Planning Commission Meeting Agenda July 15, 2026, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall, Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th St. Participate in the meeting: Watch the meeting on cable TV or YouTube.com/EdinaTV. Provide feedback during Community Comment by calling 312-535-8110. Enter access code 2632 505 3407 . Password is 5454. Press *3 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 to speak. Accessibility Support: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Meeting Agenda 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes 4.1. Minutes from the June 24, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. 5. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. 6. Public Hearing During "Public Hearings," the Commission chair will ask for public testimony after staff and/or applicants make their presentations. The following guidelines are in place to ensure an efficient, fair, and respectful hearing; limit your testimony to three minutes and to the matter under consideration; the Chair may modify times, as deemed necessary; avoid repeating remarks or points of view made by previous speakers. The use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. Page 1 of 164 6.1. Variance at 5401 Londonderry Road 6.2. Variance 6520 Gleason Crt 6.3. Variance Saint Stephen's Church 4439 West 50th St. 7. Reports/Recommendations 7.1. Sketch Plan Review - 7600 France Avenue 7.2. Sketch Plan Review - Macy's Furniture Store Site , Northwest Lot (7235 France Avenue) 8. Chair and Member Comments 9. Staff Comments 10. Adjournment Page 2 of 164 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers June 24, 2026 I. Call To Order Chair Alkire called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Bennett, Brennan, Daye, Felt, Hahneman, Padilla, Smith, Just, and Chair Alkire. Staff Present: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner; Senior Communications Coordinator Lauren Siebenaler; and Miriam Laredo-Fuentes, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Nelson and Jha. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Padilla moved to approve the June 24, 2026, agenda. Commissioner Brennan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Bennett aye Commissioner Brennan aye Commissioner Daye aye Commissioner Felt aye Commissioner Hahneman aye Commissioner Just aye Commissioner Padilla aye Commissioner Smith aye Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, May 28, 2026 Commissioner Daye moved to approve the May 28, 2026, meeting minutes. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Page 1 of 3 Page 3 of 164 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Commissioner Bennett aye Commissioner Brennan aye Commissioner Daye aye Commissioner Felt aye Commissioner Hahneman aye Commissioner Just aye Commissioner Padilla aye Commissioner Smith aye Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. V. Community Comment None. VI. Public Hearings A. Variance Request – 82 Woodland Circle Assistant Planner Kris Aaker presented the request for a variance at 82 Woodland Circle. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant The applicant was at the meeting but did not have a presentation for the Commission. Staff answered Commission questions. Public Hearing No one wished to address the Commission. Commissioner Felt moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Bennett aye Commissioner Brennan aye Commissioner Daye aye Commissioner Felt aye Commissioner Hahneman aye Commissioner Just aye Commissioner Padilla aye Commissioner Smith aye Page 2 of 3 Page 4 of 164 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2026 Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. The Commission discussed the proposed variance and felt the changes were appropriate. Motion Commissioner Daye moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the variance request at 82 Woodland Road for a 13.55-foot front yard setback variance for a porch addition as outlined in the staff memo, subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Bennett aye Commissioner Brennan aye Commissioner Daye aye Commissioner Felt aye Commissioner Hahneman aye Commissioner Just aye Commissioner Padilla aye Commissioner Smith aye Chair Alkire aye Motion carried. VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments Received. X. Staff Comments Received. XI. Adjournment Chair Alkire adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Page 3 of 3 Page 5 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 6.1 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator Item Title: Variance at 5401 Londonderry Road Action Requested: Approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Information/Background: Lon Oberpriller, on behalf of the property owner (5401 Londonderry Road, LLC) at 5401 Londonderry Road, is requesting a 10.6 foot variance from Section 36-439 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 64.4 foot setback from the front lot line for an expansion of the second floor where a 75 foot setback is required. The main floor of the home is already at 64.4 feet from the front lot line. There is an existing second floor; however, it is setback further than the main floor by approximately 4 feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows for additions to homes within the non-conforming setback if the existing setback is maintained on each floor. In this case, the applicant is proposing an addition that is bringing the second floor closer to the front lot line, which requires a variance. The second floor will be directly above the existing first floor. The project also includes remodeling of existing living space and two additions on the rear of the home, which comply with all zoning requirements. Link to BTE Public Comments Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Staff Report 2. Proposed Plans (Board Portal) 3. Proposed Survey (Board Portal) 4. Addendum to Variance Application (Board Portal) 5. Staff presentation 6. 5405 Londonderry Rd original house setback (Board Portal) Page 6 of 164 Staff Report Date: July 15, 2026 To: Planning Commission From: Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator Subject: Variance at 5401 Londonderry Road Staff Recommendation: Approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Information/Background: Lon Oberpriller, on behalf of the property owner (5401 Londonderry Road, LLC) at 5401 Londonderry Road, is requesting a 10.6 foot variance from Section 36-439 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 64.4 foot setback from the front lot line for an expansion of the second floor where a 75 foot setback is required. The main floor of the home is already at 64.4 feet from the front lot line. There is an existing second floor; however, it is setback further than the main floor by approximately 4 feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows for additions to homes within the non-conforming setback if the existing setback is maintained on each floor. In this case, the applicant is proposing an addition that is bringing the second floor closer to the front lot line, which requires a variance. The second floor will be directly above the existing first floor. The project also includes remodeling of existing living space and two additions on the rear of the home, which comply with all zoning requirements. The image below shows the existing second floor. The area in yellow is the space where the second floor is expanding, which requires a variance because it is being brought closer to the front lot line. Page 7 of 164 The established front yard setback requirement is determined based on the average front yard setback of only two other homes – 5405 and 5409 Londonderry Road. 5405 is setback 90 feet and 5409 is setback 60 feet, which means a 75 foot front yard setback is required for 5401. The original house at 5405 was permitted in 1952 and was setback 60 feet from the front lot line. Therefore, the home at 5401 conformed to the front yard setback requirement until the home at 5405 was reconstructed in 1994 and was moved 30 feet back to a setback of 90 feet. The lots at 5405 and 5409 are significantly deeper than 5401, which makes an increased front yard setback requirement more challenging for 5401. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Easterly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Southerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Westerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Page 8 of 164 Existing Site Features The property contains a two-story home built in 1962. The property is 23,460 square feet in area. It is approximately 140 feet wide and 160 feet deep. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The applicant has already submitted a building permit, which has been approved by Engineering for compliance with grading and drainage. