Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Subdivision for 5120-5124 Hankerson Avenue (2-Unit Townhome Development)

Dissent: Commissioner Day voted against, citing concerns about the loss of moderately-priced housing for first-time buyers. Commissioner Bornstein voted against, questioning whether PUD criteria were met and expressing concern about overuse of PUD zoning. Commissioner Pia voted against, arguing the project does not satisfy missing-middle housing goals in terms of price and lacks imagination regarding the city's broader housing needs.

Moved by Unknown [Timestamp: ~3:25:00] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp: ~3:25:00]

The applicant (represented by Steve Banky and Paul D) proposed demolishing two single-family homes and constructing two 2-unit townhomes to be incorporated into the adjacent Hankerson Town Homes PUD. The project required both a comprehensive plan amendment (low-density to medium-density) and rezoning (R1 to P20 PUD). Staff recommended approval, citing alignment with missing-middle housing goals, appropriate transition design, and proximity to mixed-use services. Public comment revealed significant community concern: Beth Johnson (resident) questioned the loss of affordable housing stock and raised technical concerns about PUD criteria and setback requirements; Ryan Beckman (existing HOA board member) noted that the existing HOA would not immediately include the new units and that prior residents were not Edina natives; Jim Poy (existing resident) supported the project and disputed traffic concerns. Commissioners were deeply divided. Commissioner Day expressed personal concern about the loss of moderately-priced homes for first-time buyers like himself, noting high demand for 1950s-era housing despite maintenance requirements. Commissioner Hanaman countered that the property could be torn down for a $1.2-1.8 million home anyway, making the townhomes a preferable outcome. Commissioner Bornstein questioned whether PUD criteria were truly met, arguing the project lacked the creativity and efficiency typically associated with PUD approvals. Commissioner Miranda emphasized climate change, equity, and regional housing shortages, arguing that preserving single-family zoning in a growing region worsens congestion and climate outcomes. Commissioner Felt supported the project as a gentle density increase that adds housing diversity. Commissioner Pia opposed both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, arguing the project lacked imagination and did not address affordability in meaningful terms ($800,000+ price point vs. $696,000 median home value). Commissioner Smith leaned toward approval, viewing the project as a reasonable opportunity given current zoning limitations.

Site Plan Review, Variances, and Subdivision for Edina Endodontics at 7300 Metro Boulevard

Dissent: None. All voting commissioners supported the project.

Moved by Unknown [Timestamp: ~4:20:00] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp: ~4:20:00]

The applicant (represented by Ben Kristen, architect Chris White House, and others) proposed a 6,000 square-foot dental office in the Kahill office-industrial district. The project required two variances: (1) a 10-foot side-yard setback instead of the required 20 feet, and (2) a 10-foot first-floor ceiling height instead of the required 20 feet. The applicant addressed earlier sketch-plan feedback by relocating parking from the front of the building to the side, allowing patients to access the main entrance directly from the sidewalk. The building features 75% glass frontage on Metro Boulevard and will include bike parking (2-3 stalls). Staff recommended approval, noting that the nearest building is 70 feet away, providing adequate separation despite the reduced setback. The applicant indicated that the rear portion of the building (approximately 25%) is designed as expansion space, potentially for a golf simulator initially or future dental/complementary uses. Director Teague noted that the city's pedestrian plan calls for a sidewalk on Metro Boulevard, which can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way during future roadway improvements. Commissioner Alar raised concerns about the lack of a small-area plan for Kahill, noting that without intentional planning, the district risks becoming a collection of surface parking lots rather than a cohesive mixed-use neighborhood. However, commissioners viewed the project as a positive step toward better street frontage. Commissioner Miranda noted that the project demonstrates how overparked the city is and how minimum parking requirements are no longer necessary. The Commission unanimously approved the project (with Commissioner Smith abstaining due to a conflict of interest—his wife works for the development team).

Approval of Meeting Agenda

Dissent: None

Moved by Unknown [Timestamp: ~0:05:00] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp: ~0:05:00]

Standard procedural item; commissioners voted to approve the agenda for the April 11, 2024 meeting.

Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes (March 27, 2024)

Dissent: None

Moved by Unknown [Timestamp: ~0:10:00] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp: ~0:10:00]

Standard procedural item; commissioners voted to approve minutes from the March 27, 2024 special work session and prior meeting.