Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ing public input through voicemail and edina.org. Thank you. It is important you know that all comments that have been 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 is one public hearing. Individuals who want to provide testimony remotely for the public hearing can call 3125358110 and enter access code 2631 5271706. Password is 5454. Press star three on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A staff member will unmute you when it is your turn. Please state your full name and address, including unit number before speaking. Everyone is allowed up to three minutes to speak. So before I move on, I just can't help but notice that the access code that I just read is different than what was on the screen on the screen. So, uh, we'll we'll we'll read that out again before the public hearing. Remember, you do not do not need to call in or comment live tonight if you have already provided feedback. Also, do not repeat information already presented. Provide testimony if you have new comments or information to bring forward. So, now the first item is to have the call to order. The meeting is in order and we need a roll call, please. Commissioner Felt

here. Commissioner Bournestein here. Commissioner Day here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Padilla here. Chair Elk here. Uh item three is approval of the meeting agenda. Do I have a motion for that? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Now, we'd like to approve the meeting minutes from the September 10th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion for that? Motion to approve the meeting minutes from September 20. No, September 10th. Sorry. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Now we move on to community comment. We will now 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 3 minutes. After giving your full name and address, including unit number, the green light at your podium will turn on. When you have 30 seconds remaining, the yellow light will turn on. When you're out of time, the red light will turn on. Do we have anyone in the room who'd like to give community comment tonight? Seeing no one, uh, that moves us on to our public hearing. Tonight we have one public hearing, uh, variance request for 8 Woodland Road. Uh, we will have a presentation by assistant planner Aer, and then perhaps presentation by the applicant if they wish, and then we'll take questions after that. So, take it away, planner Aer. chair, members of the planning commission, the request is for a 7 foot front yard setback variance from the culde-sac that is at number eight woodland road. Subject property is at the end of the culde-sac on the west side. It's number eight Woodland Road. The existing structure is a two-story home built in 1941 with an attached structurally failing garage that is connected from the house by an elongated breezeway. You can see the connection here. So, it is part of the principal structure. It's not a detached accessory garage. It's

part of the house. The current home does not um meet the required front yard setback standard which is the average front yard setback of the adjacent homes. Um and that would be in the garage area. This slide shows you um some photographs taken um from the culde-sac and then as well as an aerial photograph. You can see the relationship of the existing home with the homes on either side. The house that is directly affected by the request is quite a bit further away uh from that garage than um the adjacent home that's on the other side. This is a slide of the existing condition survey. Uh and this is really the area in question right here. It's the um souththeast corner of the garage. the location of the culde-sac uh is too close based upon the average front yard setbacks of the homes on either side. This then is what they would like to accomplish which is a removal of that um elongated breezeway with a replacement of an addition that would be it would include basement, main floor and second floor. All of that conforms to the ordinance requirements. They would be increasing the size of the garage, but they would not um be putting it any closer to the front yard. So, it's matching that existing non-conforming setback. It will maintain the required 10-ft sideyard setback. This gives you a little better idea of what the requirement is for setback. The red arc here is the required setback. And then the one that's closer to the street here is where the existing corner of the garage currently is and where it

will maintain um and be replaced at. There will be a second floor addition above the garage. Currently there is um it's just a one-story garage and that will connect obviously with the rest of the dwelling addition into the second floor of the house. The next slides are of the existing um floor plans as well as the proposed floor plans. This is the basement of the existing house. All of this is unexavated. Um the breezeway, garage, main floor. There will be some remodeling in this area to connect with the new addition. And then the second floor, all of the second floor currently exists over that first floor. And then this is what they're proposing. They'd be replacing that uh elongated breezeway with a um game room in the basement unexavated where the garage is. The main floor would consist of a mudroom, office, and then uh a larger garage at the same setback. And then the second floor would connect with this new addition that would create additional bedroom and bathroom areas. So, regarding compliance, the addition meets all of the ordinance requirements, well within the building coverage, surface coverage. Um, it will not maintain the required front yard setback, but again, it meets the existing non-conforming setback. they just wish to replicate that and the the second floor will actually be a little further away. Um just at that corner is where the encroachment occurs. So this then are some existing photographs of the home in comparison with what they are proposing.

