Edina Planning Commission Meeting / May 8, 2024
University of Minnesota Resilient Communities Project - Transportation and Climate Action Plan Study
Variance Request for 5416 Grove Street - Non-Conforming Foundation Reuse
Small Area Plan Working Group Chair Selection
Full Document Analysis
Votes (3)
University of Minnesota Resilient Communities Project - Transportation and Climate Action Plan Study Presentation
Dissent: No dissent on the presentation itself; extensive discussion of assumptions, methodology limitations, and implementation challenges, but no formal opposition to accepting the study.
The student research team (Holly Kenton, Greg Alberding, Johnny Manganero, Kenson Briggs, Jim Thompson, and Ying Wu) presented findings from a comprehensive study on whether Edina's density goals align with climate action plan targets. Key findings: (1) The existing 4% density target is insufficient to meet 7% VMT reduction and transit ridership doubling goals; (2) Targeted density around transit corridors and nodes is more effective than blanket citywide density increases; (3) Three scenarios were modeled—basic, enhanced, and preferred—with the preferred scenario achieving the most significant reductions in VMT and greenhouse gas emissions; (4) 18 policy recommendations were developed addressing climate action plan amendments, land use policy, built form, and transportation demand management. Commissioners engaged extensively on assumptions, seasonal impacts on transit ridership, utility infrastructure capacity, mixed-use development, resident behavior, and the relationship between density and transportation outcomes. The study emphasized that density alone is insufficient without complementary transportation policy, infrastructure improvements (particularly sidewalks and bike lanes), and demand management strategies.
Variance Request - 5416 Grove Street (Non-Conforming Foundation Reuse)
Dissent: Commissioner Day voted No, articulating concerns about practical difficulty standard and legal precedent. Commissioner Felt expressed strong reservations about sustainability rationale and legal interpretation but did not explicitly state final vote.
Moved by Commissioner [Name not explicitly stated] [Timestamp: ~4:15:00] · Seconded by [Name not explicitly stated]
Applicant Nelson S. (homeowner) requested variance to reuse existing non-conforming foundation (2.8 feet west sideyard, 0.3 feet east sideyard) for tear-down rebuild of new two-story home. Current code requires 10-foot minimum sideyards; existing foundation was compliant when built in 1984-1985 under 5-foot garage setback rule. Staff presented findings for both approval and denial. Approval findings emphasized: (1) practical difficulty caused by existing non-conforming foundation location; (2) foundation is pre-cast concrete (span-crete), very stable and solid; (3) reuse is sustainable solution avoiding landfill waste and $75,000-$80,000 cost of new foundation (10-12% of total construction cost); (4) proposal does not alter neighborhood character; (5) similar non-conforming setbacks exist on block. Denial findings emphasized: (1) project should be treated as vacant lot requiring full code compliance; (2) no practical difficulty for new construction on vacant lot; (3) no unique circumstances; (4) continuing non-conforming setback removes opportunity for code compliance. Applicant emphasized: strong foundation quality, 10-foot basement height (unusual for older homes), sustainability benefits, neighborhood support, and personal need for additional space (two children, parents visiting, spouse working from home). Commissioners debated whether cost savings and sustainability constitute practical difficulty, whether precedent supports approval, and whether the 50% demolition threshold definition should be reconsidered. Key tension: staff legal interpretation vs. Commission discretion to approve variances based on practical difficulty and sustainability.
Small Area Plan Working Group Chair Selection - Lincoln and London Plan
Dissent: None; procedural matter resolved by consensus.
The Commission addressed a procedural matter regarding chair selection for the Lincoln and London Small Area Plan working group. City guidelines specify that only one chair from the Planning Commission should be selected, with the option for a non-commission co-chair. Previously, Commissioners Miranda and Day were selected as co-chairs, but this arrangement conflicts with current guidelines. Addison (staff) clarified that guidelines have been in place for some time but acknowledged that the Commission has historically appointed multiple co-chairs from the Commission. Commissioner Miranda was selected as the sole chair, with Commissioner Day continuing as a working group member. The discussion emphasized that going forward, the Commission should follow the guideline of one chair from the Commission, with any co-chair role filled by a non-commission member.
