Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the Diana Planning Commission. The City is committed to continuing to receive and hear your input on matters. We've been collecting public input through voicemail and our engagement website, bettertogetheredina.org. It's important you know that all comments submitted have been received and read prior to the start of this meeting. You do 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 are two public hearings. If you'd like to speak during community comment or a public hearing, please note that 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 Siebenaller before speaking. So now I'll call the meeting to order and ask for a roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

Commissioner Padilla?

Here.

Commissioner Smith?

Here.

Commissioner Felt?

Here.

Commissioner Hanneman? Here. Commissioner Day?

Here.

Commissioner Brennan?

Here.

Chair Alkire?

Here. First item is to approve the meeting agenda for this evening, so if there are any recommended changes or we could entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Aye.

Commissioner Padilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Aye.

Commissioner Feltz?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanneman?

Aye.

Commissioner Day? Aye. Commissioner Brennan?

Aye.

Chair Alkire?

Aye. Next item is to approve the meeting minutes from July 15th, 2026. Is there a motion or does there need to be discussion on the minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pelillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Smith.

Aye.

Commissioner Felt.

Aye.

Commissioner Henneman. Aye. Commissioner Day.

Aye.

Commissioner Brennan.

Aye.

Chair Alkire.

Aye. Now we move to a community comment. We'll hear from residents in person who would like to speak about something not on tonight's agenda or scheduled for a future public hearing. You may speak for up to three minutes. After giving your speaker registration card to Lauren and stating your full name for the record, the green light at your podium will turn on. When you have 30 seconds remaining, the yellow light will turn on. And when you're out of time, the red light will turn on. Is there anyone here who would like to provide community comment? Not this evening. All right, we'll start our public hearing then. Public hearings, as I mentioned, we have two. The first is a variance request for Cavalry Church at 5300 France Avenue South. And Chris Acker will start us out with a presentation.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. The request is a variance at 5300 France Avenue. The location is Cavalry Church on the west side of France, south of West 52nd Street and north of 54th Street. The church property has access from both France Avenue and along West 54th Street. The property consists of approximately 5.5 acres, a church building, a double dwelling unit, and a large parking area. The site is a unique shape with the parking area adjacent to town homes along the north side, And along the west side, it backs up to single dwelling units. Along their south property line, they have apartment buildings. And then along the east side, along France Avenue, there is one single dwelling unit that is located north of the double dwelling unit that is part of the church property and that is surrounded by parking and adjacent to the double dwelling unit. Here are photos of the double dwelling unit that is part of the church property, and then the adjacent single dwelling unit that's next door, and another view of the front street view. The zoning requirements are for the property. It's a minimum 50-foot setback that's required for all structures. That would include the principal structure of the church as well as any accessory structures. And it's a 50-foot setback from all lot lines. So the proposed changes to the existing property include the removal of the double dwelling unit, which is right here. And you will notice that the setback, it's not indicated on this particular diagram, but at its closest point, it's about 4.5 feet away from the north lot line. So the existing double is nonconforming in terms of required setback. So this is what's being proposed. The double dwelling unit will be removed and the existing one-story double dwelling unit will be gone directly north of the church and the construction of a 36 by 24 foot, 864 square foot storage building would be built uh... further to the west on the property the storage building will be ninety eight feet from the west lot line so that would be conforming they're proposing a twelve foot setback from the north lot line and that's adjacent to that single dwelling unit property that's privately owned uh... that does require the variance and that's uh... The area in question, as far as the variance is concerned, there's a 14-foot height for the building, and it will reduce the coverage of that area by 1.4% or 3,180 square feet, which is an improvement over the existing coverage conditions that are currently there, It will be adding green space instead of the building and hard surface that's currently there. So the variance asked is a 38-foot north setback variance to build a storage building 12 feet from the north lot line adjacent to the single dwelling unit property. So here are the building elevations. It's showing you the 14-foot height. This is the view from the west, so this would be facing the parking lot. This would be the view from the north, and then from the opposite side facing France, and then also from the south. These are building renderings, so it will show you that there's going to be lap siding, there'll be shake on the gable portion of the top portion of the building, and then asphalt shingles. so the sites uh... building elevations uh... are showing in this uh... slide and what you'll see is the view from france avenue you'll see just the very peak portion of the building facing france avenue And then along the north lot line, the view would be the width of the building. This also includes a landscape plan. So there is a plan for three birch trees close to the north lot line, two spruce trees also closer to the north lot line, and then a coffee tree that will be centered in the front yard area towards France Avenue. And then they will also be providing a six foot fence along that north lot line. So the primary issue is the variance request in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The proposal moves the property towards a more conforming condition on the church property than currently exists on the site. The proposed storage building will comply with the east setback, increase the setback by 7.5 feet from the 4.5 foot north setback of the existing double dwelling unit, to provide a twelve foot setback from the north lot line the storage building will more than double the existing setback and will be three thousand one hundred eighty square feet smaller than the current four thousand forty four square foot double dwelling that's currently there The request consistent with the comp plan of the property will remain a church will continue to be consistent with the comprehensive plan our practical difficulties and is this are their practical difficulties and Is the use reasonable the required 50-foot setback is a practical difficulty rendering that portion of the property mostly unbuildable? without the benefit of a variance staff believe the proposed use and its location on the property a reasonable the accessory structures smaller lower in height and further from the property lines than the current conditions and it will increase green space by three thousand one hundred eighty square feet where the circumstances created by the landowner The shape of the lot and location of the adjacent single dwelling unit property was not created by the owner, which complicates building opportunities for the property. A similar storage building on an R1 or R2 lot would require a three-foot side yard or rear yard setback. Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The setbacks improve upon existing setbacks and will result in less building and hard surface coverage on the property. Very little of the accessory structure will be visible from the street on the France side, given the higher grade elevations along France Avenue. And the new solid wall fence and landscaping will be installed along the north or near the north lot line to buffer the adjacent residents. Staff recommendation is to approve the 38-foot north setback variance. Approval is based on the findings in the staff report and the conditions. And with that, I will stop and answer any questions that you have. We do have a representative from the church who is present. He is a volunteer of the Cavalry's administrative team. He is Elmer Gelgerhus. And there's been one comment that was posted on the Better Together Edina site, which I believe you have all read. And with that, I will stop and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Does the church, the applicant, have anything they'd like to say or just be ready for questions or how do you want to handle it? It's up to you. Totally up to you.