And then this gives you a little bit of an idea of what the relationship is between the neighboring properties and the home with the new addition. So, the most affected neighbor is the one that is furthest away from the adjacent properties and um has their garage door facing the sidewall um of the proposed improvements. You can see that that second floor um that they're proposing above the garage will be a little bit further away. They'll have a dormer coming out over that first garage stall. And it's really just in this area where there's a nonconformity. So here are the proposed elevations of the front and then um the side as you go to the back of the house. All of this is conforming. So the recommended action staff recommends approval of a 7 foot frontyard setback variance for property at number eight Woodland Road. Approval is subject to the findings listed in the staff report and following that the practical difficulty is caused by the required average front yard setback requirement that is farther from the front lot line than the existing current structure setback. There are circumstances that are unique to the subject property. Those unique circumstances include an existing non-conforming garage having uh a location by a curved street frontage and the average setback around the culde-sac based on those neighboring properties that are affecting the buildable area of the lot and the existing original home and garage location. this. There isn't space available on the lot for a conforming desired expansion of that existing garage without the benefit of a variance and the proposal would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage is of similar design to the house with matching materials used and the addition

will match the existing home set back from the culde-sac. Approve any approval should be subject to the following conditions. Subject to the survey and plans date stamped August 26, 2025. compliance with the engineer environmental engineers building permit requirements and compliance with the tree ordinance. Um there were in your packet uh two letters, one uh from each property owner at number seven and number nine Woodland Road. Those are the ones that were most affected by it and they are in full support of the request. Um and we have the property owners Heather and Travis Wells present as well as their builders. And with that, I will stop and answer questions that you may have.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation or just be ready for questions? Okay, so let's uh go to questions. Anyone have questions? I guess a question is um there any effort made to design um an addition that would comply and was that not possible to do that think that might be more appropriate for the applicant. Although I can appreciate that it is difficult to try to come up with a conforming solution unless they um if you look

Oh, thanks. How feasible would would that have been or not been under the circumstances?

So, it is a large lot. Um, however, when you look at what the required front yard setback is and the sideyard setback, that really hinders any opportunity for a garage that would be conforming. Um, I I don't know if there's any desire to put a detached garage in the back of the yard. Um, these are all choices that a property owner can make. Um, I can appreciate that when you look at a property and it has a a setback that you would assume that you could match or at least um rebuild in. um that in this situation that they would need a variance because of the how the other homes on either side are um what their front yard setbacks are. Um it makes it difficult for them to add on to what's already there that's been there since I I was looking at the building permit um information on the property. there isn't any evidence that there was um a change or um that the existing garage had been constructed in any different fashion. So that is should I believe be original to the house including the very elongated um breezeway.

Okay. Yeah. I mean looking at it, it kind of looks like if looks to me like if they tried to build a garage even of the same size of of the one that they're tearing down. It would still encroach a little bit into the still need a variance. Yes. Yeah. because it looks like they're moving it back less than they spanning a little bit backward back to the back to the line, but they're um they would still be in needing front. Correct.

It's not even clear to me that they could build I mean that's kind of what I'm getting at. could could even build like a functional garage in that similar space without needing a front yard set back even if it is bumped back a little bit. Well, the ordinance doesn't require a twocar garage. So, I mean, I guess there is opportunity to reduce the amount of uh garage area that you have currently to a onecar. So, yeah, I mean it there is a possibility. I don't think it's practical solution.

Other questions. Hi. Was there a question there? Hello, Mr. Nordall. What's the question?