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Setbacks West (front)- 75 feet* 64.4 feet** North (side) 10 feet 7.7 feet*** East (rear) 25 feet 33 feet South (side) 10 feet 15.7 feet Building Coverage 25% 15.8% Hard Cover 50% 36.4% Building Height 40 feet 34.4 feet *Established front yard setback per 36-439, (1) **Requires variance ***Existing non-conformity PIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Yes, staff does believe the requested variance is justified. Page 9 of 164 Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Staff believe the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the established front yard setback requirement is to maintain general consistency in the front yard setback of homes. When this home was originally constructed, it complied with the setback requirement. At that time, all three homes (5401, 5405, and 5409 Londonderry Road) were set back 60-65 feet. The subject property was made non-conforming when the home at 5405 Londonderry Road was reconstructed in 1994 and pushed back to a setback of 90 feet. Of the three homes, 5405 is the outlier as 5401 and 5409 would still be within 60-65 feet. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believe the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the proprety for Low Density Residential use and use of the property will remain a single-family home. The variance could also be viewed as supporting Goal 3 of the Housing Chapter, which states: Goal 3: Continue to support high quality design of residences and residential neighborhoods in a way that furthers sustainability, character, and livability and maintains long term investment. • Policy 1 – Provide an attractive living environment and promote housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods in order to ensure the vitality and health of single-family and multi-family/mixed- use neighborhoods. The variance would allow for a project that is a significant investment in the property and is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The propery owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner is proposing a remodel of the existing home, which would have the second floor match the front yard setback of the main floor. The applicant is not proposing to reduce the overall setback of the home, which was conforming to the ordinance at the time it was built. The home was made non-conforming when the neighboring home was reconstructed and pushed an additional 30 feet back into the lot. Staff believe the proposed use of the property is reasonable. Page 10 of 164 ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The home complied with the front yard setback requirement at the time it was constructed. It was made non-conforming when the neighboring home at 5405 was reconstructed and pushed an additional 30 feet back into the lot, increasing the required setback for 5401. A variance would not be required if the nieghboring home were not set further back from its original location. Most homes in the city have their established front yard setback requirement determined by more than two other houses, giving outliers less weight. The neighboring properties at 5405 and 5409 are also deepr than the subject proprety, making the increased setback uniquely burdensome to the subject property. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff do not believe the variance will alter the essential character of the locality. The overall setback of the home will be maintained. 60-65 feet was the established front setback on this block at the time the home was constructed. Many other homes in the neighborhood are two stories. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the requested variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the established front yard setback requirement is to maintain general consistency in the front yard setback of homes. When this home was originally constructed in 1962, it complied with the setback requirement. At that time, all three homes (5401, 5405, and 5409 Londonderry Road) were set back 60-65 feet. The subject property was made non-conforming when the home at 5405 Londonderry Road was reconstructed in 1994 and pushed back to a setback of 90 feet. Out of the three homes, 5405 is the outlier as 5401 and 5409 would still be within 60-65 feet if the variance is granted. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the proprety for Low Density Residential use and use of the property will remain a single-family home. The variance supports Goal 3 of the Housing Chapter, which states: Goal 3: Continue to support high quality design of residences and residential neighborhoods in a way that furthers sustainability, character, and livability and maintains long term investment. Policy 1 – Provide an attractive living environment and promote housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods in order to ensure the vitality and health of single-family and multi-family/mixed-use neighborhoods. The variance allows for a project that is a significant investment in the property and is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner is proposing a remodel of the existing home, which would have the second floor match the front yard setback of the main floor. The applicant is not proposing to reduce the overall Page 11 of 164 setback of the home, which was conforming to the ordinance at the time it was built. The home was made non- conforming when the neighboring home was reconstructed and pushed an additional 30 feet back into the lot. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The home complied with the front yard setback requirement at the time it was constructed. It was made non- conforming when the neighboring home at 5405 was reconstructed and pushed an additional 30 feet back into the lot, increasing the required setback. A variance would not be required if the nieghboring home were not set further back from its original location. Most homes in the city have their established front yard setback requirement determined by more than two other houses, giving outliers less weight. The neighboring properties at 5405 and 5409 are significantly deepr than the subject proprety, making the increased setback uniquely burdensome to the subject property. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The overall setback of the home will be maintained. 60-65 feet was the established setback on this block at the time the home was constructed. Many other homes in the neighborhood are two stories. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be consistent with the plans included in the July 15, 2026 Planning Commission packet. Page 12 of 164Page 13 of 164Page 14 of 164Page 15 of 164Page 16 of 164Page 17 of 164Page 18 of 164Page 19 of 164Page 20 of 164Page 21 of 164Page 22 of 164Page 23 of 164Page 24 of 164Page 25 of 164Page 26 of 164Page 27 of 164Page 28 of 164 llc ADDENDUM TO VARIANCE PETITION: 5401 LONDONDERRY RD Setback Regulations Established in Edina’s Formative Years Pose a Recurring Contradiction Today Understandably, front yard setbacks play an essential role in maintaining the consis- tency and uniformity of streetscapes and overall neighborhood character. To that end, the city’s pertinent regulations contain specific formulas for calculating or determining what the setback should be for any given block. However, the history of block and neighborhood formation is inevitably somewhat ad hoc, shaped by the needs and realities of earlier phases of development. This can result in regula- tory contradictions that are initially hidden and only become evident with the passage of time and the sequence of replacing or upgrading housing. The three properties comprising the 54xx block of Londonderry Road provide a case in point. 5405 and 5409 Londonderry were part of the original Parkwood Knolls plat, while 5401 Londonderry—the property under consideration—was in the Parkwood Knolls 10th Addition. The difference in platting accounts for the significant differences in lot sizes and depth, with the previously platted 5405 and 5409 being more than twice the size and depth of 5401. The two homes that were originally built on the 5405 and 5409 lots in the 1950s had 60- FT front yard setbacks. 5401 Londonderry, built in 1962, had a 62-FT setback, clearly illustrat- ing the historical consistency of the setback calculations, with an average 60-FT setback at that point in time. Then in 1993-1994, the house that originally stood at 5405 Londonderry was demol- ished and replaced by a new home with a 90-FT front yard setback. Obviously, the permitted siting reflected consideration of the larger lot size and depth but also constituted an anomaly rather than a revised standard. However, given the present setback calculation formulas, the 90- FT setback must now be included in any updated computation. The required calculation is clearly defined as an average of the two existing houses on the block, minus the subject property. The resulting computation resets the setback from the original 60-FT to 75-FT, without weighing further considerations or mitigating circumstances regarding any anomalies. Thus, our only option is to submit a variance petition to add a second floor to a previously built home with a current 64-FT setback. It is also worth noting that while the limits of the front yard setback are prescribed, there are apparently no regulations regarding how far one may build behind the main setback if other conditions allow. This situation, while certainly affecting 5401 Londonderry, also resets the set- backs for 5409 Londonderry, as well as the side yard setbacks for the two abutting corner homes. We question whether this is consistent with the regulators’ overall intent. WWW.MASTERWERKSLLC.COM 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150 MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 © MASTERWERKS, LLC 952 836-2665 OFFICE 952 929-9185 FAX Page 29 of 164Variance at 5401 Londonderry Road July 15, 2026 EdinaMN.gov Page 30 of 164Project Location – 5401 Londonderry Road Page 31 of 164Existing House Photos Page 32 of 164Proposed Plans1 Page 33 of 164Proposed Plans2 Page 34 of 164Proposed Plans3 Page 35 of 164Established Front Yard Setback – Sec. 36-439 1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. a. Established front street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead- end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: 1. