Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves variance for deeper front porch at 82 Woodland Circle
Summary
The Edina Planning Commission unanimously approved a 13.55-foot front-yard setback variance for 82 Woodland Circle to allow a deeper covered porch, with staff saying the addition is modest, addresses safety and weather protection, and fits the neighborhood's character.
Chris Acker, a city planner, presented a variance request on June 24 for 82 Woodland Circle, a 1952 rambler, asking the commission to allow a porch overhang that would encroach to 30.1 feet from the front property line instead of meeting the neighborhood average setback of 43.6 feet. "The request is actually for a 13.55 ft front yard setback variance," Acker said, and he told commissioners the homeowners cited slipped-step hazards from exposed walkways and weathering on the front door as practical reasons for a larger covered porch.
Staff recommended approval, saying the variance "is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance" and consistent with the city's comprehensive plan because the property would remain a single-family home and the proposed porch is an open, modest structure rather than an enclosed addition. Acker noted the neighborhood's average setback is driven by a southern neighbor whose house backs to Minnehaha Creek and sits much farther from the street, which increases the block average and constrains buildable area for this lot. He summarized key measurements: the current closest point to the garage is 32.8 ft, the far corner is 38.3 ft, the south neighbor is 54.9 ft, and the proposed porch would reach 30.1 ft at its closest point.
During deliberation, Commissioner Jimmy called the request "straightforward," noting the street curve and that the project would move the closest part of the house only about 2.5 feet closer to the street, and Merriweather said porches are a welcomed neighborhood feature and supported an exception in this context. No members of the public spoke in person or by phone during the public hearing; staff reported one online comment in support. The commission moved to close the hearing and then voted to approve the variance "subject to the findings of the staff report."
The approval was conditioned on building plans matching the set dated May 15, 2026, compliance with any engineering comments, and completion of the tree-permit review. The homeowner Amy Close and contractor Ryan Tyler were present for the hearing; neither offered additional testimony during the public comment period. The commission's final action was a unanimous roll-call vote in favor of the variance.
The decision ends this application at the Planning Commission level; any building permit must conform to the approved plans and satisfy required engineering and tree-permit conditions before construction can proceed.
