The City of Edina Planning Commission on May 28 voted 6–2 to recommend that the City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and site plan for 5516 Vernon Avenue that would allow two duplexes (four dwelling units) on a site currently guided and zoned for single-family use.

Staff said the approximately one-acre site would be re-guided from "low density residential" to "low density attached residential," rezoned from R-1 to PRD-2 and platted so each dwelling would be on a separate lot with shared common space managed by a homeowners association. Staff recommended approval and the commission forwarded that recommendation by roll-call vote.

Planner Carrie (City planning staff) told the commission the site is just under one acre, is adjacent to Yancey Park and Highland School, and contains mature trees along the west lot line proposed for preservation. She said the proposal would meet PRD-2 minimum standards and that the change would align with the city's strategy to add "missing middle" housing in targeted locations along arterial streets. Carrie said the average lot area per dwelling in the proposal would be just over 9,500 square feet, larger than the minimum PRD standard of 7,300 square feet and similar to nearby single-family lot sizes.

Jordan Crockett, project operations manager for Abundance Properties, presented the applicant's materials and cited a University of Minnesota study and the city's climate and housing strategies in support of modest density increases along corridors. "The comprehensive plan, the climate plan, all the things in Edina points towards wanting to increase density," Crockett said.

Public testimony included neighbors who raised tree loss, neighborhood character and parking concerns. Susan Carlson, who lives at 5508 Goya Lane, said the site has about 40 trees and that converting a single-family property into four five-bedroom units could substantially increase occupants and vehicle demand. "We're looking at going from anywhere from maybe 8 occupants to 28 occupants," Carlson said, adding concerns about where guests would park.

Commission discussion showed a split: supporters said the location on a minor arterial and the site's size made it an appropriate place for a small increase in housing variety and density; opponents said changing the comprehensive plan for a single parcel felt like a piecemeal or "spot" amendment and would be better handled as part of a broader small-area or corridor plan. Several commissioners said the change was modest relative to the corridor-scale goals recommended in prior studies but acknowledged neighborhood concerns about trees, aesthetics and parking.

After deliberation the commission voted to recommend approval. The roll-call vote was: Elkayer (aye); Padilla (aye); Smith (aye); Day (aye); Bornstein (nay); Felt (aye); Hahnemann (aye); Chair Bennett (nay). The motion included approval "per the findings and conditions" in the staff report. The project now moves to the City Council for final action; council approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is required before the developer can file final plats or building permits.

The staff report noted the site is subject to the city's tree preservation ordinance and that some mature interior trees will be removed; tree replacement and compliance will be addressed during permitting. Staff also said no traffic study was required because the proposal adds only three additional units to the corridor compared with a single-family redevelopment; the project must still demonstrate compliance with all code standards and conditions in the staff report.