Just asking I, you know, you're asking a little bit of the history of the design and um for one, I appreciate that they're reused in the driveway. I mean, maybe you're, you know, so there's less landscaping, but um I've talked with Mr. Nordall before. We have no financial arrangement on this. I wish you'd adopt me as a lot of other kids in the business, but um you have certain feelings about single family residences and uh and I like it. It talk about

I just think it it they tried their best to fit the lot to fit the culde-sac and I just don't think there are a lot of options. You know, I still keep a backyard to the house. So, I just And most of the house is being kept. Yeah. In this, we're trying to keep the old historic houses instead of tearing them down. Yeah. I appreciate the work you do. Thank you.

We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Then we'll now hear from residents who would like to provide testimony. Individuals who want to provide provide input remotely for the public hearing can call 312-5358110 and enter access code 28689867064. The password is 5454. Press star three on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. Callers, if you're watching the meeting on any other device or television, please mute that before speaking so there's not an echo or feedback. When you hear the prompt on your telephone that you've been unmuted, please begin speaking by giving your name and address, including unit number for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. Before we go there, is anyone in the room here to provide testimony on this project? Not seeing any. So, we should wait 30 seconds or what's the

Yes, there is a slight delay in the broadcast. So, I do recommend we made wait about one minute here. Okay, we'll wait for your queue then.

Okay. We still do not have any callers, so it's safe to proceed.

Great. Thank you. So, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? So, motion carries. So, we'll bring it back to the commission. Any comments or thoughts that anyone would like to share? Commissioner Pelt.

Thank you. I'll start. Um, you know, so it occurs to me, I think you've brought this up in previous meetings, Commissioner Alire. Um over the past three years, two and a half years, um we've always approved sideyard setback variances and front yard setback variances. I can't remember one that um we haven't. Um and also this building is well within the building coverage. It's only half of the lot coverage. And um I appreciate that it's reusing the existing driveway, which I said earlier. Um and the design even cuts back at the upper level to soften the the corner um where it does kind of encroach over the sideyard set back. I think the addition is sensitive and well done and um I don't see any reason not to approve it.

Thank you. Anyone else

on the line? Um I'm in favor of approving this one as well, but for different reasons. Um don't just on the sideyard piece. I just with garages I I actually think that if I don't want to set a precedent that if you on a garage your garage we're always going to grant a variance with respect to a sideyard setback because you this doesn't really affect you guys because that's not what you're asking for. But just to your point, Mayweather, I mean, think you could build a large garage right up onto the line. Sometimes the sideyard setbacks are five feet. I wouldn't be supportive of that. That a variance just to allow someone tear down a garage, build a new garage up to the line. That that that wouldn't be something I would view as So I don't know if we've done that previously. building code requires people to be able to get back of their yards with equipment such as lawnmowers and things like that. And that's not even close to this. Every homeowner is required by our planning code be able to kind of get their own yardeping equipment to their backyard. Right.

And that's not an issue with this. I know. I'm just saying I don't You mentioned that we've always approved sideyard variances. Well, that's not the sideyard variances that have been brought to us. Yeah. They've all been reasonable. And I'm just thinking about a garage and if someone was going to tear down a garage, rebuild

to expand it into the sideyard setback to the line, I personally wouldn't. It's making a record. Like I wouldn't support that. I don't think that that would meet necessarily the criteria for variance. This is different because it's about a front yard setback. Um also staff mentioned that the practical difficulty may be that um the practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance is that the ordinance prohibits the structure is it like I and I've never just personally never thought that the practical difficulty can be that the ordinance requires something different like that just doesn't make sense to me that that can be a practical difficulty. that's why the variance request is being made. Um, if that were true, there would be practical difficulty met in every single instance of variance was requested because the practical difficulty is that whatever is being proposed doesn't comply with the law. So, because that's one of the findings that's suggested, I don't agree with that finding. I do think that the practical difficulty has to do with what I was talking about that you are you all are attempting to build a garage. um that you wouldn't be able to build even in this you wouldn't even build the same size garage that you currently have in substantially the same place without coming back to us and asking for a front yard setback variance and that's I think the practical difficulty in my mind here. So that's the slight modification I might make just for myself um in finding that the standards met but but I'm in favor for those reasons. Thank you, Commissioner Day.

