Lincoln and Londonderry Small Area Plan

My parents bought and moved into 5225 Grandview Square in 2001. It seemed like a perfect place for downsizing, long term Edina residents to move to. Convenient access to shopping, freeways and businesses they had used for years. Fast forward 24 years. Getting into, and out of my mom's residence is, at a minimum, challenging. Nothing convenient about the area today. What appears to be out of control growth has overwhelmed the infrastructure of the entire area. Traffic on Vernon, Eden, Sherwood and Arcadia is a free-for-all. Jerry's is overwhelmed. Edina is not yet done trying to add more density to the area. As a longtime resident of Parkwood Knolls, I see the writing on the wall. Vernon used to be four lanes and was manageable if a driver wanted to drive 5 miles an hour under the speed limit. Now there are bike lanes with no apparent users. Adding more housing to the Lincoln and Londonderry area will start overwhelming Vernon Ave. and traffic will overflow into Parkwood Knolls where there is no through traffic. Edina has been a desirable place to live because it was Edina. There was an attractive culture. A place one could aspire to move to. It wasn't desirable because of widespread affordable housing. I have personal experience with the valuable role affordable housing has played in Edina. It is sufficient at the current level. There are new high density housing developments in, and in close proximity to western Edina. The Loden in Edina, in Hopkins along Blake and Excelsior Blvd, in Minnetonka off of Highway 62, in Eden Prairie off of 212. There is no market driven need to force more high density housing into west Edina. One has to wonder what is driving the continued attempts to over develop this area. We have learned that it is not the residents of the area who have chosen the low density, low intensity living environment for a reason.
Steve Powless

Dear Honorable Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members,

As long term residents of the Parkwood Knoll neighborhood, we are writing to you to express our strong opposition to the current proposed "The Lincoln and Londonderry Small Area Plan."

First, in our perception, the process was in support of massive development of the Lincoln and Londonderry Area. At the initial public open gathering held at Walnut Ridge Park this past summer the developer from Solheim group was in attendance. This is not good optics for those of us who believed such a meeting was to be impartial and non-biased. Many of my neighbors questioned why a developer would attend such a meeting postured by City Staff, one Council Member, and Edina's outside Marketing consultants as an opportunity to engage with the community for their initial thoughts on the development of the property. At this gathering, many residents expressed their concerns about developing the Lincoln and Londonderry area. Additionally at this gathering, Council Member, Caroline Jackson, who was in attendance, continuing used the the term "blight" to describe the business area. A term which we fundamentally disagree with. If this term was used to justify some future plan for which residents were not aware we find that notion troubling. This terminology to many of us listening to Carolyn Jackson signaled that large scale development and TIF is imminent. We drive on Lincoln and Londonderry roads everyday and we would not consider this area as being in a state of blight.

Our primary opposition to the current plan is that we thought the Small Area Plan was to discover and discuss with the residents their desires for the area and create a framework for development. The Small Area Plan that has been presented already has apartments, townhouses, parking spaces, and swimming pools filling all the spaces on the site map. No where in this plan do we see "Balanced Development" or "Right Size Development" which is stated as a goal for the Small Area Plan. The proposed plan looks as though the design order was to build and fit as much as you can on the sites.

This is in contrast to when the Green Farms Area development was in the planning stage. The developer was told by the Edina City Council to make the area exceptional; as it was one of the last areas to be developed in Edina. Now Edina has another parcel of land, which may be the last large parcel to be developed. It seems that a high density development is a foregone conclusion based upon the Lincoln and Londonderry Small Area Plan; developing an area to be exceptional is a long forgotten premise.

In the stated Conclusion + Next Step section of the Small Area Plan it states, "Serving as a key guide for future development decision-making, the plan provides a framework to help city officials, developers, and stakeholder's ensure that growth aligns with the shared vision of the city residents, fostering a thriving sustainable community." The neighborhood residents have voiced very strong concern about increased traffic . However, it is only listed once as a concern in the planning material. Nowhere in the Lincoln and Londonderry plan are the numbers of housing units, cars, and population growth numbers been forthcoming. At the Live-Feedback Presentation, which I attended, a city staff member mentioned that the intersection of Lincoln and Londonderry can handle over 18,000 cars a day. Increased traffic is a major and real concern. The Parkwood Knolls neighborhood will become a cut though for vehicle traffic. There is no way to deny this outcome. In fact we saw this phenomenon when Highway 169 was closed several years ago. The increase of traffic is an issue that the small area plan and the city has not addressed. With this increase traffic and greater access to our Parkwood Knolls neighborhood we fear we will see a greater uptick in crime. As residents of this neighborhood for over 63 years we have definitely seen more crime. What specific strategies does the city and the developer have to protect the homeowners to this almost certain event? The Edina City staff and developers need to be honest with the surrounding residents about the impact of the increased vehicle traffic due to the high density development.

