Approval of Meeting Agenda
Approved unanimously
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [Early in meeting] · Seconded by Unknown [Early in meeting]
Routine procedural item; no substantive discussion.
Approval of Meeting Minutes (April 11, 2024 Special Work Session and May 8, 2024 Regular Meeting)
Approved unanimously
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [Early in meeting] · Seconded by Unknown [Early in meeting]
Routine procedural item; no substantive discussion.
Community Comment - Public Input on Non-Agenda Items
No vote required; public comment period
Dissent: N/A
David Frankle (4510 Lake Drive, Edina) provided testimony comparing Edina's planning practices unfavorably to Reston, Virginia and Columbia, Maryland. He criticized the city's lack of data-driven decision-making, absence of a data analytics position, and use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts. Frankle noted that TIF has negatively impacted Edina Public Schools (running a deficit) and cited specific examples including the Grand View area remaining vacant for 15 years and a bridge project under federal investigation for ADA non-compliance. He recommended the city adopt evidence-based planning practices consistent with National League of Cities guidance.
Public Hearing and Variance Approval - Front Yard Setback Variance, 4619 Town Circle
Approved unanimously (voice vote: all in favor)
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown Commissioner [Deliberation] · Seconded by Unknown Commissioner [Deliberation]
Chris Aer (City Staff) presented a request for a 15.7-foot front yard setback variance for a garage addition to an existing non-conforming 1939 home. The property has an unusual lot configuration with a cul-de-sac on the east side, creating an average front yard setback requirement of 35.7 feet (based on neighboring properties at 21.8 feet and 49.6 feet). The existing home is set back 21.7 feet; the proposed garage would be set back 20 feet. Staff noted practical difficulties: (1) the property's non-conforming status predating current ordinance; (2) significant topography (28-30 feet grade change from front to back); and (3) the need to preserve mature trees. The applicant (Dan Dees, Murphy and Code Design) explained that pushing the garage further back would require excessive excavation and tree removal. Commissioners noted the addition matches the existing house setback, includes water runoff controls, and does not alter neighborhood character. All adjacent neighbors supported the request. No public testimony was provided.
Public Hearing and Preliminary Rezoning/PUD - Mixed-Use Development, 7235 France Avenue
No vote taken; public hearing closed; further deliberation anticipated
Dissent: Multiple Commissioners expressed concerns regarding traffic adequacy, parking necessity, pedestrian experience, logistics, and height/TIF relationship, but no formal dissent recorded as no vote occurred.
Carrie T (Community Development Director) presented a major mixed-use development proposal for the 7.97-acre former Macy's furniture store site. The project includes four buildings: (1) Southwest: 11-story, 155-foot mixed-use building with 47,000 sq ft office, 49 senior condos (10% affordable at 80% AMI), 9,000 sq ft retail/restaurant, 280-stall parking garage; (2) Northwest: 7-story mixed-use with 20,000 sq ft office, 124 apartments, 8,000 sq ft retail, 318 stalls; (3) Northeast: 7-story with 223 rental apartments, underground parking; (4) Southeast: 7-story with 176 units, 4,000 sq ft retail/restaurant, 380-stall garage. Total: 572 units, 1,300 parking stalls (vs. 1,117 required; WSB study recommends 1,041). The applicant (Patrick, Enclave Development; Ben Landauer, Lifestyle Communities; Lucas Vantin and Christopher Wette, ESG Architecture) emphasized: (1) 45% of site dedicated to public realm; (2) extension of Promenade through site to France Avenue; (3) public dog park on northeast corner; (4) restaurants on prominade; (5) 53 rental units + 5 for-sale condos affordable; (6) all parking underground (no surface parking); (7) compliance with Sustainable Buildings Policy (5% EV charging, solar panels); (8) flexibility to accommodate future France Avenue crossing (above or below grade). The applicant requested PUD rezoning from PCD-3 to allow: (1) 11-story building (vs. 8-story code limit); (2) reduced setbacks to R1 district (800 feet vs. 930 feet required); (3) reduced ground-floor transparency (60-75% vs. 75% required); (4) reduced first-floor height (15 feet vs. 20 feet required); (5) increased floor area ratio. Commissioners raised extensive concerns: (1) Traffic: While WSB concluded no roadway improvements needed, Commissioners questioned adequacy given 4,500 daily trips, limited left-turn access from site, and potential queuing on Gallagher Drive. Traffic engineer Mallerie (WSB) noted level-of-service D (acceptable delay under 55 seconds) at France/Gallagher intersection. (2) Parking: Commissioners questioned why 1,300 stalls were needed when city standard is 1,117 and consultant recommends 1,041. Applicant acknowledged reviewing reduction options. Concerns raised about curb parking in central Promenade area and whether it would be filled by residents rather than serving intended short-term uses. (3) Pedestrian Experience: Commissioner expressed concern that residential units facing the central East-West street would make it feel private rather than public, and questioned whether sufficient commercial/office uses were oriented to activate the street. Applicant clarified that West two buildings have 100% commercial ground floors; East buildings have residential with commercial lobbies. (4) Logistics: Commissioners questioned how trash, grease traps, restaurant deliveries, and resident move-ins/move-outs would function in dense environment. Applicant provided plan sheets showing trash collection in parking garages, vertical shafts for restaurant exhaust, and designated loading zones. (5) Height and TIF: Commissioner questioned connection between height request and TIF funding, noting that additional height was needed to generate revenue to offset affordable housing and structured parking costs. Applicant acknowledged TIF request would be formally submitted with detailed financial analysis. (6) Setbacks to R1: Commissioner questioned why 11-story building requires 930-foot setback (9x height) vs. 7-story building requiring 328 feet (4x height), noting the discrepancy seems arbitrary. Staff explained setback standards are designed to minimize shadow/sun impact on single-family homes. (7) Public Parking: Commissioners sought clarification on whether first-floor parking would be genuinely public or primarily serve residents/tenants. Applicant confirmed first floor of all four buildings intended for public use with shared parking strategy. (8) Senior Housing: Commissioner questioned whether 55+ senior condos with no on-site services would attract intended demographic and whether units would be marketed appropriately. Applicant confirmed age qualification (55+) with 20% flexibility for younger buyers; wellness studio but no active aging services. (9) Bike Infrastructure: Commissioner noted lack of separated bike lane on central East-West street; applicant noted Nine Mile Creek Trail on south side provides dedicated bike route. (10) School District: Clarification made that project is in Richfield School District, not Edina. (11) Playground: Commissioner noted no playground programmed on site despite family-sized units (3-bedroom). (12) Promenade Maintenance: Commissioner questioned why city no longer owns Promenade extension (as with existing Promenade) but instead relies on private easements and developer maintenance. Staff explained original Promenade was intended as transit corridor (rubber-tire circulator) that was never built; city changed direction. (13) Edinburgh Golf Course Access: Commissioner questioned whether residents would gain special access to Edinburgh facilities; clarification provided that residents would have same access as any Edina resident (no special privileges). (14) Convertible Parking: Applicant confirmed design includes flexibility to convert parking stalls to residential/office if demand is lower than projected. (15) Raised Pedestrian Crossing: Commissioner requested that central East-West pedestrian crossing be raised relative to vehicle traffic. Applicant confirmed this is design intent. (16) Fire/Emergency Access: Applicant clarified that east-west Promenade is designed as emergency fire access lane with turnaround; no regular vehicle traffic intended. No vote was taken during this session; further deliberation anticipated.