Edina council rejects Ayana fast‑charging plan after comp‑plan amendment fails

Edina’s City Council on June 2 rejected a proposal to convert the former service station at 616 Vernon Avenue into an Ayana (ION) high‑speed electric‑vehicle charging site, after a required comprehensive‑plan amendment failed to get the four votes needed to change the property’s future‑land‑use designation.

The proposal would have replaced the small triangular parcel’s existing building with a 14‑plug (seven dual‑port) fast‑charging array, an indoor Amazon “Just Walk Out” convenience store, a customer lounge and 24/7 restrooms with QR‑code access after hours. City planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval, noting the site would reuse an underutilized commercial parcel and that Stantec’s traffic study found no need for roadway improvements at nearby intersections.

But the plan drew intense neighborhood opposition in testimony that stretched for more than an hour. Nearby residents cited congestion on 76th Street, bus operations, safety near Fred Richards Park and the Three Rivers regional trail, overnight access and lighting, and noise and loitering concerns tied to an unstaffed 24/7 lounge. Supporters argued the site would expand charging access for apartment and condo residents who cannot install chargers at home and would help make EV ownership more attainable in the western suburbs.

Council members debated two legal and policy questions before voting: whether electricity sold at a station should be treated under the existing PCD4 zoning definition for motor fuel (staff told council electricity qualifies as an alternative motor fuel) and whether the project met the comprehensive‑plan definition of a “neighborhood node.” Several council members expressed concern about granting multiple setbacks and other variances for a single, tiny lot by changing the city’s land‑use guidance for that parcel.

The council first voted on a motion to amend the comprehensive plan from “medium‑density residential” to “neighborhood node.” That amendment failed to receive the four votes required. Because the variances and site plan were tied to the new comp‑plan designation, the council then voted to deny the site plan and variances (Resolution 2026‑29). The staff record and public hearing remain part of the record for any future applicant.

What’s next: the Ayana/ION proposal will not proceed in this form. Council members noted the property has been difficult to redevelop and that multiple other concepts have been proposed there in recent years. Officials said a future applicant could return, but a repeat application from the same developer would face a one‑year waiting period if the council denies the same request.

Representative quote: “We want to provide a different customer experience…we’re building for the future here,” said Andreas Vier of Ayana, describing the company’s network ambitions. Nearby resident David Little told the council the proposal was not a permitted gas‑station use under current comp‑plan guidance: “This is not a gasoline station,” he said, and argued the comprehensive plan should not be spot‑amended for a single parcel.

The council’s decision came after extended public testimony and technical Q&A with traffic engineers and planning staff. No construction or approvals will proceed for the 616 Vernon proposal as presented.