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot that has a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot on the same street; or the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all other dwelling units on the same side of that street, between intersections. Page 36 of 164Variance Criteria 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Page 37 of 164Established Front Yard Setbacks Page 38 of 164Staff Recommendation Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Deadline for a City decision: August 21, 2026 Page 39 of 1645-10 T OTDOND7RRY ROAD 7Iock 3, Parkwood Knolls Carl M. Hanen Builder Hcaa Field 'Nowak, Surveyor Page 41 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 6.2 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Item Title: Variance 6520 Gleason Crt Action Requested: Approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Information/Background: The property owners at 6520 Gleason Court, are requesting a 3.8 foot variance from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 21.2-foot setback from the rear lot line where the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The variance is to allow the construction of a master bedroom addition to the back of the one-story rambler. Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Gleason Staff Report 2. Staff Presentation 3. Applicant submission 4. Engineering Memo Page 42 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 6.2 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Item Title: Variance 6520 Gleason Crt Action Requested: Approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Information/Background: The property owners at 6520 Gleason Court, are requesting a 3.8 foot variance from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 21.2-foot setback from the rear lot line where the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The variance is to allow the construction of a master bedroom addition to the back of the one-story rambler. Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Gleason Staff Report 2. Staff Presentation 3. Applicant submission 4. Engineering Memo Page 43 of 164 Staff Report Date: July 15, 2026 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Subject: The property owners at 6520 Gleason Road are requesting a 3.8-foot variance from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 21.2-foot setback from the rear lot line where the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The variance is to allow the construction of a master bedroom addition to the back of the one-story rambler. Staff Recommendation: Motion to approve 3.8 -foot setback variance from the 25 ft requirement at 6520 Gleason Court subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Information/Background: The property contains a one-story rambler with an attached garage built in 1975. The property owners are proposing to add onto the back of the home and extend closer towards the rear lot line. The Zoning Ordinance Sec. 36-438. States the minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet. The variance is required to allow the addition to be built slightly farther into the rear yard than the footprint of the existing home. The existing home is located 35.2 feet from the rear lot line allowing a maximum 10 ft addition. The lot is 14,949 square feet, however, given the deep front yard setback of the home, (51.9 ft), much of the lot cannot be built on. The house was constructed deep in the lot and much closer to the rear lot line, reducing rear yard expansion opportunity. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Easterly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Southerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Westerly: Single-Family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential Existing Site Features The property contains a one-story home built in 1975. The property is 14,949 square feet in area. The home was constructed deeper in the lot and at the top of the upward slope from the street. The front lot line curves along the street, resulting in a shallow back yard with little expansion opportunity, significantly limiting the buildable area on this property. Page 44 of 164 Staff Report Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application. Full review of the grading and drainage plans will be reviewed at the time of building permit. See attached memo from Engineering. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed East (Front) – Average No change West Side - 25 feet 21.2 feet* North Side– 10 feet 12.6 feet South- 10 feet 17.9 feet Building Coverage 25% 20.9% Hard Cover 50% 39.1% Building Height 37.83 feet No change *Requires variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Yes, staff does believe the requested variance is justified. Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: Page 45 of 164 Staff Report 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the rear yard setback ordinance is to maintain an adequate distance of the principal structure to the rear lot line. The setback is meant to protect neighboring property by ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback to allow an adequate distance for a buffer. The owner intentionally kept the improvements to a minimum instead of extending farther back into required setback. The home conforms to all other zoning standards with exception of required rear yard setback. The proposed home is well within the height, building, and hard surface coverage requirements. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential use. Use of the property will remain a single-family home. The request could be viewed as consistent with the following goal and policy from the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan: Housing Quality and Design Goal 3: Continue to support high quality design of residences and residential neighborhoods in a way that furthers sustainability, character, and livability, and maintains long term investment. 1. Provide an attractive living environment and promote housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods to ensure the vitality and health of single family and multifamily/mixed-use neighborhoods. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct a master bedroom addition to the back of the home with current setback limiting design opportunity. The applicant states the property owners would use the property in the same way that they use the current house, keeping the bedrooms and all improvements on one level. Staff find the request to be reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Page 46 of 164 Staff Report The plight of the landowner is due to the deep placement of the house, plus the shallow rear yard, that significantly reduces the buildable area of this property. The deep front yard setback and curvature of the lot have reduced the rear yard area allowing for only limited improvements. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance should not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing an addition with the minimum encroachment to obtain reasonable room spaces. The addition is not visible from the street and will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the requested variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain adequate distance from neighboring properties. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use of the property will remain a single-family home and the variance is consistent with the city’s goals of providing an attractive living environment and promoting housing that is compatible in quality, design, and intensity within neighborhoods. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to maintain living space on one level and minimally encroach setback in their shallow rear yard resulting from a deep front yard setback. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The buildable area on this property is significantly reduced by the required front yard setback requirement and subsequent deep placement of the home. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is offering an addition behind the home with proposed minimal space added to provide adequate bedroom area. The addition is not visible from the street and will not alter street view. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be consistent with the plans and survey date stamped April 28, 2026. 