Can you hear me? Right there is great. Okay. We purchased the building in 2002, the property in 2002. The duplex came with it. Grace Church had outgrown the property significantly, which is why they left. And so they had modified the duplex to turn it into office space, had opened up the wall between the two halves, significantly torn out one of the kitchens. So it's not very usable as a residence. We, in 2000, we looked at upgrading it so it could be livable and possibly rent to at below market value to seminary students, to new teachers of Avail Academy, which we have a relationship with. But that was going to be in 2000 that was going to be a quarter of a million to two hundred and eighty thousand That would have been throwing good money after bat so at this point It needs to be removed. We've been using it for a storage building since Well, probably the last 15 years and so if we remove it we we need to build a storage building in there so I

All right. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff or for the applicant? Claire?

Given the unique parcel shape and it's clear there were two single family or two dwellings, has the city been in contact with or heard anything from that property owner immediately to the north?

All right, any other questions? Mary Brother?

I have a few questions about the landscape plan. You can go back to one. Okay, so this is set down a little bit, but there seems to be enough room in that seven and a half, I've got two questions. One is about accessing the lawn or taking care of that landscape area in front. I don't understand what that line is that kind of circles around from the south and goes to the east. That one, yes.

Oh, right there? I believe this portion is an existing retaining wall and they're extending it. Because there is quite a great difference between France Avenue and where the parking lot is.

And then there is going to be some trees planted on the North side and I'm assuming this the storage areas is it for landscaping equipment or is it just for. And then accessing to take care of that yard on the East side would you go all the way around the building to do that or.

Can you come up to the microphone?

The garage door and the service door that you saw face west, so they face our parking lot. So we can come right in from the parking lot. Am I answering your question or?

You can come right in from the parking lot, and then you've got to navigate the fence and the retaining wall to take care of the lawn just east of this?

No. We have lawn along France Avenue. We have a strip of lawn along France Avenue that we maintain and that we will maintain. will allow us to wrap around from the east right in, from the southeast right into that portion, new portion of lawn.

Okay, so you have a plan to kind of maintain that lawn.

Yep.

Thank you. And then my other question is about the driveway off of France Avenue. That's an existing condition?

There is handicapped parking That driveway will not go to the new storage building. That wraps right along France Avenue and provides handicap parking for what we call door one, the door facing east.

Okay, and that's all existing? That curb cut is existing?

That's existing. Okay, thank you. We're not going to touch it.

Thank you.

Is that it?

That's it for my question.

Any other questions? Joe? Can you talk a little bit about exploring other locations on the site for a storage garage?

Can you see the dotted line on this Okay So this whole line, I should have, in the, In the variance request that's in bright red, but I printed this on a black and white printer. So if you can see that bold line, that's the 50-foot setback. Do you know what I'm pointing at? That's the 50-foot setback everywhere. So in some locations, if we would put the storage building, it would block off access to other portions of our area. If we put it directly to the west of the church, we wouldn't be able to get to our north parking lot. Anywhere that we would put it in there, it would be much more difficult to put landscaping around it. We'd have to dig up a good chunk of the parking lot. It would block access to other parts of the parking lot. So yes, we've looked at that. This, because of the contour that Chris mentioned, this is a, it's quite hidden from the east. It's close to our church buildings, so it's easier to wrap landscaping and bushes around it in other directions. Does that make sense?

yeah yeah I just kind of wanted to hear the logic I guess behind it I don't want to speculate on your behalf I it looks like there might be an area on the north side looks like there's a grass area within the 50-foot setback and I don't know if that was given much thought but yeah I just want to hear your perspective

So maybe to follow up on that, but not to put too fine a point on it, but that square that Joe is talking about to the north. So there's a square that's buildable in the 50 foot setback to the east of the parking lot. Why not there? No, to the east from there, that exactly right there. Yeah, why not there?

You see this? That's a playground. So it'd be, there's a hill, if we attempt to access that from France Avenue, there's a pretty good hill there. If we'd attempt to access that from the west, there's a playground there.

Could you access it from the south? or north without interfering with the playground?

Yes, possibly. There is quite a hill there. Our church building is here. You know, the snow that we blow is here and here and here. It'd be quite inconvenient to have it in that area. And we would be taking green space away by putting it there.

Okay, thank you. Other questions? All right, well, this is a public hearing. We'll now hear from residents who would like to provide comment on this either in person or by phone. To provide comment by phone, please call 312-535-8110. Enter access code 28667463092, followed by the password 5454. Then press star 3 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 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 in person who would like to provide public comment? Great, please come to the podium.

Ron Scroggins.

That's it, you're good to go.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Ron, and I live at the neighboring property that will most be directly affected by this variance request. I firmly oppose granting this setback variance. Edina's zoning ordinance exists to protect neighbors and neighborhood stability. A variance should only be granted when there is true hardship or a clear public benefit, and neither exists here. I live right next to the north lot line where the applicant wants to reduce the setback from 50 feet to just 12 feet. A 38-foot reduction is not minor. It would permanently alter the relationship between our properties and set a troubling precedent, making it harder for the city to uphold standards in the future. This issue is deeply personal because of the shared history between our properties. Both homes were built around 1948, and for nearly 70 years, our driveway and their walkway have existed as a co-joined functional space. We bought our home in 2003, and when Calvary purchased theirs, the shared arrangement was already part of the neighborhood's character. In 2017, with the church's permission and appreciation, we repaved the entire driveway, including their walkway, at our own expense. We've maintained it ever since, clearing snow, removing debris, and keeping it safe. The space has been a symbol of cooperation and neighborliness. The current plan would remove the dwelling and cut the driveway directly along the property line, destroying that shared space, damaging our driveway, and affecting the curb cut in France Avenue. After decades of collaboration, watching this entire area torn apart for convenience feels both unnecessarily and frankly hurtful, especially given that they own five and a half acres and clearly have room to redesign elsewhere without harming their neighbor. This variance is not needed. It does not solve a hardship. It does not benefit the public. It erases a piece of neighborhood history and creates a new problem for us, the property next door, their actual neighbor. For these reasons, I respect the board to uphold the design and zoning ordinance and deny this variance request. And now I'd like to comment on some of the notes from this. Specifically number five, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. One thing that has not been talked about once is that they're cutting the driveway walkway, slicing off a big chunk there. It absolutely does alter the essential character of the locality at the north line. This could easily be done differently. It doesn't have to be done that way, but it is. This impacts us, the taxpayer and the Edina resident. We've lived here 23 years. Our daughter graduated from Edina High School. Again, we are the taxpayer. We are the person most affected. I don't think this should go through because, again, no consideration has been given to us when the zoning committee make the recommendation. They never contacted us, never looked for one second at how it affects us. I'm asking you to please consider how it affects us, the Edina resident and tax payer that lives adjacent to the property. Thank you.

Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment? Please.

I'm Julie, and I also live at the property affected on the north.

There you go.

Okay. I feel like I read over the staff report, and I think there's some mischaracterizations. It is going to affect the character of the whole area. It's now going to create sort of an industrial look. Right now there's a residential property there. They used it as residential when we first moved there, Our properties are the exact same age. So the reason it's it kind of says their blight is That they can't build but they also let that building deteriorate and just to comment on what was just said is that They're gonna access through that other direction Their intention is to have a school a very large School to go in there and that's where the kids would enter and exit So that playground actually belonged to the charter school that closed in Edina. So that's not really even their playground. And it was built against recommendation from Carrie over there, too. So I feel like their plan, they don't, oh, and they didn't maintain their property on our side. We've been doing it because they neglect it. They neglected, there's an open lot on the other side where they could build a shed that they one time let grass grow this high. I just feel like having, it's just gonna make us look like we're between like an open lot, the brownstones, and then this industrial garage thing that I wouldn't trust that they're not gonna use that as a rental property, just like they use most of their church as a rental property. So we've been subjected to nonconformance, as Carrie probably could attest. They've been stretching the limits of nonconformance. So I guess I just don't understand why we wouldn't want to make them comply one time, because we've been working with the city for years on this. other issues with them. And it's just been heartbreaking for us because we did, we've lived there 23 years and we raised our kid there and now we're going to retire, but I'm sorry, but. I think we're going to be, I just don't like that they're going to hack our driveway. I think we're going to end up incurring like $30,000 to replace, to make our driveway usable again. It's just really, it's really hard. It's just been hard for us. So please consider us, please.

Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else in the room who'd like to comment? Lauren, has anyone joined by phone to provide public comment?

Nobody has joined the call, so I believe it is safe to proceed.

All right. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Aye.

Commissioner Padilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Aye.

Commissioner Felt?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanneman? Aye. Commissioner day. Hi, come on. Sure Brennan. Hi chair.

I'll clear I before we go to Commentary and discussion Chris, would you mind putting up the chart? I'd like to have us give us a chance to see the shared driveway portion on the satellite picture that wasn't clear at the outset to me anyway, I Yeah, please. I'm not sure which is the best one. That's probably the best one. So on this one, Chris, where's the property line in relation to that driveway between the houses?

The north portion of the house right here is 4.5 feet from the lot line. So it's sort of a shared driveway. It seems to go right up against the side of the house.

So is it 4.5 feet from that staircase or from the side of the house?

No, from the side of the house. This is the...

Can we just? Okay, I guess what I'm trying to get at is how wide is the driveway on the property line to the north?

Yeah, so this graphic I believe shows it. So here is the lot line. Yes. The existing drive is right here. So this is the portion that would be removed.

Okay. And is there a way to measure the width of the driveway to the north of the property line? I can't tell from looking at it whether it's drivable or not.

David, if we're going to do this, can they come up to the mic? I have the expectation that this type of discourse doesn't work.

Yeah, I just feel like it's not been presented to you, our side of the issue.

And when the city talked about their recommendation, they didn't once mention the driveway being cut. They talked about the property being torn down, so I don't believe that has ever been taken into consideration.

Well, yeah, that's why we're talking about it now. Yeah, I'm sorry.

And then I feel like in granting the variance, like what is the hardship for them? They use that as of today. They use the garage portion of the duplex, but they can't, how he's describing where they're going to go out, right now they actually use our driveway to go out to get their equipment out.

Not driving, walking.

Walking and... But they never maintain anything. So sure, they're showing a pretty open lot that they're not gonna probably, or what are they gonna do with that lot?

I guess I'm, I feel like you've done a good job presenting your case. Okay, thank you. And we're just trying to ask some clarifying questions about the lay of the land and what the parcel actually looks like. But I think you've made your point really clear. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, it's been co-joined though.

So I guess, Carrie, there isn't a way to quantify the width of the driveway on the north side.

I'm trying to scale it now. Are you really? Okay. I'll let you know if I can figure it out.

Okay, thank you. Okay, but it also looks to me, there wouldn't be any reason why that driveway couldn't be widened a bit to the north, I don't think. I was asking the staff, actually, but thank you.

It looks like about 12 feet.

Okay. Okay. Sure, come on up to the mic, please.

So with regard to the fence and the difficulty of snow removal, I asked you several times where you wanted me to end that fence, and I'm willing to discuss that further if you would rather have that fence start and stop at a different location.

Thank you.

carry and in a lot of and parts of the city there are FUNCTIONALLY SHARED DRIVEWAYS EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT I MEAN I PRESUME IT WAS INVESTIGATED WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A FORMAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT HERE BUT BARING THAT HOW HAVE WE I'M THINKING LIKE MORNINGSIDE COUNTRY CLUB THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT THE USE OF THAT DRIVEWAY IS BENEFITS BOTH BUT IF A PROPERTY OWNER I MEAN THEY TECHNICALLY OWN IT HAVE YOU SEEN ANY SITUATIONS THERE WHERE that this sort of issue was navigated?

Yeah, it's private easements between the two property owners, so it wouldn't be something that the city would get involved with. We wouldn't know. I believe you're right. There are circumstances there where people are sharing driveways, but usually there's a formal easement written up that talks about maintenance and how they work together moving forward.

But in your memory, you can't think of an example where maybe that there was... changes on one side of the property that would negatively impact the driveway of the adjacent property owner?

Not that I'm aware of. Again, it would be two property owners having to work those issues out themselves.

Mayor Weather.

My feeling at this moment is the driveway use or width is not ours to solve tonight. AND I'M THINKING, I'M PERSONALLY THINKING THAT THIS IS EITHER PULLED SO IT'S SOLVED AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY AGREEMENT NOW AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE OVER THIS. THE ONLY WAY I KIND OF SEE THIS PROCEEDING TONIGHT IS IF THERE'S AN AGREEMENT NOT TO KIND OF TOUCH THE DRIVEWAY AT THE MOMENT. And those are my thoughts. Because there doesn't seem to be any kind of unifying vision about how to deal with the driveway.

Yeah, I guess given as I look at this second picture that you had put up there where you can see down the back and the slope change, whether or not I approve it, I am disappointed by sort of the lack of clarity of how the proposed shed and that grade and that fence would all marry together with the adjacent property. To me, it doesn't feel flushed out in a way that given the variance request, I would be comfortable approving it because I just don't feel like I have enough information to feel comfortable to make that decision.