As we conclude this letter of objection, City staff and developers needs to explain not only to area residents but all of Edina how water and sewer treatment will be handled given that this was the primary issue defeating the low income housing proposal. Specifically, what strategies will be implemented and what costs will the city residents bare in order to upgrade water and sewer to handle this proposal.

Please understand that we chose to live in the Parkwood Knolls area because of the quiet neighborhood. We chose to not live by the developments in the Southdale Area, 50th and France, or by Jerry's grocery store. It seems that Edina's governing body is pushing for increase density in all areas of Edina. The pro developer agenda of high density seems to be more important to the city government than listening to the residents who live in the area; who want to maintain a quiet and desirable neighborhood.

Respectfully Submitted,

Margaret and Bill Joas
6409 Biscayne Blvd
Edina, MN 55436

Here’s a cleaned-up and more organized version of your statement. I preserved your tone and main arguments, while improving clarity, sentence flow, and structure:

---

**Statement in Opposition to the Current Small Area Plan Proposal**

I oppose the Small Area Plan proposal in its current form. Both the content of the proposal and the process used to develop it have largely disregarded input from members of the immediate neighborhood.

While there were so-called "listening sessions" held by members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and the Working Group, the concerns raised by residents were seemingly ignored. Among the most frequently voiced concerns were:

- The over-commercialization of the Lincoln/Londonderry area
- The increased traffic such commercialization would bring
- The significant increase in residential population density envisioned by the plan

Despite these concerns, the final report does not reflect them in any meaningful way. In fact, it fails to clearly distinguish between two very different components of the plan:

1. **Short-Term Improvements (Not Dependent on Sewer Capacity)**
These proposals—such as improved greenways, road and intersection upgrades, and enhancements to trails and public spaces—are largely positive and should move forward. They represent achievable, broadly supported goals that could benefit the entire community.

2. **Long-Term Proposals (Dependent on Sewer Capacity Increases)**
The most controversial aspects of the plan—those that prompted strong opposition from the neighborhood—are the long-term proposals. These include significant rezoning to allow for new commercial, retail, light industrial, and high-density residential developments.

Yet, these major proposals are given virtually no detail in the report. The most impactful section—concerning future land use and rezoning—is confined to a single page buried deep in the second half of the document. This is unacceptable for what has been the central issue for the community for years.

Moreover, these long-term changes are entirely contingent upon solving a serious sewer capacity issue. However, the plan provides no information about how this will be addressed—no cost estimates, no timeline, no strategy. Essentially, it asks for a blank check to approve major development in an indeterminate future.

This is not responsible planning.

The plan should instead focus on actionable items—projects that can be accomplished today or in the foreseeable future. We should not approve speculative, unfunded development proposals based on a hypothetical future in which a multi-million-dollar infrastructure challenge has somehow been resolved.

**Concerns About Process and Transparency**

In addition to concerns about the substance of the plan, I am deeply troubled by the process that produced it. The makeup of the Working Group itself raises questions, with only two members residing in the neighborhood most directly impacted.

Equally troubling is the lack of transparency. Both Mayor Hoveland and Community Development Coordinator Addison Lewis have publicly stated that the Working Group was subject to Minnesota Open Meeting Laws. Yet, to my knowledge, none of the group's meetings were publicly noticed—neither to those who requested updates nor on any public calendar.

This lack of openness further undermines confidence in the plan and in the process that led to its creation.

We are strongly against any large-scale development at Hwy 169 and Londonderry. Area residents believe so-called "affordable housing" will result in more crime and congestion to this area. In any case, we don't want the heavy construction trucks and noise for years that would result from any redevelopment of this area, which now consists of a perfectly adequate business park. The Edina City Council seems bound and determined to lower property values and take away our nice way of life with their proposal for a lower-income, mass housing site at this location. In any case, the site is not-within walking distance of any stores or transit, other than a small strip mall.