2. Compliance with the Engineering Memo. 3. Compliance with the tree permit review. Page 47 of 164Variance Request 6520 Gleason Court EdinaMN.gov Page 48 of 164Property survey Page 49 of 164Basement and main floor plan Page 50 of 164Rear, north and south elevations of the new addition Page 51 of 164 DATE: 6/30/2026 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Andrew Reinisch – Engineering Technician RE: 6520 Gleason Rd – Building Addition The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed are dated 05-29-2026. Summary of Work The applicant proposes the expansion of a single-family dwelling in the rear yard. Easements No existing easements are recorded on this property. No new easements are required for existing infrastructure. No easements are proposed. Grading and Drainage The proposed grading and drainage plan is not proposed to change or modify and drainage paths from the existing condition. Stormwater Mitigation An underground stormwater chamber system with collection pipes is proposed. The proposed addition will be collected with a gutter system and downspout. This downspout will be directly connected to the system with an underground pipe. Ultimate system discharge will remain in the NW property corner into the landlocked basin. The stormwater management plan submitted meets most of the requirements but did not model for the critical storm event. No increase in peak flood elevations for the critical storm event will be required in the modeling prior to permit approval. Further, additional discussions with engineering staff on stormwater modeling is warranted. Collecting the rainwater in the rear yard and directing it to Gleason Rd with underground pipes in combination with minor grading changes may eliminate most of the stormwater requirements. Gleason Rd road is not within a landlocked basin or areas with structural flooding issues. Floodplain Development The rear yard of the site is within a landlocked basin with a critical storm even elevation of 888.80. The lowest floor elevation for an addition is required to have 2’ of freeboard for a minimum of 890.8. The low floor is not listed on the survey but is assumed to be 895.05’. This will need to be verified for permit approval. No FEMA floodplain issues. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance No impacts to the street or driveway entrance apron are proposed. Page 57 of 164 Public Utilities No impacts to the existing utilities. Miscellaneous A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit or documentation that none is needed will be a requirement prior to city approval. Page 58 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 6.3 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Item Title: Variance Saint Stephen's Church 4439 West 50th St. Action Requested: Approve the variance based on the findings and subject to conditions as listed in the staff report. Information/Background: The Warden for St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, for the property at 4439 West 50th Street, is requesting a 19.8-foot east setback variance from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 30.2- foot setback from the east lot line and a 19-foot setback variance from the OHWE, (ordinary high-water elevation), from Minnehaha creek where the required setback is 50 feet. The variance is to allow the consolidation of building and hard surface areas to facilitate the new construction of accessibility and safety improvements. The project will consolidate existing building and hard surface areas to maintain the existing nonconforming coverage without requesting increases beyond current nonconforming conditions. The project is subjected to FEMA flood protection requirements and is not allowed to increase coverage. Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Staff Report 2. Engineering Review Memo 3. Staff Presentation 4. Applicant Narrative 6-15-26 5. Applicant submittal 6-12-26 Page 59 of 164 Staff Report Date: July 15, 2016 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Subject: St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, located at 4439 West 50th Street, is requesting variances from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 19.8-foot west setback resulting in a 30.2-foot setback from the west lot line for a gathering patio space at the front entrance and a 19-foot setback variance from the OHWE, (ordinary high-water elevation), for a 31 foot setback from Minnehaha creek where the required setback is 50 feet for a building addition to address accessibility and safety betterments. The variance is to allow the consolidation of building and hard surface areas to facilitate allowable new construction for needed accessibility and safety improvements given FEMA floodplain expansion restrictions. The project will consolidate and relocate existing building areas to maintain the existing nonconforming coverage without requesting increases beyond current nonconforming conditions. The project is subjected to FEMA flood protection requirements and is not allowed to increase building coverage. Staff Recommendation: Motion to approve a 19.8-foot east setback variance and a 19-foot setback variance from the OHWE, (ordinary high- water elevation), from Minnehaha creek subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Information/Background: The subject property, 4439 W. 50th Street, is approximately 57,499 sq ft and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of W 50th Street and Wooddale Avenue. Portions of the structure are located within the FEMA flood plain with a southeast corner of the building located within the floodway. No expansion of the building is allowed given FEMA floodplain rules, however, the church may remove and replace equal amounts of building area to accommodate accessibility and safety improvements including flood proofing. The projects bring the buildings into compliance with Minnesota DNR and National FEMA floodproofing requirements, by reducing the existing building footprint within the FEMA floodplain boundary including the removal of a south facing exterior door that experiences frequent flooding issues. The focus of the project is to improve accessibility throughout the building to address deficiencies and improve safety given the structure’s location in the floodway. The original documents for the church date around 1938, predating the current zoning and floodplain ordinance. The church has been added to, and modified over the years, (1950’s, and 1960), and is not compliant with the current lot size, setbacks, coverage and parking code, to name a few. Both the site and building are nonconforming to current zoning standards and since 1979 include FEMA flood zone requirements. The project will improve accessible circulation at both the exterior and interior of the building, (compliant ramps and slopes replace steps and steep sloping paths). It will provide access to the lower level of the parish house; currently not wheelchair accessible. The plan replaces Page 60 of 164 Staff Report an end-of-life elevator and increases the number of restrooms including accessible restrooms. None of the improvements will increase the square feet of building footprint. St. Stephens Episcopal Church is requesting 19.8-foot east setback variance from Section 36-438 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance to allow a 30.2-foot setback from the east lot line and a 31 foot setback with a 19-foot setback variance needed from the OHWE, (ordinary high-water elevation), from Minnehaha creek where the required setback is 50 feet. The church can accomplish their goals for flood resiliency and accessibility while re-arranging building footprint to satisfy FEMA’s no expansion rule Surrounding Land Uses: Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Minnehaha Creek and Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: City Park; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features: The subject property is a 57,499 square foot lot located at the southeast corner of W. 50th Street and Wooddale Avenue. The property consists of an existing church building backing up to Minnehaha creek. Planning: Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling Unit District Page 61 of 164 Staff Report Compliance Table: City Standard Proposed West setback 50 feet 30.2 feet* (Gathering space/patio) OHWE setback 50 feet 31 feet* (re-constructed existing building area) Building coverage 25% 28%** (existing nonconforming) Hard surface coverage 50% 39% (1.43% decreased from 40.43%) *Requires a variance, **Existing nonconforming and not allowed to increase per FEMA PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Yes, staff does believe the requested variance is justified. Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: Page 62 of 164 Staff Report 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the setback requirements is to provide adequate spacing between properties, streets and the creek. The proposed setback variances will not increase encroachment in the creek setback and will mirror setbacks of existing at-grade surface area along Wooddale. The property pre-dates current setback among other requirements, is legally nonconforming and is in the flood zone. The property is compounded with challenges given that building expansion is not an option, only limited modification may be considered and only with variances attached. The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of providing adequate spacing and the intent to minimize setback intrusion. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential use, where churches are allowed. Use of the property will remain a church, that will be after improvements, more accessible and resilient from flooding. The request could be viewed as consistent with the following goal and policy from the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1: Encourage infill and redevelopment that optimizes use of city infrastructure, complement community character and respond to needs at all stages of life. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to correct accessibility deficiencies while complying with FEMA flood plain standards within a footprint that cannot increase building area. The site and building limitations have produced multiple practical difficulties with variances from setbacks allowing the property to be used in a reasonable manner. Staff find the request to be reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the age of construction predating current ordinances and flood plain rules and given location within the flood fringe and floodway. Additional circumstances include existing proximity to Minnehaha creek and the west lot line. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Page 63 of 164 Staff Report The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing an addition with the minimum setback encroachment and no building area expansion to obtain reasonable addition for the purposes of enhanced accessibility and safety, (flood proofing). Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the requested variance request. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain reasonable distances from lot lines and water bodies. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use of the property will remain a church and the variance is consistent with the city’s goals of providing improvements that optimize use of city infrastructure, complement community character and respond to needs at all stages of life. 3. The church proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to correct accessibility deficiencies while complying with FEMA flood plain standards limiting the footprint to no increase in building area. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The buildable area and opportunity for expansion on this property are significantly reduced given required setbacks and the FEMA limit on any additional building area expansion. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be consistent with the plans and survey date stamped June 15, 2026. 2. Compliance with the Engineering Memo. 3. Compliance with the tree permit review. Page 64 of 164 DATE: 7/8/2026 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Andrew Reinisch – Engineering Technician and Jessica Wilson – Water Resources Manager, CFM RE: 4439 50th Street West – St. Stephens Episcopal Church The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control, floodplain and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed are dated 06-12-2026. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a building modification to the existing structure with enhancements to exterior accessible access routes into the building. Easements No easements are in place currently. No new easements are needed for the proposed work. Grading and Drainage The lot is divided into three drainage areas that all ultimately discharge into Minnehaha Creek. The are no major modifications to the existing drainage pattern on the site. Stormwater Mitigation The overall scope is reducing the impervious coverage of the lot. No additional stormwater mitigation measures will be required for this scope of work. Floodplain Development The structure is adjacent to Minnehaha Creek and within the FEMA mapped floodplain. The structure was built prior to the city adopting the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map and joining the National Flood Insurance Program in 1980. The existing structure is below the base flood elevation and intersects with the floodway portion of the floodplain. The plans propose an alteration to the existing non-conforming structure and dry floodproofing the entire structure to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Dry floodproofing is allowed for non-residential structures. The applicant proposes to update its Flood Action Plan to incorporate dry floodproofing elements. Since the applicant is proposing to meet the regulatory flood protection elevation through dry floodproofing, the substantial improvement limit would not apply. The following documentation will be required • Elevation Certificate (As-Built Certification) • Floodproofing Certificate (Design Certification and As-Built Certification) • Flood Action Plan Page 65 of 164 There is no proposed fill in the floodplain. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Additional feedback will be provided during permit review if needed. Street and Driveway Entrance No impacts to the street or driveway entrance apron are proposed. Public Utilities Sanitary and water are served from 50th St W. No impacts to existing utility services are proposed. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will need to be obtained prior to city approval. Page 66 of 164 Variance Request St Stephens Church 4439 W. 50th Street EdinaMN.gov Page 67 of 164Variance request for accessibility and safety betterments to St Stephens church Page 68 of 164Proposed Areas of Accessibility Improvements Page 69 of 164Areas of Accessibility Improvement Page 70 of 164Areas of to be Relocated/Modified to Accomplish Proposed Improvements Page 71 of 164Yellow Indicates Buildable Area/Area of Conformance Page 72 of 164Building Area Re-Location Page 73 of 164Renderings of Building Improvements Page 74 of 164Page 75 of 164Page 76 of 164Page 77 of 164Page 78 of 164Page 79 of 164Page 80 of 164Page 81 of 164Page 82 of 164Page 83 of 164Page 84 of 164Page 85 of 164Page 86 of 164Page 87 of 164Page 88 of 164Page 89 of 164Page 90 of 164Page 91 of 164Page 92 of 164Page 93 of 164Page 94 of 164Page 95 of 164Page 96 of 164Page 97 of 164Page 98 of 164Page 99 of 164Page 100 of 164Page 101 of 164Page 102 of 164Page 103 of 164Page 104 of 164Page 105 of 164Page 106 of 164Page 107 of 164Page 108 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 7.1 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Discussion Prepared By: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Title: Sketch Plan Review - 7600 France Avenue Action Requested: No action requested. Provide the applicant non-binding comments on a potential future land use request. Information/Background: The Planning Commission has been asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to subdivide the subject property into four (4) lots and build three new financial institutions with drive-throughs, each one 5,000 square feet in size. The property owner would create a cross-parking and access easement benefitting all four parcels on the Property. The existing office building would remain. The subject property is seven (7) acres in size and contains a five-story office building, 131,500 square feet in size. The building is served by a surface parking lot. The property is zoned POD-1, Planned Office District; the proposed uses are allowed within the district. To accommodate this request, the following would be required: ￿ Subdivision. To establish the three additional lots. ￿ Site Plan Review. ￿ Variances for parking, shared parking, and internal drive-aisle/parking area setbacks. As with all sketch plan reviews, the Planning Commission is asked to provide non-binding comments and direction on a potential future development request. Areas of focus could be on the requirements for separate ownership parcels providing green space setbacks along the interior lot lines, and parking variances. Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Staff Memo 2. Staff Presentation (Including site location, zoning, comp. plan and proposed plans) 3. Applicant Narrative Page 109 of 1644. Proposed Plans (Board Portal) Page 110 of 164 Staff Report Date: July 15, 2026 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subject: Sketch Plan Review – 7600 France Avenue (Financial Institutions) Staff Recommendation: No recommendation. The Planning Commission is asked to provide non- binding comments and direction on a potential future development request. Information/Background: The Planning Commission has been asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to subdivide the subject property into four (4) lots and build three new financial institutions with drive-throughs, each one 5,000 square feet in size. The Owner would create a cross-parking and access easement benefitting all four parcels on the Property. The existing office building would remain. The subject property is seven (7) acres in size and contains a five-story office building, 131,500 square feet in size. The building is served by a surface parking lot. The property is zoned POD-1, Planned Office District; the proposed uses are allowed within the district. To accommodate this request, the following would be required: ➢ Subdivision. To establish the three additional lots. ➢ Site Plan Review. ➢ Variances for parking, shared parking, and internal drive-aisle/parking area setbacks. As with all sketch plan reviews, the Planning Commission is asked to provide non-binding comments and direction on a potential future development request. Areas of focus could be on the requirements for separate