Edina City Council — Transcript

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Story

Edina planners back two major housing projects near park

Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

ADA Compliance Procedural Change

France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

Food Truck Regulatory Study

Votes (6)

Approval of April 15th Meeting Agenda

Passed unanimously via roll call vote

Dissent: None

Moved by Unknown [Early in meeting] · Seconded by Unknown [Early in meeting]

Routine procedural item; no substantive discussion.

Approval of February 25th Regular Meeting Minutes and March 25th Work Session Minutes

Passed unanimously via roll call vote

Dissent: None

Moved by Unknown [Early in meeting] · Seconded by Unknown [Early in meeting]

Routine procedural item; no substantive discussion.

Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

No vote taken; sketch plan review only. Commission provided feedback for applicant's next submission.

Dissent: No formal dissent. Commissioner Haniman expressed openness to height and PUD options that others were less enthusiastic about, but all commissioners expressed general support for the project concept.

Director Teague presented zoning compliance analysis showing variances needed for height (7-12 stories vs. 4-story limit), density (300 units vs. 125 allowed), and lot area. Applicant Josh Brans (Greco) presented two design options: Option 1 with two seven-story buildings (~135 units each) and Option 2 with a 12-story and seven-story building. Key discussion points included: (1) parking reduction potential (currently 1 stall per bedroom; market data shows 0.9 occupancy); (2) park connectivity and building orientation toward Fred Richards Park; (3) shadow studies showing December-March impacts; (4) whether to use variances under MDD6 zoning or pursue PUD designation; (5) terracing and architectural articulation to reduce perceived building mass; (6) sidewalk quality and pedestrian experience; (7) long-term aging-in-place considerations for 55+ demographic. Commissioners expressed general support for the project and preferred Option 1 for its better fit with existing landscape. Multiple commissioners suggested removing surface parking, strengthening sidewalk connections to the park, and reorienting buildings to maximize south-facing sun and park views. Director Teague noted that PUD criteria are difficult to meet for single-use apartment projects and that standard variances may be more appropriate.

Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

No vote taken; sketch plan review only. Commission provided feedback for applicant's next submission.

Dissent: No formal dissent. Commissioner Haniman expressed concern about fairness and precedent-setting, but did not oppose the project outright. Commissioner Smith advocated for even higher density than proposed.

Director Teague presented zoning and comprehensive plan analysis showing that the site is currently zoned R2 (low-density) but guided for low-density attached residential (4-8 units/acre). The proposal to build four townhomes would increase density to 13 units/acre (high-density classification), requiring comprehensive plan amendment and rezone to PRD3. Applicant Lisa McDanna (property owner) explained that the existing duplex has extensive structural rot in bathrooms and subfloors, making renovation economically infeasible. Steve Benke (Donnie Holmes) presented the townhome design, noting it is similar to a prior Hankerson Avenue project (8 units) and emphasizes owner-occupied for-sale units at approximately $800,000 starting price. Key discussion points included: (1) density classification confusion (site currently has 6.7 units/acre, which is medium density, not low density as guided); (2) setback variances (front setback meets R2 standard of 30 feet; side and rear setbacks require variances); (3) fencing in front yards (applicant prefers 4-foot open fence for privacy; commissioners generally prefer no fencing to maintain open streetscape); (4) parking (2 stalls per unit in garage, on-street guest parking); (5) why four units instead of two or three (economics: development costs must be spread across more units to achieve affordable pricing); (6) market demand for owner-occupied townhomes vs. rental apartments; (7) fairness to adjacent properties that remain as duplexes. Commissioners expressed strong support for density increase and ownership model as addressing housing shortage, but raised concerns about establishing precedent without broader neighborhood rezone.

Chair and Member Comments: France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

No formal vote. Discussion only. Commissioners acknowledged disagreement on priorities but agreed that planning commission should have greater involvement in large infrastructure decisions.

Dissent: Commissioner Bennett and Commissioner Haniman expressed opposing views on the tunnel project, with Bennett prioritizing fiscal responsibility and Haniman prioritizing safety.