I'm gonna take it a different direction a little bit, Ryan. Sorry.

I think the public comment is over.

I think we need to go with the information we have, but thank you.

So where I was going to go was with the requirements for the variants specifically, right? And the different things we need to consider. The main one I'm hung up on is the you know Requirement that if we grant the variance it relieves practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and the use is reasonable use I think it's reasonable, but the practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance given the layout of the rest of the property and where the else's could be put I know it's an inconvenience and It's not maybe as appealing as this location, but is there a practical difficulty associated here that they can't overcome that we need to grant this variance for? I'm not sure that I understand what that is. Can it go to the north? Can it go somewhere else? I would have to be convinced that there is a practical difficulty that the landowner can't overcome and that we need to grant this variance to meet that requirement.

Thanks, Ryan. Any other comments?

Paul? Well, yeah, overall, my comment is that, I mean, they're using it as a storage unit now. There's no issue of continuing to use it as a storage space, in my understanding. So the only question is, you know, they could put a new garage door in the back somehow, use that, I don't know how they access it now. We don't have images from the parking lot to see what that access currently looks like. Obviously, the property's in disrepair. They're having, I imagine, water issues and different issues with the property. Would there be some sort of permit required to knock down 90% of the house and leave a little bit and use that as a storage unit? I mean, I you know, convert it into a storage unit, I guess is my number one question, because they're currently using it that way. I don't know if we have any say in what they, how they modify the property as is. I don't know if that's a question or not. I guess I'm just wondering if that's, my thought is to continue using it as is or find another location for it.

Yeah, I think the role of the Planning Commission is to make a decision on this project rather than designing a new one. So you can certainly go either way for an approval or a denial here.

Yep, okay. I guess my comment is just that if the property can be maintained enough to keep it upright, it could be usable.

Okay, anyone else? Bonnie?

I agree with Ryan and I'd like to make a motion to deny the variance.

Second.

So we need to come up with findings. I could throw some out for you to consider and you can add to them or delete. You could make the finding that the hardship criteria, the variance criteria is not met. There's no practical difficulty in this circumstance. The applicant can construct a shed elsewhere on the site to comply with city code.

Can I? Go ahead.

Oh, I was gonna...

also offer that the essential character, their proposal, I think, does not meet that. It does change the essential character. You could add that, certainly.

Yeah, just from trying to encapsulate the sense of the group that I heard, it seemed to focus most on practical difficulty and what Claire just said. Yeah, so I think, Carrie, how would you word that?

does not meet the essential character of the area, of the immediate area.

Is that to you, Bonnie? Yes. Okay.

Quincy? Yeah, you know, just before we vote on this one, just a couple thoughts on this. I think we're landing in a good spot. I think we could have made one of two decisions, right? We could say no outright because it doesn't meet the zoning criteria, the 50-foot setback requirement. But I think because we're downsizing, right, it's already... non-conforming but now we're making it smaller so I could have seen a path to to say yes because it's just it's less non-conforming but then when we really start digging into it right we could see that the shared driveway is a point of concern between the north property owner and this property owner so generally speaking, if we're non-conforming and making it less non-conforming, but there were no other issues, this might have been a sure kind of situation. But now that we're seeing issues, and I think one of them here is not necessarily the practical difficulty, because I think there is some difficulty here. If the playground is on that spot, you have your parking lot, where else could you build a shed? So I could see that as being a practical difficulty. But the character part of it, I think, is where it doesn't meet it, right? Because now we're cutting into the driveway and having more challenges for the neighbors on the north. Now, ideally for us, right, we don't really get involved with negotiations that are supposed to be held between private parties. But in an ideal situation, you would want your neighbors who are affected by it to be supportive of it That's how we get all these comments coming in, because we read those to see what the impact is. And because it seems like your most immediate neighbor is not supportive of it and has some challenges with the driveway and some history of maintaining it, it just makes it harder for us to be positive. So I don't know. I just wanted to share those comments and how I was thinking through that. And I think the character piece is probably what's most applicable to the situation.

Mayor Weather do you want to add something?

I agree with Commissioner Smith in that you know and this is another one of those situations where we have a zoning code that's 50 years old and a property that was built before our current zoning code was put in place and we have been granting variances FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT DON'T MEET THE CURRENT ZONING CODE. SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I'M KIND OF LEANING MORE TOWARDS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER TOO BECAUSE OF THAT.

YOU CAN STILL LEAVE BOTH.

Thank you. So we have a motion. Is that going to be all right, Carrie, or do we need to go back to that? Do we have a second?

Yes, there was.

Okay. So I think we're ready for a roll call unless there are other discussions.

All right. Roll call, please.

So the motion is to deny. So an aye means deny. Go ahead. Sorry, Carrie.

Commissioner Nelson?

Aye.

Commissioner Padilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Aye.

Commissioner Felt?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanneman?

Aye.

Commissioner Day?

Aye.

Commissioner Brennan?

Aye.

Chair Alcoyer?

Aye. Thank you all for coming tonight. Our second public hearing this evening is a variance request for 5620 Woodcrest Drive. And Chris will walk us through the project.