Uh, not really much to add. Good discussion. I'm believe that the or I agree with the staff report that this meets the requirements necessary to grant a variance and therefore would would uh support approval. Thank you, Commissioner Swift.

Thank you. I would be in support of this. Um I know this is one of the the uh cases we see often where um the you know the formula that we have today in our code. The whole goal of the front yard setback is to maintain sight lines right you drive down the street you don't want to see houses jutting out and sticking you know going back and forth on the street and that's for most straight streets. So you we we built a formula where we look at the average of the adjacent properties and then we kind of calculate what that's going to be and then we set that for everyone, right? It it has a a a real value there because it really improves the look and feel of the streets that we have. That formula breaks down a little bit when we get involved with culde-sacs and curves. And so it's a little bit more tricky because as there's not uh any more of a sight line per se. It's it's kind of when you go into that into that center of the of that curve and you look around, how does it look, right? So, it's a little bit different. And so, that's something that we uh will have to take a look at hopefully when we do our code update uh because we do get cases like this. And in in most of these types of cases, we we tend to approve it if it's reasonable, if it meets the criteria because more than likely um the curved uh culdeac type scenarios doesn't fit well with our current formula. So that being said, there's a couple things that I really appreciate with this. um you know, you're not necessarily uh you know, you're kind of grandfathering in essentially uh what your garage footprint is. You're just expanding it to the back a little bit more. Um and I think that makes sense to do. When we look at the uh side and the rear um lot line setbacks, I could I could tell based on the drawing that you

kind of cut that in a little bit so that you don't cross over that line at the side of your house. So that you know, we certainly appreciate that. Um also for a house of this size and location, um saying that you have to squeeze down to one car to make it work also wouldn't be super practical from my point of view. And so having a twocar garage makes sense. And you know, I have a car. It's a little bit bigger than I think my garage and so I have to squeeze it in. You know, we've built garages in such a way for cars of a certain size and vehicles have just gotten larger, right? And we have to find practical ways of fitting them in. So I could um see that here as well. Um, so I think for, you know, for those reasons and and I really appreciate Commissioner Bory's question where we had to look at that uh map again, right? Because you could see all the red lines which is where could I move this garage if I had to and and it's and it doesn't really make sense. It could fit anywhere really uh on this property with street access, etc. to get safely in and out. And so you're doing the best that you can with the space that you have in the front and you're not really pushing forward anymore. You're just maintaining the same location and just expanding it backwards. And so I think, you know, as a homeowner, you've you've shown, I think, to try to fit as much of what you're trying to build within the con the constraints that you had. And so from my perspective, I think um you've done what you need to to kind of make this work. And so I'm I'm in support of this. Thank you, Commissioner Pidia.

I'm fully supportive.

Thank you. Uh I support it, too. I think um the only thing I would add to the conversation is I think it would to build on what uh Commissioner Feld said. I think this commission has been very comfortable with sideyard setbacks and front yard setbacks that I can recall in cases of existing non-conforming especially. So, not as a rule favoring sideyard setback variances or front yard setback variances, but when there's a existing non-conforming, I think the rationale is that everybody around has gotten used to that and it's not protecting anybody from anything they weren't already experiencing. So, I uh I support this project as well. I think we're probably ready for a motion. I'll motion to approve the variance as submitted uh based on the findings in the staff report subject to the plan survey and other attachments date stamped August 26 2025.

Can I ask a clarifying question about that? Sure. So I don't agree with finding number one. Just don't think it makes I don't think the practical difficulty can be this doesn't make sense to me. If it makes sense to the rest that's fine but Does that mean I have to vote against the motion? I mean, I'm in support of the variance. I don't I just don't I am a little bit sensitive to establishing that as a logical basis for granting finding that factor is met.