ownership parcels providing green space setbacks along the interior lot lines, and parking variances. Page 111 of 164 Issues/Considerations: Compliance Table City Standard (POD-1) Proposed Setbacks (Structure) Front (76th) 30 feet 30+ feet Front (France) 50 feet 50 feet Side (South) 20 feet 20 feet Rear 20 feet 20+ feet Setbacks (Drive aisles & Parking) Front (76th) 20 feet 20+ feet Front (France) 20 feet 20+ feet Interior lot lines (if lots are to be 10 feet 0 feet* sold) Drive-through standards Stacking spaces per bay Drive aisle setback front 3 3 20 feet 20 feet Parking Stalls Financial Institutions - 1/300 s.f. Office – 1/300 s.f. 146,500 s.f. total 443 stalls required 488 stalls* Each Bank Lot would require 17 stalls on their own (variance required for shared parking) FAR 50% 43% (Variances could be required for individual lots depending on how the lot lines would be drawn) Building Coverage 30% 12% *Variance Required Page 112 of 164 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this site for OR, Office Residential land uses. Below describes the land use, development character and density: Categories Description, Land Uses Development Density Character and and Guidelines Intensity OR Transitional areas along Upgrade existing 20 – 75 residential major thoroughfares or streetscape and building dwelling units/acre Office Residential between higher intensity appearance, improve districts and residential pedestrian and transit districts. Many existing environment. highway-oriented commercial areas are Encourage structured parking anticipated to transition to and open space this more mixed-use linkages where feasible; character. emphasize the enhancement of the Primary uses are offices, pedestrian environment. attached or multifamily housing. Traffic and Parking Study. The project would require a parking stall variance. A traffic and parking study would be required as part of any formal application. Signage. Signage is not specifically proposed yet. Below are the Code requirements for signage in the POD-1 Zoning District: POD-1 One wall sign per building 86 square feet between the 8 feet tall frontage + 1 free standing two signs (no one sign larger maximum sign than 50 s.f.) Sidewalks/50 Foot Setback. A boulevard style sidewalk would be required to be installed along France Avenue. Also, staff would recommend eliminating the drive lane within the 50-foot setback for Building B and the parking stalls with the 50-foot setback along France Avene. Page 113 of 164 Lots held common ownership. Based on the provisions below, the properties would all need to be held in common ownership. If they are not, variances would be required as indicated above. Sec. 36-1316. - Setbacks not applicable to single dwelling unit buildings and double dwelling unit buildings. (a) No exposed parking spaces, required stacking spaces or drive aisles (except that portion of the driveway crossing the public right-of-way to give access to the street) shall be located within 20 feet of a public street right-of-way or within ten feet of an interior side lot line or a rear lot line. Interior side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be measured from the boundary of the tract. No parking space or drive aisle shall be located within ten feet of any principal use building. The City of Edina defines Tract as follows: Tract means one or more adjoining lots, not separated by streets, under common ownership, located within the same zoning subdistrict, and used for an integrated development. Page 114 of 164Sketch Plan Review - Sketch Plan Review – 7600 France Avenue (Financial Institutions) Style EdinaMN.gov Page 115 of 164Zoning Map & Site Location Site Location Page 116 of 164Land Use Map & Site Location Site Location Page 117 of 164Site Location Site Page 118 of 164Proposed Site Plan Page 119 of 164Proposed Development Renderings Page 120 of 164Proposed Development Renderings Page 121 of 164Proposed Development Renderings Page 122 of 164Proposed Development Renderings Page 123 of 164Zoning Ordinance Compliance Table Page 124 of 164Request Requires    Subdivision. To establish the three additional lots.  Site Plan Review.  Variances for parking, shared parking, and internal drive-aisle/parking area setbacks.     Page 125 of 164For Consideration by the Planning Commission Areas of focus could be on the requirements for separate ownership parcels providing green space setbacks along the interior lot lines, and parking variances. Page 126 of 164 7600 France Avenue Sketch Plan Review Application and Narrative (Revision #1) Property: 7600 France Avenue Legal Description of the Property: Lot 1, Block 1, Edina Office Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PID: 31-028-24-44-0010. Applicant: Newton RES LLC Attn: Michael Margulies 3720 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 (612) 205-0521 Email: michaelmargulies7@gmail.com Owner: Eden Prairie Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company Description of the Property: The Property is a 308,342 square foot parcel currently improved with one five-story building containing approximately 131,500 square feet with a foundation area of 35,878 square feet. The Property currently contains 554 parking spaces. Zoning District: POD-1 (Planned Office District). Proposed Development: The Owner intends to subdivide the Property into four lots as shown on the accompanying site plan. In addition to the lot containing the existing building, the Owner intends to create three approximately one (1) acre lots fronting France Avenue. Owner intends to construct on each a lot a one-story commercial building consisting of not more than 5,000 square feet. The proposed uses are anticipated to be financial institutions (banks and credit unions), each with a one lane service drive-through lane, which uses are permitted uses under the current zoning code. The Owner will create a cross -parking and access easement benefitting all four parcels on the Property. FAR: The maximum FAR for the Property is .50. The total area of the Property is 308,342 square feet. The existing building contains 131,500 square feet and each proposed building contains no more than 5,000 square feet. Therefore, with a total of 146,500 square feet, the proposed FAR will be .47. Page 127 of 164Building Coverage: The maximum allowed building coverage of the Property is .30. The total area of the Property is 308,342 square feet. The existing building coverage 35,878 square feet. The building coverage of each proposed building will not exceed 5,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed building coverage will be .16. Variances Required: None. Owner intends to conform to existing design standards with respect to the new buildings including, without limitation, those standards related to building setbacks, drive aisle setbacks, 75% first floor transparency, natural material requirements, building façade length and minimum floor to ceiling height. Development Schedule: Owner intends to apply for site plan approval in July 2026, and immediately upon receiving site plan approval commence the site plan improvements with construction commencing on at least one building in 2027. Submitted June 18, 2026 APPLICANT: NEWTON RES LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Michael Margulies Its: Manager 2 Page 128 of 164 CONSENT OF OWNER EDEN PRAIRIE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, the fee owner of the Property located at 7600 France Avenue, Edina, Minnesota, consents to the Sketch Plan Review Application for the property. Dated June 13, 2026 EDEN PRAIRIE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: _____________________________ Nedal Abdul-Hajj Its: Chief Manager 3 Page 129 of 164 W 76TH ST. SITE PLAN 50’ BUILDING A Existing Office 131,500 sf SETBACK B Finacial 5,000 sf C Credit Union 5,000 sf D Credit Union 5,000 sf D 300 44 C A S FRANCE AVE 26 10 B N 61 11 © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 31 Page 130 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 32 Page 131 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 33 Page 132 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 34 Page 133 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 35 Page 134 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 36 Page 135 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 37 Page 136 of 164BUILDING DIAGRAMS © 2026 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD 7600 FRANCE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT | 38 Page 137 of 164 Item Report July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Item Number: 7.2 Department: Community Development Item Activity: Discussion Prepared By: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Title: Sketch Plan Review - Macy's Furniture Store Site , Northwest Lot (7235 France Avenue) Action Requested: No action requested. Provide the applicant non-binding feedback on a potential future development proposal. Information/Background: The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to revise the approved site plan for the northwest lot at 7235 France Avenue. (The Macy’s Furniture Store Site.) The proposed new project is for an age-restricted (55+), 7-story apartment comprised of 138 residential units, with 7,400 square feet of retail on the main level and two levels of enclosed parking. The previously approved plan included a 7-story 124-unit apartment with 13,586 square feet of offices and 5,915 square feet of retail. The size of the site expands from 1.79 to 1.83 acres. The lot coverage expands from 37% to 57%; the FAR expands from 2.59 to 3.5 and the impervious surface expands from 82% to 88%. Ten percent (10%) of the units would remain affordable at 50% AMI. To accommodate this request, the following would be required: • Zoning Ordinance Amendment to accommodate the proposed changes. • Site Plan Review & Revised Overall Development Plan for the PUD, Planned Unit Development. Supporting Documentation: Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL) and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data request (URL). 