Thank you. The request is variances at 5620 Woodcrest. The location is on the west side of Woodcrest, south of Park Place and backing up to a pond right here. The property consists of 7,967 square feet, contains a one-story Rambler with an attached two-car garage built in 1974. The home is currently non-conforming in building coverage, exceeding the maximum allowable 2,250 square feet of coverage currently by 177 square feet and with a non-conforming 19.9 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of the pond instead of the required 50 feet. So the setback from the pond to the back of the house is 19.9 feet and the overall mass of the house currently exceeds our allowable lot coverage limit. The zoning requirements are a minimum 50-foot setback from the pond and the house is bisected by the 50-foot setback. The home exceeds building coverage, so any addition requires a variance from both pond setback and building coverage. These are photos of the front face of the home when the home was recently purchased. The homeowners, this is what it looked like on the left. And then on the right, the homeowners have been doing quite a bit of work upgrading the exterior of the home. This is an aerial view of the house and there's a deck or there was a deck behind the home. It was a 12 by 12, 168 square foot deck behind the home that has since been removed and was located approximately 14 feet away from the pond. These are photos of the original deck. It needed replacement. The variance ask is the owners requesting a 37.9 foot setback variance for the construction of a porch and deck to allow a 12.1 foot setback from the pond where the 50 foot setback is required. The project also requires a 196 square foot building coverage variance from the maximum allowed limit of 2,250 square feet. The old deck was further away from the pond than where the proposed porch is going to be. And the current house is already over on coverage by 177 square feet. So those are the two variances that you're considering, coverage as well as setback. Both issues, the current house is non-conforming. So this is the proposed improvements. to the property. It is a survey showing the existing as well as the proposed conditions. This is the 14 by 14 proposed porch. And then they have a small access deck in order to get down to grade. The intent of the water body setback ordinance is to maintain an adequate buffer distance between the water body to provide a proper buffer between structures and the water's edge. The homes around the water body were built in conformance with a 25 foot setback required in the mid 1970s. A DNR mandated ordinance change in 1990 was adopted to a minimum 50 foot setback causing I would say most of the properties along, if not all of them, around the pond to be non-conforming because you can see that this is the 50-foot setback that's bisecting the house. It's doubled. Most of the homes, when they were built, they ranged between 25 to 28 feet to the back of the home to where the pond was at the time. So they were built in conformance with the state requirements for setback. uh... obviously now they're all not conforming but even at the time that they were built there wasn't much opportunity for any further expansion towards the pond so here are the building floor plans this is the foundation plan showing the footings for the porch that's being proposed to small access deck and then on the main floor you see the four season porch and then the building elevations, you have the left and right side elevation, and then the elevation that's facing the pond. So the variance criteria, what are the primary issues is the variance in harmony with the general and purpose intent of the ordinance. Staff would say no. The intent of the water body setback, again, is to maintain adequate distance from the water body to provide proper buffer area between structures. The improvement will be getting closer by two feet and it will also be covering more area from a property that's already been over covered or beyond the maximum. Once you go to the Maximum lot coverage. It's if you go beyond that it becomes over building on a lot it is not in the intent or of Establishing a maximum building coverage to allow more building which potentially opens up expectations of neighbors Believing there may be opportunities for similar coverage variances or setback variances because most of those homes on the pond are very similar they're also very close to the pond and Is the request consistent with the comp plan? Yes. The property will remain a single dwelling unit and will continue to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Are there practical difficulties and is the use reasonable? Staff is unable to identify a unique circumstance specific to the property that would not be considered a precedent by other properties in the vicinity to also exceed coverage and allow reduced setbacks from a pond that would require similar variance requests. Were there circumstances created by the landowner that the plight of the landowner is due to the desire to expand the main floor to gain a four-season porch and a small deck on a non-conforming property that is currently considered overbuilt given the amount of building coverage that's On the property currently the new home addition and deck are proposed to be closer to the water body than the existing home Conditions around the pond are so similar for neighboring properties who share some circumstances of proximity and coverage Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood the applicant is proposing? improvements that may motivate similar variance requests building coverage and setback changes may alter the existing character of the neighborhood and Staff recommends motion to deny the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions of the staff report. Property owners Tanya and Scott Beck are present for questions. We did receive a Better Together Edina comment, and I believe you've all seen that. And with that, I will stop and answer any questions you may have.

So would the applicant like to say anything or just be available for questions?

Pardon?

Would you like to make any presentation or just, yeah, please come forward. Either way is fine since you're gonna go one at a time probably. Could make sure to state your name please.

Scott Beck.

And my name's Tanya Beck.

Okay, so who's gonna go first? I'm gonna go first. So we can run the timing. Yeah, exactly.

Okay, thank you. I say hello, committee members. My name's Scott Beck, and I'm here with Tanya to obtain a variance for an addition of a four-season porch and a small deck off the back of our new home. We recently completed an entire interior remodel and are in the final phases of the exterior. We have been a diner residents for almost 22 years and have raised all 3 of our children in our previous home on the southeast side of the diner we sold that home in July 2025 and purchase our new home just 15 blocks north. This is a house we're currently residing in are hoping to make it our home for at least 22 more years and beyond.

So we purchased 5620 in July, as Scott said, and our understanding is that no one has occupied the home for more than 15 years, if not longer. Therefore, the home was not livable at the time of purchase. We needed to replace the roof siding electrical each back into a complete overhaul because there was no kitchen at the time of purchase. There was a deck off the back of the House which you saw which was very decayed unstable and therefore unusable that we tore down as part of the demolition process. Since it had to be taken down, our intent was to use the existing footings and make it a four-season porch so we could provide a more functional year-round living space. And since it's on the pond, we could still maximize the views but be able to use it 10 months out of the year instead of just the four. The first issue that we would be is that we're exceeding the maximum building coverage by 373 square feet. It was already 177 over as Chris said, but we didn't know that as we added no additional foundation when we bought the house. You can see from our property plat that the house as it stands is much closer to the water than any setback rule. And the lot itself, if it's actually weighed with the pond, is actually 15,000 square feet. So a third of that is in the water. So measuring it from the ordinary high water elevation makes us over our coverage maximums.

The second is the DNR's 50-foot water setback. Although the house is situated on a pond, it's actually worth mentioning that it's a man-made drainage easement from Minnehaha Creek. If the house were to comply with the true 50-foot setback on the pond, the back of the house would need to move back into the middle of the living room, like Chris showed, therefore making this lot almost impossible to rebuild to meet any requirements. Our neighbor, who has lived at the pond for 40 years, said that deck has been on the house as long as he's been there. The new proposed porch deck plan does not have any direct impact on the yard or surrounding area anymore than it did previously. It will be elevated on footings that were previously in place and are still there without any living space below. There will be no additional foundation touching or moving in the direction of the pond. In addition, we are not impeding on any neighbors views. We do not any views and we do meet the city's building rules for neighborhoods lot lines. The existing footings are in a berm supported by a retaining wall. The retaining wall was existing prior to our renovation and was simple restocked as we deemed structurally necessary by the engineer.

Are we out of time? Okay, I'm looking at this and I was thinking we had to stop.

Because you're going back and forth.