Yeah. Um, Director Teague, you can clarify if necessary, but I think having expressed that opinion and it'll be recorded is enough or is there some other way that this should be handled? Uh, you could ask for a friendly amendment to the motion to eliminate that finding if the rest of the commission agrees.

I How about How about this? Again, not trying to belabor it, but could Ryan, could we amend your motion to find to to approve based on the staff report the finding, how would I phrase it? So while you think about that kind of just want to create an alternative like like that factor could be met for one or or the other reason. I just want to say that I don't maybe necessarily interpret it quite the same way that you do the staff finding

right and that the way that it's worded the practical difficulties are caused by the existing location of the home which is often a reason that we say that we give as a practical difficulty that the home is is you know its existing footprint no longer conforms to the ordinance right so I'd imagine that this house was built before this called the sack ordinance came into being if it's phrased that way sorry if it's actually phrased that in writing in the report that's a little bit different than we were discussing. So with that clarification um then you can vote. You're okay with the original motion? I'm okay with the original motion. Thanks. So I think we're still looking for a second. Second. All in favor? I I

I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Thank you very much for coming tonight. All right, we're going to move on to the work plan for 2026 and 2027. Last time, um I feel like we've discussed one and two and three. Not to say we can't discuss them more if we choose tonight, but I feel like uh everybody's pretty comfortable with those. And we have a new one that uh was on the uh draft last meeting, but unfortunately commissioner was not Smith was not here to talk about it. So could you just give us a paragraph on what you're what you're proposing?

Absolutely. Um, I'll talk about the uh food truck item and then if we can go back to the uh the uh comprehensive plan update. Uh I think myself and commissioner felt would like to co-chair that one so we we could come back to it. Um but the last item there, number four, um really came from um if you if you guys could recall, we've we've had like a lot of conversations about food trucks and you know, West Edina where there isn't a whole lot of um you know, food establishments. Folks have to drive eastward to get to all the food places. Um and so there's an opportunity for us to you know consider food trucks um to be a way to generate and create um you know activity within an area right where there's no restaurant. So that's one idea. Also um from what we learned uh a food truck generally would have to be associated with some kind of activity or event. I think um for them to show up like my kids have all these soccer games and these kind of things is like a food truck that the schools kind of um work with to to bring close by. Um and so if food if food trucks you know uh in the future potentially right could disassociate from the event that could also be possible. And then finally in the ordinance today I think um it's the way how it's set up roughly from my knowledge here is that it has to be about 500 ft away from a restaurant and so that kind of prohibits a lot of

spaces where food trucks could go. So what this request is looking at is just to study it. It's not proposing any kind of um ordinance. It's just to understand what this possibility would would look like. And so um I think this would be good for us to learn, right? Um other cities leverage food trucks a little bit differently. We could try to study that and see how we could um leverage the food truck or mobile vending, you know, to help bring some activity uh within the city in different locations um as an option, right? And what's the what's the what's the challenges there? What's the options there? and and and once we kind of have that research done, we can bring it back to the commission and then hopefully make a decision on if we want to take it further into some kind of ordinance amendment or something like that. But the initial um scope of it is really just to study that to see if there's some legs and some feasibility of having um you know food trucks um within the city, how they operate, if it makes sense, would it cannibalize restaurants um and see what that looks like. So that's really what this one is is. Okay. Anyone have any questions?

Are we asking for city resources, i.e. um a consultant for this initiative? I don't think so. I hope not. I think this is something we could uh try to tackle. Um I'm not sure exactly on uh what the plan would be. Um you know, how we lay out you know the investigation, the research, who we would contact. Uh but myself and I think um Commissioner Padilla, we were just chatting and we think we could partner up on this one and come up with some good ideas, but I don't think we would need uh consulting resources to to do this analysis.

