Edina City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
Variance Request for 5605 Maguire Road - Impervious Surface Coverage
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 6016 Vernon Avenue (Station Pizza)
Votes (2)
Public Hearing: Variance Request for 5605 Maguire Road - Impervious Surface Coverage
Dissent: Commissioners Smith, Henman, and Bennett voted to approve, with Smith emphasizing the unique practical difficulty created by the driveway and Henman noting the long-term likelihood that neighboring properties would eventually reclaim the driveway area, making the variance moot.
Moved by Commissioner Aly [53:11] · Seconded by Commissioner Miranda [53:18]
Staff presented findings supporting both approval and denial. The core issue was whether a shared driveway crossing the property (serving only two neighboring homes but occupying significant square footage on the subject lot) constituted a unique practical difficulty justifying a 2.8% variance above the 50% impervious surface limit. Commissioners debated whether the driveway burden was unique enough to warrant approval, whether the applicant should be required to remove a section of the driveway to comply, and whether the precedent would unfairly affect four other properties with similar driveway situations. The applicant emphasized the homeowners' desire to maintain good neighbor relations by not removing driveway sections, and noted they were willing to construct the project entirely by hand from the front to avoid damaging the shared driveway.
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 6016 Vernon Avenue (Station Pizza Restaurant)
Dissent: Commissioner Henman expressed significant concern about consistency in applying the comprehensive plan and the lack of market demand for residential development. Commissioner Aly noted the tension between the comprehensive plan as a 'promise' and market realities. The extensive public testimony (9 speakers, all opposed) and prior unanimous Commission rejection of a similar proposal in 2022 suggest strong likelihood of denial, but the deliberation was incomplete at transcript end.
Moved by Pending (deliberation ongoing at transcript end) · Seconded by Pending
Staff recommended approval of a comprehensive plan amendment from medium density residential to a new 'neighborhood commercial' designation and rezoning from PCD4 to PCD1 to accommodate a 1,600 sq ft restaurant with 20 indoor seats. Staff cited the site's 50+ year commercial history, the smaller scale compared to previous restaurant proposals (1,600 sq ft vs. 2,400 sq ft), and the availability of safeguards (setback requirements, parking standards, conditions on expansion). The applicant presented a revised design incorporating indoor seating (responding to Commission feedback from June sketch plan) and enhanced landscaping. However, extensive public testimony from neighboring residents (9 speakers) opposed the project, citing: (1) traffic impacts on Vernon Avenue (a county road already experiencing congestion); (2) parking overflow onto residential Eden Prairie Road; (3) incompatibility with the established residential character and the comprehensive plan's medium density residential designation; (4) concerns about a future liquor license and associated crime/safety issues; (5) the precedent of creating a new land use category for a single property; and (6) the owner's poor investment decision should not burden the neighborhood. Residents emphasized that the property has sat vacant for years without residential development interest, suggesting the market does not support residential use. The Commission deliberation was ongoing at transcript end, with Commissioner Henman expressing concern about consistency in applying the comprehensive plan and Commissioner Aly noting the tension between respecting the comprehensive plan as a 'promise' and accommodating market realities.
Notable Quotes (12)
The maximum impervious surface coverage allowed in the R1 zoning district is 50% of the lot area... the homeowner is proposing to increase surface coverage by 660 square feet totaling 11,918 square feet of coverage or 52.8% of the lot area.
It seems like this lot is burdened by the fact that it has an alley that is used by four houses but they aren't getting any use of it... I'm wondering if you just a portion that driveway among the properties and then they get some benefit of their land because it seems like it's an undue burden on 5617, 5613, 5609, 5605 and 5601 and not 5604.
To me this is the perfect reason to have a variance... my clients... they said well I want to... we love our neighbors... we want to make sure they're the ones that need this driveway they maintain it they shovel it... it's going to be really difficult if we just cut 600 square foot of this out and put grass in there to shovel it in the winter months.