That's why I looked at him and said, I think we're done. Okay, well, we'll finish up. Basically, we are requesting to repurpose the space that was already there formerly as a deck. please note that the square footage of the former deck is the same as the proposed porch it actually was twelve by sixteen not twelve by twelve so we're proposing fourteen by fourteen because of the way the windows land so the square footage is the same it's just we made it more of a square versus rectangular and then we would be adding the additional hundred and twelve square feet for the deck which again is what we need to access to the backyard as of now we have a door that leads to nowhere. So we can't get to the yard. We do have a dog and that access to the backyard is imperative for her. And it's also important to note that most of the houses have three and four season porches or decks. So we never thought this would be an issue when we purchased it because everybody else had a similar situation. So

We don't believe that by approving this, we are opening the doors to other property owners, like Tani just said, asking for unreasonable requests. We are owners, not builders. We have made the property beautiful for us and the neighborhood. We had an existing deck in the proposed space, so we're asking to modify the space and make it a year-round functional. our new home is unique it's by far the closest to the pond doesn't have any access to the backyard and at 2300 square feet is smaller than most houses around us however it suits it suits the area and it suits us the porch and the deck additions will not alter the essential character of the locality still keeping the home to scale if not smaller than most of the homes in the area We were happy to update a home in a beautiful area in the city. In addition, we did timeless quality updates that will hold their value, but we didn't overbuild for the area. One of the city inspectors even commented that this was one of the nicest remodels he's seen in a long time. In addition to the updates to the home, we have also added many, many new perennials, native plants, as well as five new trees on the property, one of them which is planted in the backyard.

So in conclusion, we are just asking to add less than 4,000, or excuse me, not 4,000, 400 square feet, so keeping the additions to scale of the existing house. I believe this allows for future homeowners to enjoy the space indoor and out while maintaining a livable functional homestead. we are currently empty nesters and many of our friends are looking for similar style homes were not more not all looking to move to a condo so this house is perfect for us future empty nesters families and singles alike. We're hoping that you can see the value that we have add added in updating this home in this neighborhood as we move it to the next chapter of its life and by letting us make these reasonable updates the house ensures its longevity. and maintains its value for our neighbors as well. And we would like to add, as we had in our notes, as I looked at the city's comprehensive plan, there was a part that mentions it likes to maintain Edina's lower square footage housing stock, which is partially one of the reasons why we bought it. We didn't want another 4,000 square foot home. And we also saw that you want to ensure that there's a full range of housing options for all stages of life. And this house, the way that we remodeled it, truly fits every stage of life. So we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you for coming. All right, commissioners, anyone have questions for staff or for the applicants? Claire.

A couple of questions for you, Chris. What is the front yard set back here and do they meet it? Just trying to understand that 50 foot high water line makes most of their lot unbuildable. Do they in any universe have room for expansion in the front of their house that's code compliant?

I think they were within a few inches of the front yard setback. They wouldn't be able to go forward and that would be the closest point that I'm referring to.

In your conversations with the homeowner, is there any reason to believe that when the deck was built there wasn't a permit pulled for it or that it was somehow non-compliant at the time it was built?

The only record I found was that there was a rebuild of a deck, excuse me, in 1990. So prior to 1990, there's no record, but that was a deck rebuilt. So obviously there was something there before, but we don't know.

And that was in the 90s. And when did the high water line change?

In 1990, the DNR mandated that the setback had to be 50 feet. The city can't be, we can be more restrictive, but we can't be less restrictive. So we had to adopt that standard.

Got it. And then just one last quick question. When you do the lot coverage ratios, we don't include the bodies of water?

Correct. That's written in the ordinance.

Yep. Thank you.

Other questions? Paul? Just a clarification that it's currently 177 over, so we're adding, looking at adding the 196 to that 177 for overage. Correct, for a total of 373 square feet. Other questions? Mayor Weather?

Chris, so

I'm following up on Commissioner Hahnemann's questions. So you don't include the entirety of this lot? You've taken off the water for the?

That is how the ordinance reads. It's upland of the ordinary high water elevation. That would be the lot area of that parcel, of the upland. Only the area that is upland from the ordinary high water elevation. Everything that is in the water is not considered in that calculation. And that's written in the ordinance. So every time somebody has a lot like this that goes through the water, all of that area is not included in their lot area for the purposes of calculating lot coverage.

Okay. So that's above the fifty foot high water mark?

It's above the ordinary high water elevation.

Okay, so it's down

It's right where they're showing the setback starting. That's the ordinary high water elevation right along there. So all of this area is not included in the lot area that's used to calculate building and hard surface coverage.

Okay, so the building itself, the residence itself is 177 square feet over that. And then, okay, I understand, thank you.

Anything else? All right, oops, so Quincy.

Yeah, thanks again for the presentation. Is the majority of the additional square feet, so I'm not talking about what's currently non-conforming from a coverage perspective, the 177, but the additional 160 or so square feet, is that mainly access to the backyard? That's where that's coming from, like a walkway, for example?

The 196 square feet is the porch. And then they have a small deck that actually, it's underneath the threshold for counting it as part of the building coverage. It's the area that is right here that there's steps going down, which are also not included in building coverage. But the porch itself, all of it is included in building coverage because it has a roof and walls.

OKAY.

CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT?

YES, YOU MAY.

THE PORCH OR LANDING AREA CAN BE 80 SQUARE FEET OR 50 SQUARE FEET?

FOR THE DECK AREA FOR ACCESS PURPOSES?

THE STEPS YOU DON'T COUNT IN THE OVERRIDGE, RIGHT, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WALK UP AND DOWN, BUT ALSO LIKE A FRONT ENTRY PORCH, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO

Right. Well, it's 50 square feet. 50 square feet. Thank you. The 80 square feet is you could overlap the setback.

Okay. Thank you.

All right, if there are no other questions, 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 28667463092. followed by the password 5454. Then press star three on your telephone keypad to indicate you'd like to speak. To provide comment in person, just follow the instructions we've had all evening. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to provide public comment? I don't think so. So Lauren, is there anyone on the phone?

There is nobody on the phone to speak, but I recommend we wait 30 seconds due to the delay in the broadcast. We'll see if anyone joins.

All right, thank you.

It has been 30 seconds, and nobody has joined the call, so we are safe to proceed.

Great, thank you, Lauren. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Aye.

Commissioner Padilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Aye.

Commissioner Felt?

Aye.

Commissioner Henneman? Aye. Commissioner Day?

Aye.

Commissioner Brennan?

Aye.

Chair Alkire? Aye.

Hi. So now's the time for us to discuss. If you need to ask another question, that's also fair game. But anyone like to get us started?

I hate these high water lines.

Yes. Do you have more to say on that?

Yeah. I think I'm struggling here because you buy a home, it has existing footings for this deck. You make, it's a modest home. You can't improve it in any direction, really. So I don't know. I think it's reasonable to think that you could reuse those footings. I think it's a modest addition. It was a deck. They're putting a roof on it to make it a screen porch. I want to support single level living and reusing of existing. I think I'm struggling for the right reasons because it feels like a great use of the space. It feels like it's in keeping with the neighborhood. It feels like they're making something livable and wonderful and contributing that has been vacant for 15 years. And I feel like there's a lot of constraints on this property that have occurred since the property was built. I struggle with the expectation that a homeowner could know something that nuanced at their time that they're thinking about purchasing a home and dreaming what that home could look like.