I would agree and I'm happy to co-chair or be his wing person. Yeah, I I think it's reasonable as a self-driven, you know, PC driven initiative rather than asking for city resources just because of the considerable amount of work we have on the rest of the work plan and what we need to balance there. That's all, right? This is limited scope study kind of let's all learn more about it, right?

We'll do the work and we'll tell you, okay, few chaty chat GPT prompts later and we got it we got it figured out. All right. So would it be correct to have uh owner as uh Quincy and contributors Bonnie and Merryweather? Are you interested in this too? I think did you say the Merry was interested also? I think on a different item, but I think for this one would be myself and Commissioner. Yeah. And uh staff can support the expected resource requirement. Yes. Yes. staff can support this as well. Just just to clarify,

food trucks are allowed. If it's part of an event at an office or something like that, you can have a food truck in that scenario. And that 500 foot separation from a restaurant only. Um it it's a regulation for a tap room. A tap room can have a food truck if it's at least 500 ft away from a restaurant. So that's where that separation comes in just for food trucks and that's it. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion on the work plan?

There a motion? Yes. Yeah. Just uh um to add that um the comprehensive plan update uh item, I know that's going to be a big one coming up next couple years. I'm not sure um if staff knows when we'll start looking at that the timing. Um just what are your thoughts on that, Director Teague?

Yes, we would like to get started toward the end of 2026. We set out the scope um figure out how we want to tackle it and then the majority of it will be 2027 and 2028 with the goal of finishing that's the deadline by mech council by December 31st of 2028 but we would start toward the end of next year. Um traditionally the planning commission chair has been the lead. You don't have to do it that way. Um and then all commissioners contribute. you know, we'll want to talk about do we want to update some small area plans and there be a chair um possibly co-chairs with those types of efforts. I we would talk about all of that the end of next year.

Thank you.

Yes. Motion. Yes, I think so. Unless there's any more discussion, but I guess should mention since uh it was brought up today, this is the only item we have on the agenda for October 15th. So, we can vote on it tonight if we wish. So, if there's a motion, I will motion to approve the 2026 2027 plan commission work plan. Second. All in favor? I I

Any opposed? Motion carries. Chair and member comments. Anyone have any comments? I don't have any tonight. No staff comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your go.

Yeah, I just have a comment. Um, I know for a lot of residents in the city, um, the construction work that's happening on Highway 100, um, has been disruptive. Um, and I had a conversation with city engineer, um, Chad Milner a few weeks ago and it was just great conversation. you know, he's doing a great job um managing that project, working through the challenges, and I would just suggest that residents, you know, uh pay attention to the bi-weekly reports that come out. He really covers a lot in terms of um what the next steps are, what to expect, and the challenges and the work that he's doing and the timing. I know with the school year kick kicking off with all the buses running around um getting to school, it's just been a little bit tough uh for residents. So, um I I just wanted to to give some uh props to uh Chad Milner for for managing the project and keeping the city updated. It's going to be a little bit uh congested for the hour, but I think it's going to be really beautiful when it's done.

Yes, Commissioner Phelp, I'm just going to ask one question of staff while they're here and we're on TV. Has there been any update on the letter of agreement between the energy company and the railroad? Oh yes, that has been um solved and settled. So construction will begin. Thank you. If there are no other comments, we can move on to staff. Director T.

Yeah, just a quick update from uh the last city council meeting. There was actually no actions taken, but a number of public hearings that Warren subdivision that we talked about at the last meeting. Public hearing was held for that. The bario, the second story, uh, on the restaurant, and then the flood plane and storm water ordinance. Those were public hearings held at city council at their last meeting. Decisions will be October 7th. And with the approval of the work plan, we will go ahead and cancel our October 15th meeting with no agenda items. We do have items for the 29th, so we can plan on that one for sure. That's it for me. Thank you. One other agenda item.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Carries. Good night.