Edina clarifies zoning rules for mixed-use apartment buildings
The Edina Planning Commission unanimously approved a zoning amendment on August 18 to resolve conflicting city codes about where apartments can be built in commercial districts. The decision requires future apartment buildings to include ground-floor retail or commercial space, preserving neighborhood shopping areas.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the amendment, which clarifies two conflicting sections of Edina's zoning code (sections 36-612 and 36-618) that govern Planned Commercial Districts, or PCDs—neighborhood shopping areas like those at 50th and France and 44th and France.
The conflict arose because one code section allowed apartments as a conditional use in these districts, while another prohibited residential units on the first floor or basement. This ambiguity created confusion for developers and the city. The commission chose "Option B," which explicitly requires that any apartment building in these districts must have commercial or retail space on the first floor and basement, with apartments only above.
Residents strongly supported this approach. Janie Weston of Brookview Avenue argued that the existing code language "does not say you can do" residential on the first floor, so Option A—which would have allowed it through a special permit—was "just plain incorrect." Kent Kramer suggested strengthening the language further to prevent developers from using private amenities like gyms or lobbies as workarounds for genuine public retail.
City Attorney Dave Kendall noted that the original intent "was to try to require that commercial or retail on the first floor of buildings, presumably large multi-family buildings like apartments or condos." The amendment clarifies this intent and adds language to close potential loopholes.
The amendment also addresses broader tensions in Edina about housing and development. Commissioners discussed the need for better data on apartment occupancy and affordable housing rates to inform future policy decisions, acknowledging the tension between residents wanting more housing options and those concerned about overdevelopment. The Planning Commission's recommendation now goes to the City Council for final approval.
Our proprietary artificial intelligence agent analyzed publicly available documents including meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts to write this story to help inform local residents. Feedback helps us improve, so please consider rating how we did with the thumbs up or down below.
Go deeper on this topic
Research related meeting documents and build a brief — without rewriting the story.
Full analysis
Votes (1)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Multi-family Housing in PCD1 and PCD2 Zoning Districts
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner Smith [00:54:15] · Seconded by Unknown [00:54:20]
The Planning Commission discussed a proposed amendment to clarify conflicting sections of the city's zoning code (36-612 and 36-618) regarding multi-family residential uses in Planned Commercial Districts (PCD1 and PCD2). Two options were presented: Option A (allow standalone multi-residential via conditional use permit) and Option B (explicitly require commercial uses on the first floor and basement of any multi-residential building). Staff recommended Option B to preserve the commercial character of neighborhood nodes, citing alignment with comprehensive plan goals. Public comments strongly favored Option B, emphasizing concerns about losing valuable ground-level commercial space and preventing potential loopholes for developers. The discussion also delved into the varying levels of city discretion for conditional use permits versus zoning changes, with the latter offering more control. The Commission ultimately recommended Option B with additional clarifying language.
Notable Quotes (5)
it seems as though at least part of the intent uh you know it seems as though I mean right now the ordinance is conflicting but it seems as though at least part of the intent was to try to require that commercial or retail on the first floor of buildings presumably large multi-family buildings like apartments or condos...that seem to be the overarching intent.
It says nothing that allows a conditional use of basement and first floor residential living...Option A is just plain incorrect...the plain language does not say you can do that so let's just not do option A.
I'm just curious if it might make sense to further strengthen the language in I believe it's option b relative to uh the commercial and Retail spaces on the first floor of a building as opposed to housing specifically as it relates to a potential building developer or owner deciding to kind of get around that by having a captive gym or captive Lobby or captive restaurant kind of uh or cafeteria kind of a thing for primarily directed towards the residents of the building as opposed to the more retail concept.
I think this meeting it's a good meeting to make sure that we get it right and make sure that the future we get it right...this Planning Commission as being a really important body for this city to make sure that our city council does the right thing by long-term standards of planning and long-term planning to make sure that our city-states are really livable and great place to live long term and doesn't become a developer-led planned city.
there's nothing in here that says you're allowed to have housing on the first floor basement but there is nothing in here that says that you cannot correct right...So I think no I waited until this meeting but that was a sticking point and said you know we've been repeatedly said that first floor residential and basement are not allowed by 612 but that's not true here from a legal standpoint right I mean there's there's no real ambiguity around there you can have residential on the first floor in the basement here is listed by these conditional uses because because it says multi-residential and it doesn't exclude those uses in the conditional use list right.
Ordinances & Resolutions (15)
City code section allowing multi-residential uses as conditionally permitted in PCD districts
City code section prohibiting dwelling units in the basement or first story of PCD1 or PCD2 districts
Planned Commercial District 1, central to the ordinance amendment discussion
Planned Commercial District 2, central to the ordinance amendment discussion
Preliminary development proposal for 5780 Lincoln Drive, not yet formally submitted
Guiding document referenced for land use and development vision
Specific small area plans cited as supporting multi-residential uses in nodes
Past development approved via Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which highlighted the code conflict
Past development approved via Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which highlighted the code conflict
Development mentioned as having commercial on the first floor
Development mentioned as having commercial on the first floor
Survey referenced by Commissioner Day regarding resident opinions on development
Ongoing work plan item, with a survey for resident feedback
City plan that had a motion to submit to the Met Council fail at the City Council meeting
Project that held a public hearing at the previous City Council meeting
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
Public sentiment on development and housing data
Want to know when new stories arrive?
Enter your email to receive updates.
We will not use your email for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time.