Edina planning commission reviews two‑option senior housing sketch plan at 7600 Park Lawn, favors seven‑story concept

The Edina Planning Commission on April 15 reviewed a sketch plan for 7600 Park Lawn, a two‑phase, age‑restricted (55+) redevelopment of an existing four‑story office site that the applicant said would deliver roughly 250–300 units and extensive on‑site amenities.

Director Teague, the city’s planning director, told the commission the site is currently zoned MDD6 and that the city’s zoning caps (a four‑story/48‑foot height limit and an effective maximum of about 125 units under existing code) mean the proposal will require variances or a planned unit development to proceed. Teague noted that although the comprehensive plan guides the site for office and residential uses and a wide density range, the current ordinance and the comp plan are not perfectly aligned on density and height.

The applicant, Joshua (Josh) Brans of Greco, presented two concepts: Option 1, two seven‑story apartment buildings delivered in two phases; and Option 2, a taller alternative with a 12‑story component adjacent to Fred Richards Park and a seven‑story companion building. Brans said the project would emphasize sustainability and connectivity to Fred Richards Park and listed features that included green roofs, EV charging readiness, bike parking and indoor amenities. He described a parking program of roughly 476 stalls (422 structured, 54 guest) and said the team had conducted preliminary sun/shadow studies showing greater winter shadowing from the taller option.

Commissioners focused questions on density, unit mix and market rationale. The applicant said typical unit sizes in the concepts would range from roughly 1,300 square feet in market‑rate wood‑frame portions up to larger units averaging about 1,800 square feet in a concrete tower component, and noted the project is being shaped by market demand for larger, move‑in units. On rents the applicant said they anticipated starting around $2,000 for smaller units and that the largest units could be “materially higher,” with the transcript reflecting a higher upper range; the commission requested clearer, verifiable market numbers during later review.

Most commissioners praised the overall design quality but signaled a clear preference for the two seven‑story buildings (Option 1). Common requests included reducing surface parking by moving more stalls into the structured garage to free open space; creating a stronger, wider pedestrian boulevard and sidewalks on the project’s south frontage; terracing or stepbacks toward Fred Richards Park to reduce perceived bulk; and early coordination with the parks department on park access and trails. Commissioners also emphasized that because the project would rely on variances (height, lot area, usable lot area) or a PUD, the applicant should be prepared to show how requested flexibilities meet the code criteria.

There was no formal action or vote on the sketch plan; staff will work with the applicant on next steps and the commission indicated they expect a subsequent formal submittal that will include precise density, parking and shadowing data, a PUD or variance strategy, and refined design responses to the pedestrian and park‑connection suggestions.

What’s next: The sketch plan stays in review; the applicant must clarify parking demand, unit sizes and rents in writing, and will need either variances or a PUD and more detailed shadow and traffic information before a formal recommendation to council.