Edina planning commission examines outdated zoning code gaps
The Edina Planning Commission held a work session on May 22 to discuss findings from a comprehensive audit of the city's zoning code, which hasn't been substantially updated since the 1970s. Analysts found significant misalignment between what the city's modern Comprehensive Plan envisions and what its zoning regulations actually allow.
Legislative analysts Jeff Miller and Beth Richmond from HKGI presented data showing that current zoning densities for medium and high-density residential areas are significantly lower than what the Comprehensive Plan permits. This gap has created a predictability problem for both developers and residents. As commissioner Addison Lewis noted, "Right now they don't align so we're kind of telling people this is what we want but then we have this set of regulations that this is what you can actually do."
The mismatch has forced the city to rely heavily on special approval processes called Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) for projects that should fit within standard zoning categories. Miller explained the inefficiency: "You could just create a district rather than having multiple PUDs that come in pretty similar but because there's no District out there to use you have to do it individually each time." The commission discussed shifting toward a "housing type" based code rather than strictly density-based zoning, which would better align with the Comprehensive Plan and Minnesota state law requirements.
The commission also examined two other significant issues. First, they reviewed confusing lot size standards in single-family residential zones, particularly a "median lot calculation" that makes it difficult for homeowners to understand setback requirements without professional surveys. Data showed a high percentage of non-conforming lots, especially on the city's east side, prompting discussion about lowering minimum lot size requirements to match existing conditions.
Second, the commission identified inefficiencies in the development review process. Currently, code-compliant projects must go through multiple public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. As one commissioner noted, "The code is requiring a public hearing with Planning Commission and a public hearing with Council... for a project that is 100% code compliant." Analysts recommended increasing administrative approval authority for projects that meet all code requirements, which would reduce redundant hearings and improve predictability.
No formal votes were taken during this work session, which was designed for discussion and analysis. The commission's findings will inform future zoning code revisions.
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 Code Audit Progress Update
Dissent: n/a
Moved by null · Seconded by null
Analysts Jeff Miller and Beth Richmond from HKGI detailed that the current code lacks true medium-density residential base districts. The commission discussed moving toward a 'housing type' based code rather than strictly density-based, and addressed the legal necessity for zoning to match the Comprehensive Plan under Minnesota state law.
Notable Quotes (3)
Right now they don't align so we're kind of telling people this is what we want but then we have this set of regulations that this is what you can actually do.
The code is requiring a public hearing with Planning Commission and a public hearing with Council... for a project that is 100% code compliant.
You could just create a district rather than having multiple PUDs that come in pretty similar but because there's no District out there to use you have to do it individually each time.
Ordinances & Resolutions (4)
The city's aspirational document guiding future land use and density goals.
Neighborhood-specific plans containing zoning-related requirements like building heights and step-backs.
Used as a justification for mixing land uses to reduce transit dependency.
Design and density negotiation standards for the Southdale area.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
R1 District Lot Standards and Non-Conformity
Streamlining Development Review Procedures
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.