Hello,
Yes thank you for your work on this plan and allowing feedback. I am a life time resident of Edina and have seen the transformation of this area and county road 18 into Hwy 169. I was happy when they added the entrance and exits to that location. I don't see the expansion of the sewer system a good idea until it makes some sense. Putting a large scale low income or not apartment building there to justify the costs is wrong. the area need more restaurants type businesses. keeping the connection of the the Nine mile trail from becoming a more dense location. I agree the residents that are closest to the area should have the greatest voice.

Hi,
First, thank you for all your careful thought into this plan, and for taking resident feedback into consideration. Actual, realistic, implementation of this area was just too big of a stretch in the previous plan. The new ideas and talking points seem far more "intentional" than the last plan that just kind of "spammed" the small area in a manner that only benefited a massive builder and city stats. Things I find especially desirable in this new, revised plan include:
- Positive recreational updates and improvements to accessabilty and enjoyment of the Nine Mile Creek area. The addition of consistent pedistrian pathways in this area, (as opposed to the "patchwork" paths/sidewalks that don't even connect to each other), sound amazing. Nine Mile Creek is a true gem. The boardwalk addition is also a true gem. It is a perfect example of integrating pedestrian joy without damaging or altering this very unique natural asset. The connection between Nine Mile Creek and Bredesen Park is so, so special in a dense, urban/suburban area. Both residents and local employees love this asset and continued small sitting and picnicing areas near it, in the Small Area node, in a manner that is repectful to nature, are very welcome and make total sense. It provides significant ROI and can realistically be implemented.
- Small-scale commercial updates/additions in the form of anything that includes another Olives-type restaurant. The current office buildings nearest Londonderry are actually very useful buildings that could be realistically repurposed, with existing sewage capacity, for a bit of neighborhood commercial that fosters community assets for residents and employees. The current building layout is actually very nice - keeping parking and retail doorways on the freeway side (hopefully moving the parking lot entrance from it's current Lincoln Ave. location to a new Londonderry location), AND, adding potential new facades and retail doorways on the Lincoln Drive side, but with NO parking lots and NO on street parking on this side. The Lincoln Ave. retail doorways and sitting areas would be intended for foot and bike traffic - think awnings, bikeracks, sitting areas, landscaping, and existing mature trees with people enjoying malts or lunch. Out of respect for neighbors accross the street, and general neighborhood feel, the Lincoln Ave. facades would also include non-neon or plastic light-up signange. Rather, only "quaint" neighborhood appropriate signange that adds to pedestrian aesthetics, This would relate to, and take full advantage of what will surely be improved pedestrian pathways on Lincoln. :-) Combine the two, and you have an amazing Small Area that provides significant ROI and can realistically be implemented.
-It is noted and appreciated that scale has been changed and a large, dense building removed from the plan. Hopefully smaller residential buildings can be included in the plan, (tear down all the blighted warehouses), and provide for the intended, up to 20ish%, affordable housing. The sociologist in me can't help but feel that creating a building of 100% afforable housing, as was proposed before, is very insensitve to the residents of that building. Give those qualifying for low income housing the opportunity to scatter throughout the city, (as was intended before builders could buy-out), in a way that not everyone knows about their finances just by the building they live in. It screams, "Edina met our numbers goal!", without caring about the softer side and privacy of people at all.
- Things I/we don't want to see. A gas station. 169 is a gas and convience desert. If a gas station is put in, the intersection will be a road-stop for all 169. Nope.

In sum of this long ramble, the small area plan now represents a thoughful revision that honors one of a kind urban natural assets, the "recycling" of existing buildings, the creation of long-missing dinning/small retail options on the west side, and thoughful affordable housing opportunities. This plan involves change and re-zoning - which is totally fine and the right thing to do. The enourous difference from the previous plan is that it is a true mixed-use project repurposing and nurturing existing infrastructure, recycled buildings, current natural treasures, and finally honoring the desire for small-scale neighborhood dinning/retail long missing from the west side.

Again, thank you for the opportunity for residential engagement in this plan all along. It feels like the city is the leader now.
-
Thank you

Vasanti Mudkanna, Parkwood Knolls: I support the plan and would like to see the following included in it if possible:
1. Noise Wall: Consider using natural noise barriers like living walls in conjunction with artificial walls wherever possible.
2. Buckthorn Management: Put some onus on property dwellers to contain buckthorn that grows just outside their properties on public land.
3. New Tree Planting: Please include fruit trees and bushes and not just the usual cottonwoods. It is a delight to come across ripe fruits while biking or walking on trails like the raspberry bushes on some Hopkins trails.