Commissioner Bennett raised concerns about the proposed $20-30 million tunnel under France Avenue to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety between Fred Richards Park and other city amenities. Bennett argued that the project is fiscally irresponsible and that the tunnel design was influenced by suboptimal development decisions on adjacent properties. Bennett stated that the planning commission was not adequately involved in the infrastructure decision and that the cost is disproportionate to the benefit. Commissioner Haniman disagreed, emphasizing that the project addresses a critical safety issue given the high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (hundreds on nice days, projected to triple with new development). Haniman noted that the project cost is irrelevant to the funding source (city, county, state) and that safety should be the priority. Both commissioners acknowledged that the planning commission should have greater involvement in large infrastructure decisions.

Chair and Member Comments: Food Truck Regulatory Study

No formal action. Informational report only.

Dissent: None

Commissioners Padilla and Smith reported on Phase 1 of a work plan item examining food truck regulations in the city. They have interviewed city staff including health department, parks department, and economic development manager, and are moving to Phase 2 to interview food truck vendors and restaurant operators. The commission requested assistance identifying independent food truck operators for interviews. Commissioner Bennett noted that food trucks are frequently observed in parking lots and questioned whether they are operating in the city.

Notable Quotes (23)

This is one of those areas where the site is guided for housing, but we don't have a zoning district that matches what the comprehensive plan allows for in terms of density. Not the use, just the density.

Director Carrie Teague [Mid-presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

We're proposing a two-phase project that would deliver age restricted housing for the community... the density here is somewhere between 125 and 150 units for each phase.

Josh Brans, Greco [Applicant presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

Our rents would range in between 2,000 and then the very largest units could go upwards of the five to six $7,000 a month.

Josh Brans, Greco [Applicant presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I'm wondering why why um have you chosen or are you currently doing over 55 in particular?

Commissioner Padilla [Questions]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I think it will create like this huge wall that you see right there, that wouldn't help you out. So, I'm I'm pretending in my mind we're going through option one um with some of the rest of these comments.

Commissioner Bennett [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I'm not afraid of the the height um or the PUB uh as outnumbered as I might be. I think people want to understand what or I would want to understand what would help make the prop project successful if there was an ownership component to it.

Commissioner Haniman [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I think that sidewalk boulevard will feel more the public is going to walk on it too because it's a sidewalk. Yeah. And that's what people do. I want a sidewalk in front of my house. I'd be completely okay with everybody walking on it because I think it's safer.

Commissioner Smith [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I think that's a really good point. You know, how do these transition over the next that we were having that conversation uh two days ago of just what does it look like 10 years from now, 15, 20 years from now? Is this is it still getting used the same? And how are the buildings going to have to adopt?

Commissioner Felt [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

I just don't think we we need that. When you come to the next stage, um you're on a on a bike path which is a jewel of the city. So, we'll be interested to see exactly how the residents are going to get to the bike path and make that as easy as possible.

Chair Elkar [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 7600 Park Lawn Senior Housing Project

We began working on the building about two years ago when it emptied and with when 5201 emptied and we put we repainted new garage doors, we put a new sidewalk in, we put all new windows in. Um, and I was confident that there was nothing I we couldn't fix reasonably. Um then we moved inside the building and the problem immediately became the bathrooms... the 2x4s in the walls were rotted almost up to about a foot.

Lisa McDanna, Property Owner [Applicant presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

We've been before you for this area with town homes for about eight years. We did get the other project approved. Um, but we started looking at town homes in this part of the part of the city in 2018. Um, we're still waiting for the study that was discussed back then. We're still waiting for town home zoning. None of those things really seem to be uh coming along here. And we really feel that those can't be a reason why a landowner can't improve the property.

Steve Benke, Donnie Holmes [Applicant presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

The reason we're doing four units is to be able to be able to bring those for sale type units into that $800,000 range rather than having them be at a million two. That's the real reason.

Steve Benke, Donnie Holmes [Applicant presentation]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

Um, I think the same reason that you're not seeing new redeveloped single family homes landing at price points that some people might feel is more reasonable. Um, you have a lot of infrastructure to create. Um, we're going to have to extend some sewer lines. We're going to have to extend some water lines.

Commissioner Bennett [Questions]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

I see this as coming into alignment with that, right? where we have an opportunity to increase density in a in a modest way, right? In an area that clearly is tucked in with other high density type uh housing like to the to the north and south and would only develop more going inward, right?