1. Staff Memo 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Staff Presentation (Including site location, zoning, comp. plan and proposed plans) 4. Proposed Plans (Board Portal) Page 138 of 164 Staff Report Date: July 15, 2026 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subject: Sketch Plan Review – Macy’s Site (NW Lot – 7235 France Avenue) Staff Recommendation: No recommendation. The Planning Commission is asked to provide non- binding comment and direction on a potential future development request. Information/Background: The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to revise the approved site plan for the northwest lot at 7235 France Avenue. (The Macy’s Furniture Store Site.) The proposed new project is for an age-restricted (55+), 7-story apartment comprised of 138 residential units, with 7,400 square feet of retail on the main level and two levels of enclosed parking. The previously approved plan included a 7-story 124-unit apartment with 13,586 square feet of office and 5,915 square feet of retail. The size of the site expands from 1.79 to 1.83 acres. The lot coverage expands from 37% to 57%; the FAR expands from 2.59 to 3.5 and the impervious surface expands from 82% to 88%. Ten percent (10%) of the units would remain affordable at 50% AMI. To accommodate this request, the following would be required: ➢ Zoning Ordinance Amendment to accommodate the proposed changes. ➢ Site Plan Review & Revised Overall Development Plan for the PUD, Planned Unit Development. As with all sketch plan reviews, the Planning Commission is asked to provide non-binding comments and direction on a potential future development request. Areas of focus should be on the scale of the proposed use given the increase in the size of the building and the realigned east west pedestrian pathway through the overall development. A side-by-side comparison of the proposal can be found in the applicant’s narrative and the proposed plans. Page 139 of 164 Issues/Considerations: Comprehensive Plan. The site is guided CAC, Community Activity Center. The following is the land use description for CAC, Community Activity Center (which this site is guided) in the Comprehensive Plan: Categories Description, Land Uses Development Character and Guidelines Density and Intensity CAC Contains larger scale uses, height and Design standards for building placement, massing and 90-150 residential Community coverage. street-level treatment. Where applicable, refer to small dwelling units/acre Activity area plan for more detailed design guidance. Buildings Center Primary uses: Retail, office, lodging, should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to entertainment and residential uses, combined create pedestrian scale. Buildings may “step down" at or in separate buildings. boundaries with lower-density districts and upper stories “step back" from street. Secondary uses: Institutional and More stringent design standards for larger recreational. Mixed-use should be buildings. Emphasize pedestrian circulation; re- encouraged and may be required on larger introduce finer- grained circulation patterns where sites feasible. Compliance Table City Standard (PUD-25) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – France Avenue 50 feet 50 feet Rear – East (Promenade) 34 feet (NE building) NA 35 feet (SE building) NA Side – North 35 feet (NW building) 35 feet 20 feet (NE building) NA Side – South 130 feet (SW building) 130 feet 49 feet ( SE building) NA Building Height 7 stories 7 stories Density Per the Comp. Plan 90-150 units per acre 48-58 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.5 3.5* Parking Stalls .75 spaces per unit = 104 residential required 258 stalls (40 for retail/public) 1/250 s.f. retail = 30 stalls retail required First Floor Height 15 feet (per the approved plan for each site) 15 feet Transparency at Ground Level 60% 60% *For the subject site (with a smaller building on the SW lot, the FAR may remain 2.5 overall Page 140 of 164 Sustainability. Any formal application must meet the City’s Sustainability Policy, as required with the overall approvals for this site. Traffic Study. Would be required to be updated as part of any formal application. Staff Concerns. While the height of the building remains consistent with the previous approval, the mass of the building is more. The east-west pedestrian connection gets shifted to the south. Because of the increase in the length of the building on France, the buildings to the east get blocked. The development potential of the lot to the south is reduced. Page 141 of 164 The Doran Group 6423 City West Parkway Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Cary Teague, Community Development Director Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 July 2, 2026 Dear Cary and Bill, Below is the narrative for our proposed Olinia – Edina project located on the Northwest Parcel of the 7235 France Avenue S redevelopment site (the former Macy’s Furniture Gallery). Intended Use The proposed project is a single-phase, age-restricted (55+) active adult rental community comprised of 138 residential units and approximately 7,400 square feet of ground-floor retail. The development occupies the Northwest Parcel within the previously entitled master plan approved for the 7235 France Avenue S site. Once completed, Olinia – Edina will offer first- class active adult living, lifestyle amenities, concierge-level service, and direct pedestrian access to the public Promenade connecting residents and the public to Centennial Lakes Park. The property will be developed and operated by The Doran Group, a fully integrated, multigenerational Twin Cities real estate company. The Doran Group includes in-house teams of developers, architects, finance and legal professionals, and a vertically integrated construction affiliate, Doran Builders Group, which will serve as general contractor. Olinia – Edina will be the company’s third active adult community, following two communities currently under construction: Olinia – Maple Grove (132 units) and Linden House – Hudson (128 units). Once fully operational, the community is projected to employ approximately 4-10 full-time personnel. Public Realm & Community Benefit A defining feature of the Northwest Parcel is its relationship to the public Promenade. The project preserves the previously approved open space, delivering direct pedestrian access to Centennial Lakes Park — a significant public benefit that extends the City’s connected park and trail network. This approach is consistent with the guiding principles of the Edina Comprehensive Plan and the Greater Southdale District Plan, which prioritize walkability, public realm connectivity, and a more pedestrian-oriented France Avenue corridor. Page 142 of 164 July 2, 2026 Page 2 The 60-foot public Promenade is integral to the site plan. As part of the master-planned site’s public-realm improvements, the master developer, Enclave, will construct the Promenade in connection with its development of the Southwest parcel. The site’s pedestrian connectivity extends beyond the Promenade to the surrounding Greater Southdale District. The adjacent Lunds & Byerly’s grocery, neighboring services along France Avenue, and the broader Southdale retail core are all within an easy walk, and the building’s own ground-floor retail activates the France Avenue frontage — together encouraging residents to walk for everyday needs rather than rely on a car. The project will also contribute to public art along the Promenade and the France Avenue frontage. Site Plan Considerations The development team is advancing a single preferred concept for the Northwest Parcel, and the building footprint is included in the package for review and feedback. The ground-floor retail is oriented to France Avenue, the parcel’s primary public frontage, with active, transparent storefronts designed to engage the pedestrian realm; it will be designed to accommodate a future food and beverage user, though specific tenants are not yet identified. Building servicing — loading and trash collection — is located on the north side of the building, away from the France Avenue frontage, so that France remains a pedestrian-oriented retail edge. Architectural Character & Exterior Materials As one of the most visible sites in the Greater Southdale District, the Northwest Parcel warrants a building of lasting design quality, and Olinia is intended to read as a distinctive, well-crafted addition to the France Avenue corridor rather than a generic multifamily building. Several attributes set it apart in the Edina