Notable Quotes (21)
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the city of edina's current population density goal as outlined in the city's climate action plan will be sufficient to meet the transportation targets also outlined in that plan... since Transportation accounted for a little over 40% of those emissions it becomes clear they're reducing the amount that people drive and shifting toward a greater usage of sustainable transportation options like public transit are crucial for Idina to meet its climate goals
We consistently saw that targeted density strategies around specific nodes and corridors perform better than blanket Citywide density increases... there are a number of policy actions that the city can take to maximize the benefits of density
Our fundamental recommendation here is that the city bring its density and population goals into alignment... the climate action plan projects a residential density increase of just 4% a goal that is incompatible both with these other planning efforts and with the results of our analysis
I mean it makes sense to locate those 7,000 people along the quarters in these areas of change... it'll certainly help those nodes... if we have a 15% increase in population yet only Zoning for a 4% increase in density it's incompatible in terms of like where would we put this people we don't have undevelopable land really in a Dina so that's kind of the disconnection that we identified
I mean it's an interesting thing to to look at and and wonder how it impacts the model... you know obviously some B cities in Canada like qu back and stuff like that right there's a lot of people that ride their bikes in the winter but they've also dedicated a lot of infrastructure to that and we don't even clear our sidewalks with very good regularity
I personally live uh near luren Park in Minneapolis and I walked two blocks to Target and because of it it's access to all these Transit routes and having coffee shops and Target and all these other places I can get all my needs done just by walking without having a car so I think your point about making sure that mixes a part of the equation especially at how I view it these stops... so I was actually able to get rid of my car
The car is the competition because again that is the predominant mode in the city of Adina and most cities in the United States and so in order for something like transit to be competitive you need to find ways to balance that equation
I think it's semantics at the end of the day I guess I'll sum it up as a greed to disagree right in terms of the legal hurdles here... there is a way to do exactly what they want if money were no object and not have it considered a new build so I think we're we're playing a little word game personally
I think sticking to denial discourages the tear down of perfect of the tear down of perfectly good structures and encourages the ReUse of the ReUse of the part of the home that you're that you're living in
Staff has to look at this project as a vacant lot and that it would need to conform to our current code... because it is a tear down rebuild it's been designated as that it has to bring been the new construction has to be brought up to code
The existing Foundation is pretty solid so the main advantage right now is the 10 ft High basement and we don't see this in typical uh old home so that's the only reason why we want to retain this foundation... the foundation is around 175 linear feet so that's a lot of work... the foundation uh and the block walls are Su sustainable and they they have enough value and worth it's worth retaining that foundation
I'm satisfied with a practical difficulty being the location of the existing reusable non-conforming Foundation... if you take an alternate case where the applicant wanted to do a total tear down take out the foundation and also apply for this variance because that's where the old Foundation was and everything's the same so why isn't why isn't that okay I would say no to that because we we're creating a new house in this instance we're not creating new house we're trying to reuse an existing non-conforming Foundation and that that feels acceptable to me
Concrete is the most energy intensive and carbon uh exposing um thing you can do when you're building... by keeping the foundation as commissioner alire said you know concrete is the most energy intensive... in terms of the West Side the building is not going to be any higher than the existing building
I don't view it as a sustainability project... tearing down a home and putting it in the trash um is an unsustainable act that's a choice... I don't think the fact that some part of the basement could be saved makes an unsustainable Choice sustainable
If money were No Object I am sure that there is a way... they could vacate the house prop up each facade add a second story to the non-conforming footprint and then reside or whatever the whole thing and that's what people do in the historic districts they prop up the brick facade and then do whatever the heck they want behind it because it's not a new build because they preserved the exterior wall I think it's semantics at the end of the day
I don't think that's that's a good enough reason I don't think that's practic that what meets practical difficulty again there's nothing unique to this lot in its size it shape or location that says it can't be built
To comply with the ordinance creates a practical difficulty and that is to reuse this existing Foundation doesn't comply so I mean to me that is the pra practical difficulty at hand... there is a strong argument that you could make that if you had 49% of a house removed that you have a vacant lot I don't think that would be really upheld in a court of law either
After some um further review of our boarding commission guidelines particularly with respect to working groups and chair selection um looks like there's only supposed to be one chair from the commission um the guidelines say that the chosen chair May select a co-chair who is a non-commission member
I just want residents to not think we're just doing something totally different kind of following suit with what's been done before
I mean to be fair the person most familiar with the process and the person that's been most engaged and um has been you know taken the lead so far has been commissioner Miranda and so I think that makes sense as a choice for a chair
Addison and I talked about this the other day I actually think it's a gift not to be chair so I'm happy to be part of the working group and you know uh learn a lot about the process
Ordinances & Resolutions (9)
City plan with greenhouse gas reduction goal of 45% by 2030; includes transportation and land use goals for 7% VMT reduction, doubling transit ridership from 3.3% to 6.6%, and 4% population density increase by 2030
City comprehensive plan identifying areas of change; projects 15% population growth (approximately 7,000 additional residents) by 2030, reaching 60,000 total population
City zoning code establishing minimum sideyards of 10 feet for wider lots (changed from 5-foot garage setback requirement in 2012-2013); defines demolition as removal of more than 50% of exterior wall area
City plan featuring twin loop bicycle network; study team recommended focus on regional bicycle transportation network rather than concentric loops for density targeting
Plan recommended for update to ensure sidewalk access within 5-10 minute walk of E-Line stations
Capstone research project examining transportation emission reduction targets and zoning scenarios; cost $3,000 to city (subsidized by Metropolitan Council from typical $6,000 cost)
Modeling tool used to assess density impacts on population, VMT, greenhouse gas emissions, and transit mode share at parcel level
Request for 2.8-foot west and 0.3-foot east sideyards variance to reuse non-conforming foundation for tear-down rebuild; approved with conditions
Small area plan with working group; Commissioner Miranda selected as chair