Commissioner Padilla [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

I'm not used to being on the other side of everybody else that, you know, generically I'm in favor of four homes instead of two. Generically, I'm in favor of density almost always. But this the thing I struggle with here is that we had a really interesting discussion tonight and it seems like the reason that four units is right for this property is because that's the only way you can get enough development going on this piece of land to make all the numbers work out.

Commissioner Haniman [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

I really do appreciate creative ideas to create new opportunities for families in Adina. Um, and I just wanted to say thank you for bearing with us as we we navigate that.

Commissioner Felt [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

I would like to see more density. Um, I think the neighborhood um can handle it. I think it works and I think it's what the city needs.

Commissioner Smith [Comments]
Sketch Plan Review: 5201 Grand View Lane Townhome Project

I mean I'm I just have to say it's an extremely irresponsible um pursuit in terms of the high cost to achieve the outcome. And some of that was predicated on undesirable decisions on the the development to the east and the west about how that could play out of how you create a better crossing over France. But I just got to say it's like people are talking about it um in terms of infrastructure and planning. You know, we're kind of omitted from the loop in in many ways on that.

Commissioner Bennett [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

When you see an almost $20 million price tag to just cross France, I mean, I can speak for a lot of people and saying like our taxes are going way up. We need to be more responsible with the spending there.

Commissioner Bennett [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

So, um, with all due respect, um, we did have a planning commission meeting with Bill, um, that he called before he ever brought this and before he put the signs up where I think there was about half of us that attended that. And we talked about a lot of the different points. Um, I also see it as a safety issue and you can talk about money all day long, but you've got on a nice day hundreds of people on bikes, in strollers, in cars crossing not just a full intersection, but four, you know, um, offused um, left turns as well.

Commissioner Haniman [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

And we're talking about building how many more units and connecting two two of the city's biggest parks? And all it's going to take is one dreadful accident for a kid on a bicycle or uh a mom or a dad with a stroller that is crossing when somebody's turning left and then all of a sudden it's not going to be about the money anymore.

Commissioner Haniman [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure

Um we're in phase one. We've interviewed quite a few city staff members just to get their feedback on their experience with food trucks. We talked with the health department, the parks department, the economic development manager, and I'm missing one person. And you know, just collecting some really good feedback on their experiences.

Commissioner Padilla [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: Food Truck Regulatory Study

I thought it was going to be a lot easier to identify and get a list, but it's a little bit harder. So, if you guys know any food truck vendors that operate in the city that you want to send us send our way, please do so and we'll uh get them on the schedule.

Commissioner Padilla [Chair and Member Comments]
Chair and Member Comments: Food Truck Regulatory Study

Ordinances & Resolutions (8)

Comprehensive Plan (City of Edina)Plan

City's long-range development guidance document; guides 7600 Park Lawn for office/residential use at 20-75 units/acre density; guides 5201 Grand View Lane for low-density attached residential (4-8 units/acre); subject of upcoming update.

MDD6 Zoning DistrictOrdinance

Mixed Development District zoning for 7600 Park Lawn; allows 125 units maximum; height limit 4 stories/48 feet; requires variances for proposed 300-unit project.

R2 Zoning DistrictOrdinance

Double dwelling unit district zoning for 5201 Grand View Lane; requires rezone to PRD3 for townhome project.

PRD3 Zoning DistrictOrdinance

Planned Residential Development district; proposed rezone target for 5201 Grand View Lane; allows higher density with variances.

2022 Multifamily Affordable Housing PolicyPolicy

City policy requiring affordable housing in multifamily projects; does not apply to 7600 Park Lawn senior housing project.

South District PlanPlan

District-level planning document referenced by 7600 Park Lawn applicant as alignment basis for project priorities including walkability, connectivity, and placemaking.

United Density StudyStudy

Prior city study (not formally adopted) examining density opportunities in Vernon/Grand View nodes; referenced by applicant as supporting increased density at 5201 Grand View Lane.

LEED Certification ProgramProgram

Sustainability certification program; 7600 Park Lawn applicant indicated enrollment in LEED evaluation program.

View Source
Edina City Council - Edina Recorder