Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edina commissioners generally back four‑unit townhome plan at 5201 Grand View Lane as a modest for‑sale densification
Summary
The commission reviewed a proposal to replace an aging duplex at 5201 Grand View Lane with four for‑sale townhomes; developers and several commissioners said the project fits a local pattern of modest densification and could add owner‑occupied housing, though rezoning and variances will be required.
The Edina Planning Commission discussed a sketch plan to tear down an aging duplex at 5201 Grand View Lane and build four for‑sale townhomes, a proposal the developer said is intended to add modest ownership opportunities and better fits the block than the existing structure.
Lisa McDanna, the owner of the property, explained she and her husband explored renovation but found structural rot and other defects that made rehabilitation infeasible; she and the development team presented a compact townhome plan designed to fit the streetscape and to use a private drive off 52nd Street rather than routing traffic through the neighborhood. Steve Beni of Donnie Holmes described the product as three‑story (with a lower level), roughly 2,800 square‑foot townhomes with two enclosed parking stalls per unit intended for sale to owner‑occupants rather than as rentals.
Staff noted the site is currently R2 zoned and guided low‑density attached residential but that the existing lot and surrounding development result in an effective density that would push the site into medium or high density by formula; as a result the formal application will require rezoning to PRD3, a comp‑plan amendment and variances (notably a reduced rear‑yard setback). Commissioners asked technical clarifying questions about setbacks, the effect of the 52nd Street right‑of‑way on perceived front yard depth, and whether front fencing should be included; the developer said small, low front fences had been used on similar projects to delineate semi‑private front yards and that they had pragmatic value for families and pet owners.
The commission broadly supported the for‑sale townhome approach as a way to introduce ownership units and moderate density in a node near higher‑density neighbors, while urging the team to refine setback, sidewalk and public‑realm connections. Commissioners also reminded the developer that state code requires sprinklers in buildings with three or more units, which affects construction and cost assumptions. No formal action was taken; staff will advise the developer on the rezoning and variance path and coordinate a formal application.
