5)
The purpose and intent of the front yard setback requirement is to provide a consistent minimum space from structures to the lot line adjacent to the street however the code allows for deeper setbacks if somebody chooses to build further back on the lot which then affects adjacent properties who wish to expand.
The curvature of the cul-de-sac and required setback forces the addition further south on the lot with an XL Energy High Line easement restricting much of the expansion opportunity that you would normally assume the would have.
I think we have certainly provided variances for projects like this in the past for houses that are on cul-de-sacs where the front lot line kind of varies and I do think this is in harmony with the ordinance and in consistent with our comp plan.
Cul-de-sacs always are interesting because of the curvature and we certainly granted quite a few variances along these same lines in the past. I think to just a design of the home what's being proposed it makes complete sense you know adding a second car garage that's very practical.
Our goal is to not disturb the tree or the critical root zone at all we're going to do our best to make the retaining wall not dig down in that portion and just kind of butt it up as close to the tree as we can without affecting it whatsoever.
Ordinances & Resolutions (6)
Ordinance governing front yard setback requirements; requires 38.2-foot setback from front lot line.
Survey and site plans for the proposed garage addition; subject to compliance as a condition of approval.
Engineering assessment of the proposed project; compliance required as a condition of variance approval.
Ordinance protecting trees; compliance required for the proposed project to avoid disturbance of existing oak tree and critical root zone.
City comprehensive plan designating the property as low-density residential; variance is consistent with this designation.
State law establishing conditions for granting variances; requires affirmative findings on harmony with ordinance intent, practical difficulties, and neighborhood character impact.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
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.