Mayor Weather.

I APPRECIATE YOUR STRUGGLE. I AM STRUGGLING WITH THIS TOO BECAUSE THERE ARE PROPERTY LINES THAT KIND OF EXTEND INTO THE WATERWAY AND I ASSUMED THAT THE HOUSING SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS BASED ON THE PROPERTY LINES AND NOT THE REDUCE. SO THAT WAS A NUANCE THAT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND BEFORE. So that part of the, and I am sensitive to people wanting to, to the people who, how do I say this right? In my neighborhood, I'm very sensitive to people who want to overbuild on their properties, but that their properties include their entire property line. So this was a different nuance to me. the ordinary high watermark kind of, this was brought together in 1990. That's the one I'm struggling, I'm a little bit more with. So I would love to hear other commissioners talk about this.

Other comments? Bunny?

I certainly appreciate the situation and the fact that all that these homeowners have done with the property to make it transformational and a lovely place to live in the future. And I don't know It doesn't look like there are a lot of options in terms of what can be done. But where I feel like I have to draw the line is the precedential value, the precedent that this sets. If the DNR doubled the square footage, and that's unfortunate, and it goes through the middle of their house right now. And I just, I can't help but thinking the way this pond is configured and so many others in the city are no different that... It's inviting, as Chris mentioned, that this would be inviting other neighbors and other residents to do the same thing. And I don't understand how we approve this variance and still conform to the law when all the other neighbors come down the road. Same request.

Paul? Yes, thank you for being here tonight and your testimony and your comments on your plight here. I have a similar difficulty with this. Obviously, you're looking to improve the property, but with it already being over by nearly a couple hundred feet and adding a couple hundred more to that, it's going to be very difficult for us. I almost feel like we have our hands tied. I don't know that we can really approve this. Again, but it doesn't feel right with the regulations we have in place and how we have it set up. So that's just what I'm struggling with. And I guess with the lot coverage is probably the single biggest thing for me. The fact that the house is built where it was. It was 25 feet from the ordinary high water apparently. And Now that requirement's changed, so obviously if you tear it down and try to build something else there, you have to have a very small house there.

You couldn't. You couldn't do anything. You couldn't because of the front yard setback. Right. I don't know if anyone remembers, there was a house that wanted to build on their existing foundation, but I forget the nuance of it. They were taking off basically what was there and wanted to use the existing basement foundation. And we went back and forth a lot because Is it reasonable as a homeowner to think that the foundational structure of the house that existed and was permitted before you purchased it can continue to be reused? And I think maybe that's the nuance that I'm hanging onto in a different way because there were footings there and they're using those footings. And when those footings were put there, they were in compliance.

Well, it seems like they weren't in compliance if it was 25 feet when the, was flat or whatever now it's 50 feet from the ordinary high water and now I mean it's going down to 12 or 14 feet or whatever it is from the water now so seems like it's yeah I really I guess would we be having the same conversation if they're looking to redo the deck and I know I'm not supposed to recreate or create new projects here and or just to look at what we're given but is that um... allowable or not i mean since we don't have any permit records is that a would be allowed to do a a deck because i understand this is different this is enclosed space and that's it does the deck also count toward and i think it does to count toward the hundred ninety six square feet

If they did a 14 by 14 So prior to 1990 We don't have any record of the deck. Although in 1990 they did come in and get a permit to rebuild it So the city does have a record of that so the there was a permit issued to allow that deck through a permitting process and So I guess we would probably look at it as existing non-conforming, and you'd be allowed to repair, maintain, replace whatever existing non-conforming that's been there. You couldn't change the configuration of it, the dimensions, any of that. Couldn't make it larger or wider or whatever. But you could replicate it.

Okay.

Thank you.

No, but the addition, but any other question in hand is the addition of the right four season porch, not the other. I understand. Right. So we're saying that can't comply with the current zoning current ordinance because we want to build the four season porch. don't know how much how much more boils down to than that to be honest like extending beyond even greater beyond the block coverage area and the setback is because you want a four-season porch i i get the sentiment that it's hard for our residents to understand these things when they purchase their home our codes are not easy to decipher um but not understanding the code when you buy your house isn't sufficient reason for us to say well We'll give you a pass this time. The project you mentioned with the foundation of the house, they had that existing house and they were tearing it down to a certain level and rebuilding, which was considered a new build, right? But that was a house, not a four-season port. So the standard there and what we're overcoming in our discussion is very different, how you're using this. So I get struggling with the sentiment that it's a reasonable thing. I don't think it's unreasonable by any measure. But I don't struggle as much with what we are tasked with doing is evaluating this against a certain set of criteria for a variance request. I can't find sufficient findings of fact to justify to say that this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. That there is something unique that says they can't conform to the existing lot coverage area and setbacks. desire to build a certain area. And again, it's not unreasonable, but that desire isn't sufficient. If the litmus test for this commission was, is it reasonable that we think it's okay, then this would be a very different body. We'd have very different discussions up here on the dais. But the variance requirements that we're evaluating against are pretty straightforward. And I agree very much with staff that this would set bad precedent. Because if I were a resident that was denied a similar variance request, I would come back and sue this planning commission because there isn't a legal finding basis here. So I'm not struggling with it as much from a procedural standpoint. And that's not to say that I'm cold and heartless and don't want to allow you to build on your property in a reasonable manner, but I can't find a legal reason for us to ignore what's on our books.

Joe? Yeah, I kind of concur with a lot of comments said previously. Yes, it's reasonable, but that's not the litmus test. We appreciate homeowners investing in their home, improving things. One line in Chris's report kind of stood out. Staff could not identify unique circumstances that could not be replicated on other properties. So to what Bonnie was saying, there would be a precedent. And, yeah, it's this body's job to enforce the code, I guess. And it sounds like it isn't even just an Edina thing. It's coming from the DNR, which kind of adds some weight to it, in my head at least. So, yeah.

Joe, could you expound, because I'm not sure I was tracking, you couldn't find anything unique about this property?

Yeah, it was from staff's report. I read it and then I wrote it myself, so it might not be word for word, but staff could not identify unique circumstances that cannot be replicated on other properties in the sense that someone else has a deck that is closer to the body of water than it should be, and they say, great, Planning Commission has granted a variance elsewhere, and now I can build an addition. CLOSER TO THE BODY OF WATER THAN THE SETBACK ALLOWS.

I CAN TURN A DECK INTO AN ADDITION.

