The focal point of the meeting was the conversion of the Marriott hotel into apartments, addressing the city’s need for affordable housing. The developers plan to offer 92 units at 60% Area Median Income (AMI) and 44 units at 80% AMI, strategically aligning with Edina’s 2030 plan. This project fills a critical gap in the housing market by targeting middle-income individuals, such as teachers and medical technicians, and potentially benefiting seniors. A significant portion of the discussion pertained to the voluntary nature of the affordability component, as the city does not mandate it.

Integral to the proposal is a variance request to eliminate the requirement for enclosed parking stalls, a decision that raised concerns among commissioners. The developers argued that constructing a parking ramp would escalate costs without considerable benefits, asserting that the existing parking arrangement suffices for both hotel and apartment needs. They proposed maintaining surface parking with improved lighting and security measures, emphasizing the existing hotel has not faced parking issues even at full capacity. This proposal did not go unchallenged, as some commissioners and residents voiced apprehension about safety, accessibility, and the project’s long-term financial implications.

Public comments were a vital part of the discourse. A resident underscored the need for affordable housing, particularly for those earning between 60% and 80% of the area median income. Another resident, Leo Silva, opposed the project, arguing that apartments do not offer genuine affordable housing and suggested that homeownership should be prioritized over renting to foster financial stability. Security was another major concern, with residents like Elizabeth Toms expressing unease over the shared amenities and potential safety risks, particularly for seniors and children using interconnected facilities.

Commissioners deliberated on the feedback, evaluating how the project aligns with the city’s goals for affordable housing and environmental sustainability. Some members supported the surface parking arrangement, citing the high costs of underground parking and its implications for affordability. Others stressed the need to lock in affordability requirements, considering the potential for rents to rise over time. The developers highlighted the naturally occurring affordability of the units based on their modest size and amenities, arguing that strict affordability conditions might inadvertently drive up rents.

The commission also discussed the potential for public benefits through contributions to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Fund, suggesting that instead of investing in costly parking structures, developers could enhance bike and pedestrian infrastructure. This proposal aligned with broader community goals of increasing bike infrastructure and reducing reliance on surface parking lots.

Legal considerations regarding the imposition of conditions on affordability were debated, with an emphasis on ensuring any conditions tied to the variance request align with legal standards. A motion was made to approve the variance, recommending that the city council consider a contribution to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Fund as a condition of approval.