Andrew Heyer, I live in Parkwood Knolls. I walk or bike every day on the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and I support this plan. I think it is important to upgrade the sewage capacity and reorganize the area so there is more green space around the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. I believe all communities should include affordable housing. The proposed four story unit will be a very efficient use of our limited space and will not be obtrusive. Direct access to the the light rail stop is also important. I believe these investments in our infrastructure and community will increase property values and quality of life for our residents.

Vicky Mousseau, Harriet Manor. I support the Current (sewer) Capacity option. Edina has over-developed itself in recent years, filling most available green space with expensive multi-unit housing, over-burdening our fire department and increasing taxes for resident homeowners by giving tax breaks to the commercial builders. I’d like this pace to slow so that Edina remains an affordable place for people from a broad spectrum of economic situations to live.

I like most of the plan. Most important to me are 1) naturalizing plantings and 2) providing easy, direct access to the light rail stop.

I would like Edina to increase sewage capacity in this area for long-term planning, including affordable housing.

THank you.

Dimitry Smelansky, Londonderry HOA.
The authors of the proposals assured residents that local community needs and preferences would be respected and prioritized. Despite the local community's overwhelming rejection of the earlier proposed apartment building, the plan still calls for the construction of four multi- story buildings.

Hope Melton, Concord
This is a carefully considered, balanced, and visionary Small Area Plan for the future development of the Lincoln-Londonderry area. Small Area Plans have an immediate impact at the neighborhood level and, as is the case with this Plan, resident input must be considered. However, the Plan is an integral part of the entire City and it is this common good that it must serve—hence its need to conform to the larger Comprehensive Plan.

As stated, it is “primed for equitable growth that will provide affordable housing and help the City reach its equity and diversity goals” to the benefit of its businesses, schools district, and the whole community. It also conforms to City goals outlined in its Comprehensive Plan, and its Climate Action Plan. I especially like the design work to expand walking and biking areas, and the creation of trail resting places with benches. To this end, it also creates smaller blocks to enhance community-building and walkability, directing traffic closer to the highway. Kudos too for supporting transit service that will establish bus service west to the Light Rail station.

Regarding the recommendations for four-story multi-family buildings. I grew up in an affluent neighborhood in Evanston Illinois, two blocks from the Lake. There were several 4-story apartment buildings I passed every day on my walk to school and they did absolutely nothing to lower property values, increase crime, or otherwise detract from the quality of our neighborhood life.

I strongly support this Small Area Plan. Congratulations to all who took part in its creation.

Chip Jones, Bredesen Park. First of all, a big "Thank You" to the City of Edina for spending the time and resources on creating the Lincoln and Londonderry Small Area Plan. Overall it looks really well thought out, detailed and considered. My one concern is the amount of future traffic created by adding all of this proposed housing in this plan. For now it sounds like the sewer capacity issue will limit those levels for now, but I do think this is something that needs to be considered on a longer term basis.

Secondly, I have a concern that creating more commercial businesses in the Lincoln/Londonderry area might attract TOO much traffic from 169. I drive 169 on a daily basis and know firsthand that there are no easily accessible gas, convenience stores, or similar services located on 169, from Anderson Lakes Boulevard (5 miles to the south) to Medicine Lake Blvd (9 miles to the north). This is a 14 mile stretch of highway (169) that does not have easily accessible food or gas services. If there were an easily accessible convenience store, fast food, gas station, etc in the Lincoln/Londonderry area, my fear is that it would bring in too much traffic from 169. Just something to consider.

Thirdly, in terms of the "Establish a Community Gathering Space", it is listed as S7 in the PDF, but I can’t find its location on any of the maps in the PDF. Where would that this amenity be located? Thank you all again!

Phil Mantyh, Parkwood Knolls. This project is half a mile from my house and my 3 young kids and I walk here every week. My feedback is on the Long-term, capacity-dependent vision (requiring sewer upgrades): looking at the proposal it feels like yet again the feedback of the actual residents who live nearby and will actually be impacted by this are being ignored. The report suggests building multiple four-story apartment complexes in this compact area is a good idea. The local residents made it clear during the Solhem project proposal that this approach is not desired (for multiple reasons that were explained in many city council meetings), so I want to stress again to please listen to local residents who overwhelmingly do not want this. I applied to be a member of this small area planning group but my application was rejected (no doubt because I've made my opinions on this matter public before) in favor of bringing on people who live on the complete opposite end of Edina who support this kind of mass development. (Comment uploaded by City Staff on behalf of Phil Mantyh)