We have 10 homes here impacted by this road... the beneficiaries are 5600 and 5601 but if 5605 doesn't have anything recorded against their title and wanted to make the road disappear... 5601 and 5600 are then landlocked they have no access to a public right way... I think whether we approve it or don't approve it I think there should be some guidance that we don't create a precedent or a situation for these 10 homes in the future.
I think this commission's been pretty consistent that when it's just an elective project like wanting to build a bigger patio we find those situations to not meet the criteria for variance... there are so many options available to the applicant to find 600 square feet... I can't believe you couldn't find a way to get to 600.
The site's been a commercial use for over 50 years... the traffic generated from this site would be slightly higher than the previous auto repair... they would be providing landscaping along that west lot line to minimize impacts better than the previous request... and it would be an improvement to current conditions.
This site is clearly not a node... this site is nowhere the size of suitable commercial nodes... commercializing this site appears to be contradictory to section 36-2 of the zoning ordinance... I am totally in support of the planning commission and the city council's efforts to take Edina into the future... but this is not one of those things that helps keep Edina up when it's a residential neighborhood with kids playing in the street.
The owners are asking for 1.25 million and that's 2.25 more than what they paid for it... I think if I'd submit to you that that's one of the big reasons the barriers to residential... changing to PCD1 opens the door to other uses a larger restaurant can come in right... cannabis could be another option... the owners of this site purchased a site zoned for auto... it is not the Planning Commission's role to make them whole.
I bought with confidence that the integrity of the neighborhood would remain as it was... we are being asked as homeowners to accept substantial offsets: rezoning, amending the comprehensive plan, and ignoring long-term neighborhood expectations of medium density housing... I would start losing confidence in my ability to purchase property if we could have these one-off situations.
When the developer approached the neighborhood and we had a meet and greet at the gas station last summer he said he would not proceed if the neighborhood did not want it and a cursory review of the last three years would certainly let him know that the neighborhood does not want this... for this we're considering making a new land use designation in the comp plan... it seems a very heavy load to ask for getting a pizza parlor in a residential neighborhood.
This was a restaurant you were unanimous you said no... lighting, the smell, alcohol, late hours, you said no... you said too many variances, too extreme... too much traffic, doesn't fit the neighborhood, you said no... it will specifically change the neighborhood, you said no... the comprehensive plan and the zoning change that you would approve to accomplish this opens a door that we cannot close... stick with the comprehensive plan that's why we have a comprehensive plan... you have said no unanimously, nothing has changed.
I completely agree that the comp plan is a directional promise but if this site... people call the city staff all the time with ideas to get a pulse on if a development is possible and if no one is calling to ask if a development of housing is possible regardless of the price that is a little bit of an indication of what the market thinks is viable on this site... I'm really struggling with how do we as a Planning Commission think about situations where the market isn't clearly indicating that the current use or the comp plan uses what people want.
Ordinances & Resolutions (9)
Current land use designation for 6016 Vernon Avenue site; proposed to be amended to new 'Neighborhood Commercial' category
Controls use, development, and expansion of non-residential uses in single dwelling unit districts to reduce undesirable impacts
Current zoning for 6016 Vernon Avenue; permits gas stations, car washes, and auto repair
Proposed rezoning for 6016 Vernon Avenue; limits restaurants to one acre (43,000+ sq ft); allows conditional housing with ground-floor retail
Established 50% maximum impervious surface coverage standard for R1 zoning district; basis for staff recommendation to deny Maguire Road variance
Community engagement platform for receiving feedback on proposals; includes interactive map showing geographic location of proposed changes
Prepared by Ed Terhar, Stantech; concluded existing roadways can support project; recommended 22 parking stalls adequate (code requires 24, applicant proposing 27 with tandem stalls)
Prepared by Josh Kohler, South View Design; shows proposed patio, stepping stones, sidewalk, and relocated shed
Notes that no title search was conducted; no private easement agreement found in city records for shared driveway