and broader Twin Cities market: it is purpose-built for active adult (55+) living, with a larger-home unit mix in which more than half of the homes are two- bedroom or greater; a deep amenity and wellness program paired with concierge-level service; and a direct, ground-level relationship to the public Promenade and Centennial Lakes Park that few infill sites can offer. The project is also delivered by a single, vertically integrated local company — The Doran Group, with Doran Builders Group as general contractor — allowing design intent to carry through to construction quality. The exterior is anticipated to employ a durable, high-quality material palette appropriate to a showcase corridor location, combining masonry, architectural precast, and composite metal with generous, energy-efficient glazing and metal-and-glass balcony railings. Final materials will be refined as the design advances, and specific selections and colors will be presented at the formal application stage. Key Project Features • 138 active adult (55+) rental units, single phase • Approximately 7,400 SF of ground-floor retail • 7 stories above grade over 2 levels of underground parking 6423 City W Pkwy, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TheDoranGroupUS.com Page 143 of 164 July 2, 2026 Page 3 • Unit mix: 46% 1 BD, 49% 2 BD, 5% 3 BD • 10% of units affordable at 50% AMI • Pedestrian access to the public Promenade and Centennial Lakes Park • Structured parking; 258 total stalls approximately (218 Residential and 40 Public/Retail) • Elevated amenity courtyard • Premium interior and exterior finishes and fixtures Potential Outdoor amenities: • Outdoor terrace with pool, sun loungers, grill stations and shaded patio seating • Outdoor hearth / firepit areas • Landscaped Gardens Potential Interior amenities: • Grand lobby and resident parlor • Clubroom • Library and reading rooms • High-end fitness studio and wellness space • Entertainment suite • Arts and crafts studio • Grab-and-go market • Grandchildren’s playroom • Golf simulator Potential In-residence finishes: • Quartz countertops and soft-close cabinetry • Kitchen islands or peninsulas • Private balconies or terraces • Large walk-in closets; select homes with fireplaces and double sink vanities • Full-size in-unit washers and dryers Site Zoning and Proposed Parameters The previously approved program for the Northwest Parcel contemplated a 7-story mixed-use building of approximately 124 apartment units, 13,586 square feet of office space, and 5,915 square feet of retail, served by two levels of underground parking as well as supplementary parking on the first floor. The proposed Olinia – Edina project advances a refinement of that program for the Northwest Parcel: 138 age-restricted (55+) residential units and approximately 7,400 square feet of retail, with the previously approved office component removed. 6423 City W Pkwy, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TheDoranGroupUS.com Page 144 of 164 July 2, 2026 Page 4 The change in use reflects current market and community conditions. The approved program was anchored by a multi-tenant office component; in the period since that approval, we believe that demand for high-quality, age-restricted active adult rental housing has grown faster than the demand for office space inside of a mixed-use building that includes housing. Edina’s 55+ population is large and expanding, and many longtime residents wish to remain in the community as their housing needs change. Furthermore, we believe that adding additional 55+ housing in Edina allows its existing seniors to stay in the community while simultaneously increasing the supply of single-family homes for sale which presents an opportunity for young families to purchase a home. The change in scale follows directly from the change in product. Whereas the approved program was a conventional 124-unit apartment building, Olinia is purpose-built for an active adult (55+) resident and is composed of larger homes designed for residents downsizing from single-family houses who are unwilling to trade away space, storage, or a second bedroom. More than half of the units (54%) are two-bedrooms or greater — a far higher proportion of larger homes than a typical non-age restricted apartment program. This deliberately generous unit program, rather than an increase in unit count, accounts for the additional floor area reflected in the F.A.R.: the unit count rises only modestly over the approved plan (124 to 138 units) — a level that reflects the minimum scale needed for an economically and operationally viable community given the project’s 10% affordable (50% AMI) commitment, as a smaller unit count would not support that affordability and the associated service and operating model. The predominance of two-bedroom and larger homes increases total residential floor area, even after the previously approved 13,586 square feet of office is removed. The larger floor plates required to accommodate these homes likewise account for the increase in lot coverage. The building height is unchanged from the approved plan at seven stories, so the additional floor area is absorbed within a comparable vertical envelope rather than through added height. The Northwest Parcel also increases modestly in area, from approximately 78,180 square feet to 79,780 square feet — an increase of roughly 1,600 square feet — as a result of re-platting the master-planned site to reconfigure the shared boundary between the Northwest and Southwest parcels. Under the revised plat, the building occupies the Northwest Parcel to its southern property line, and the 60-foot public Promenade is preserved as public open space within the Southwest Parcel. The shared property line shifts approximately four and one-half feet to the south, which modestly enlarges the Northwest Parcel and correspondingly reduces the Southwest Parcel. The Promenade will be constructed by the master developer, Enclave, as part of its development of the Southwest Parcel, so its delivery is tied to Enclave’s Southwest-parcel timeline. The chart below outlines an early identification of parameters comparing the approved plan program to the proposed Olinia program. As the project progresses, we anticipate further discussion and refinement. 6423 City W Pkwy, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TheDoranGroupUS.com Page 145 of 164 July 2, 2026 Page 5 Approved PUD (NW Element Proposed (Olinia) Parcel) Site Data Total Site Area (SF) ~78,180 SF 79,780 SF Total Site Area (acres) 1.79 1.83 District PUD – approved master plan PUD – amendment Mixed-Use (residential + Active Adult (55+) Land Use office + retail) Residential + retail Residential Units 124 apartment units 138 active adult (55+) units Office 13,586 SF None proposed Retail 5,915 SF ~7,400 SF Building Form Height (stories) 7 stories 7 stories Height (feet) 84’ 84’ approx. F.A.R. 2.59 3.5 Lot Coverage 37% 57% approx. Total Impervious Surface 82% approx./1.48 acres 88% approx./ 1.6 acres Setbacks Fronting a Street / Front 66’ (W) /35’ (N) 66’(W) /35’(N) 60’ (promenade part of Interior Side Yard 0’ (S) parcel) Rear Yard 43’ (E) 43’ (E) Public Promenade Approved public open space Preserved – see narrative Parking 223 Residential & Office; 22 218 Residential; 40 Total Parking Stalls Retail/Public Retail/Public 2 levels below grade + 1 2 levels below grade + 1 Parking Type partial level above grade partial level above grade Bicycle parking will be Bike Parking Bicycle Parking Provided provided in accordance with City of Edina requirements. Affordability Affordable Units 10% of units at 50% AMI 10% of units at 50% AMI 6423 City W Pkwy, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TheDoranGroupUS.com Page 146 of 164 July 2, 2026 Page 6 Closing We look forward to further discussions regarding the proposed redevelopment. While we recognize this is an early stage of the process, we are excited to advance the conversation on a project we believe complements the guiding principles of the Edina Comprehensive Plan — particularly those directed toward the Greater Southdale District — by delivering high-quality active adult housing, a meaningful affordability commitment, and an activated public realm connecting directly to Centennial Lakes Park. Sincerely, Evan Doran President & CEO The Doran Group 6423 City W Pkwy, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TheDoranGroupUS.com Page 147 of 164Sketch Plan Review - Macy’s Site (NW Lot – 7235 France Avenue) Style EdinaMN.gov Page 148 of 164Zoning Map & Site Location Site Location Page 149 of 164Land Use Map & Site Location LocationSite Page 150 of 164Site Site Page 151 of 164Proposed Site Plan Page 152 of 164Proposed Site Plan in the Overall Development Page 153 of 164Comparison to Approved Plan Page 154 of 164Zoning Ordinance Compliance Table Page 155 of 164Request Requires  Zoning Ordinance Amendment to accommodate the proposed changes.  Site Plan Review & Revised Overall Development Plan for the PUD, Planned Unit Development. Page 156 of 164For Consideration by the Planning Commission  Scale of the proposed project given the increase in the size of the building.  Realigned east west pedestrian pathway through the overall development. Page 157 of 164Page 158 of 164Page 159 of 164Page 160 of 164Page 161 of 164Page 162 of 164Page 163 of 164Page 164 of 164