Developers pitch four townhomes on Vernon Avenue; planning commission gives nonbinding feedback

Edina — A development team told the Edina Planning Commission on Jan. 29 it plans to demolish the single-family house at 5516 Vernon Avenue and build four townhome units, and commissioners provided nonbinding feedback on site layout, parking and zoning.

Planner Carrie Teague said the property and surrounding lots are currently zoned R1 (single-dwelling) and guided in the city comprehensive plan for low-density residential, and that a formal application would require a land-use amendment, rezoning to PRD2 (planned residential district 2) and site-plan review. “The property in the whole surrounding area here is zoned R1 single dwelling unit district,” Teague said. She said the 5516 Vernon lot is about 38,000 square feet and that PRD standards include a usable-lot-area requirement of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the sketch plan as an example of “missing middle” housing along a busy corridor. Several commissioners said the site’s location on Vernon — a higher‑traffic corridor near transit and Highland School — makes it a reasonable candidate for greater density, while others urged caution because a comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning would change the land-use expectation for neighbors.

The proposal and key details - Proposal: demolish the existing single-family house at 5516 Vernon Avenue and build two buildings containing four townhome units (two buildings with two units each), each unit roughly 3,000 square feet with four bedrooms and four bathrooms as presented by the applicants. The applicant said the intent is owner-occupied units sold on condominium/“CIC” townhome plats. - Lot size: about 38,000 sq. ft. (applicant presentation). Teague said the R‑1 minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. and noted PRD usable‑area standards exclude setbacks, parking and drive aisles. - Zoning/process: A formal application would need a comprehensive-plan amendment to re‑guide the parcel to “low‑density attached residential,” rezoning from R1 to PRD2, site‑plan review and possibly variances. Teague said PRD2 was the best fit after looking at R2 frontage/lot‑width requirements.

Commissioner comments and staff guidance Commissioners and staff offered design and process advice rather than votes. Recurring feedback included: preserve mature trees where feasible; reconsider the small surface guest-parking court and explore alternative layouts that reduce impervious surface and consolidate garages; consider adding covered front porches or varied rooflines to improve street presence; and explore whether the adjacent property at 5508 Vernon could be included in a future application to create a more cohesive redevelopment.

Several commissioners recommended the applicants avoid using the term “affordable housing” in early outreach because, they said, the word carries strong community connotations and could raise opposition; one commissioner suggested using “attainable” instead. Commissioners also encouraged the applicant to prepare for questions about traffic during school pick-up/drop-off because Highland School is immediately north of the site.

Applicant remarks Jordan Crockett, operations project manager for Abundance Properties, said the developer already owns the parcel and is pursuing owner‑occupied townhomes to support the city’s densification and climate goals. “We control the lot. It’s right along a busy corridor,” Crockett said, citing city plans and a 2024 University of Minnesota study that identify Vernon as a targeted corridor for increased density and reduced vehicle miles traveled.

No formal decision; next steps The planning commission did not vote on the sketch plan; by code this stage provides nonbinding feedback only. Commissioners repeatedly described the application as eligible for the formal sequence of comprehensive-plan amendment, rezoning and site-plan review and urged the applicant to consult neighbors (and, if possible, the owner of the adjoining 5508 Vernon parcel) before filing a formal application. Planner Teague and several commissioners noted that a comprehensive-plan amendment would typically require City Council approval and, depending on council rules, could require a supermajority.

Votes at the meeting (procedural) - Motion to approve the Jan. 29 agenda — approved (procedural). - Motion to approve Jan. 15 meeting minutes — approved (procedural).

What the commission did not do: There was no formal rezoning, no variance approval and no land‑use decision on 5516 Vernon; commissioners provided advisory comments only. The applicants were told to return with a formal application if they choose to proceed.

Ending The applicant team said it expects to submit a formal application and return to the commission; commissioners encouraged additional neighborhood outreach and refinements to the site plan (tree protection, reduced impervious area, possible reconfiguration of the guest-parking court and consideration of covered porches). The commission adjourned after staff and member comments.