SO, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GLOSS OVER THAT THIS FEELS LIKE A REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK TO A HOUSE THAT YOU'RE RECENTLY PURCHASED AND ARE RENOVATING AND POURING A LOT OF TLC INTO. THAT'S NOT LOST ON ME. BUT IT'S HARD TO JUSTIFY.

Sure. Just keep it brief, please. Absolutely.

The only thing I wanted to point out was from the hardship perspective is that we cannot access the backyard from the home. So when I'm talking about the other homes on the pond that could potentially come and say that it's not fair, I believe we're the only house that doesn't have a walkout basement. So there is no way for us to get from the house to the backyard. So when we looked at the deck, that was the vehicle to exit the home to get into the backyard. So the whole thing was instead of the deck, it was the porch with the small deck. So just as a hardship perspective, that's the only thing I would add.

All right, thank you very much. Mayor Weillier?

And that's one of the questions I asked because the steps or a 50 square foot porch would not be counted. So you can have a small landing, a five foot by 10 foot landing and steps down to grade. That's allowed under our zoning code.

Anyone else? Quincy.

Thank you for the presentation and upgrading the home. Just a couple of thoughts. I think you guys are definitely calling out some of the key points here. I'd just love to get some comments from the University Commission on this one. So totally see that for any homes built around the lake, uh we really you know they really can't be torn down anymore right so it's all a matter of improving it right um and i think with this one is we certainly appreciate improving it and i think we have to do it to keep it current uh once we don't push and go beyond the the footings that exist today, right? And I don't think you guys are doing that, right? And so I'm okay with, you know, having a home that met the code at some point, doesn't meet the code now, but anytime we want to improve it, we just don't want to go beyond what exists. So that's the first one. The second point is around the 196 square feet. So it's already non-conforming at 177 square feet over. And because it's a non-conforming home, it was built there already. The code just made it non-conforming. It's important, but I see that as applying more so to new bills around water bodies, right? So I'm okay with the 177 square feet non-conforming. The question is this 196. It becomes non-conforming if you put a roof over the deck. and turned it into a porch. That's when it becomes an issue. But if you just replicate the deck with the same square footage, it's a non-issue, if I'm understanding this correctly. Well, not a non-issue, just a non-conforming non-issue. So it's the creation of the deck. Now, this deck is on footings, and it's above the water. A question for staff would be, when the state decided to have this 50-foot setback from the naturally occurring water line of a water body, was it to mitigate against runoff, flooding, and was there any kind of issue when it comes to flood insurance for the city? Any impacts that would impact the city from that perspective?

As far as I know, back in 1990, the standards was to protect the shoreland. So Lake Cornelia, Indian Head, Arrowhead, and Mirror Lakes have deeper now required setbacks of 75 feet because they are classified differently than other water bodies. So it doesn't have anything really necessarily to do with runoff. It's all about protection of the shoreline, yeah.

Okay. So because this is above ground, right, it doesn't impact the shoreline necessarily, but still our code says that once you put a roof on it, it's now more square footage than is necessary or than is required by the code. The question for this group that I want to pose is, If other residents see this, what is the precedent that we'll set? What is the worst case scenario that would occur if we would agree and grant this variance, especially when it comes to other residents that live on this lake?

I think that's a great way of phrasing the question Commissioner Smith because right if they were here and they had a deck on these footings and the request was simply to screen it in that would that would be a different conversation and I don't think we would be setting any precedents then I think there's some of this is because there's nothing there now and we're allowing something that is then even pushing further over the building coverage limits. And it's really only doing that because we're enclosing it. So I agree. And the other thing I was thinking about is if they don't build a deck here and in 20 years the next homeowner wants to do something, have they sort of waived that ability to have what was there, what was conforming and approved, you know, whatever in the 70s, whenever the deck was built. I think that's a pretty unique set of facts that I don't feel like we're setting a precedent that's just carte blanche for everybody adjacent to a water body. So that's how I'm looking at it.

Anything else, Quincy?

And I think that makes sense. And so, you know, if we stick to the code as it is right now, all that would be allowed here potentially is just a deck. And you could access the backyard with a stairwell or a staircase from your deck down to the backyard. Having a porch is nicer, but based on the code today, it would make it even more nonconforming than it is currently, even though you're just putting a roof over it, right? I do appreciate adding the trees and new plants and these kind of things. I think that absolutely helps and that helps hold and maintain the water line too. It holds the soil together. So I'm kind of leaning not approving. And I'm hoping that I get any feedback that would challenge that. But it doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of adding four walls doesn't make it a worse situation.

Guess anyone if no one else has I'm not gonna Go ahead and restate all of the things that I agree with that Everybody has already said the only new thing I would want to add to it is that I do recall in recent memory Us denying an application for someone who wanted to do some improvements closer to her water body than was allowed Yeah

at some point somebody here in the city of Edina and then reaffirmed again in the 90s that a deck at this location was cool. And so I guess the way I've been looking at it is do I really object to enclosing that deck?

No, I totally can empathize with that perspective. And I could see myself thinking the same thing. But for me personally, there are a lot of other things on the other side of the ledger too. For the applicants before we vote, I just want to thank you for coming in tonight. The pictures we saw of what you've already done to your property are amazing. It looks fantastic. So thanks for all you're doing for that. If there's no other discussion or comments, I think we could entertain a motion.

It's a broad question before we vote, I guess. I'm sorry for kind of beating this with my wife tells me I beat things with a dead horse or whatever she says. So that's the question here. So because it's on footings and it's above grade, But is that different? If it was on ground level, I could see that being a problem. But because it's on footing, then it's above grade. I mean, it's above ground. Do you guys have any change of opinion on that?

I think the only thing that would change my opinion is if the project for us was a deck replacing a deck. If this is an enclosed space replacing a deck.

A lot of nuance. So does anyone have a motion?

I'll make a motion to deny the variance request for 5620. I'll second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Aye.

Commissioner Padilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Nay.

Commissioner Felt?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanneman? Nay. Commissioner Day?

Aye.

Commissioner Brennan?

Aye.

Chair Alkire?

Aye. So the motion carries. Thank you for coming tonight. Next item on our agenda is chair and member comments. I don't have any comments at the moment. Any members have comments? No. Staff, Kerry?

No comments from me either.

It's my understanding that the Quick Trip has been nixed completely. The Dyna Quick Trip has been nixed. That's taken off the table.

Correct.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY BOUGHT TWO LOCATIONS IN BLOOMINGTON.

YEAH. MEETINGS ADJOURNED. THANKS EVERYBODY.