Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/09/2026Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, March 9, 2026 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Planning Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Move to approve the following Planning Commission minutes: A. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated December 8, 2025. V. Public Hearing A. Chestnut Townhomes (2023-07) 1. Site Plan Review on 5.72 acres 2. Guide Plan Change on 5.72 acres The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for a 53-unit townhome development on the two (2) vacant parcels at the corners of Chestnut Drive and Carmody / Windsong Drive. The Site Plan proposal meets all zoning requirements and performance standards. A Guide Plan Change is also requested to change the future land use guidance from Medium-High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. To meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the development will provide three (3) units affordable to households making 30% of area median income. Planning Commission Annotated Agenda March 9, 2026 Page 2 MOTION: Move to close public hearing. MOTION: Move to close public hearing. Motion: Move to recommend approval for Site Plan Review and Guide Plan Change on 5.72 acres as recommended by staff, represented in the March 9, 2026 staff report. VI. Planners Reports VII. Members Reports VIII. Adjournment MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Meeting Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7 p.m. Monday, March 9, 2026 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, December 8, 2025 V. Public Hearings A. Chestnut Townhomes (2023-07) 1. Site Plan Review on 5.72 acres 2. Guide Plan Change on 5.72 acres VI. Planner’s Reports VII. Members Reports VIII. Adjournment Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, December 8, 2025 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Commission Members: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Shulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks and Natural Resources Manager; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. All commission Members were present. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Taylor, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 9-0. IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, November 17, 2025 MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Tuesday, November 17, 2025. Motion carried 9-0. V. Public Hearings A. Wings Financial Credit Union (2025-10) • Site Plan Review on 9.08 acres Hans Schmidt, architect with Pope Design Group, displayed slides and detailed the application. He introduced the Wings Financial Credit Union and described its history in Eden Prairie, a breakdown of age ranges of clients, and the proposal. The application requested the construction of a 3,271 square foot building in the northwest corner of the Cub Foods parking lot at 8015 Den Road. Similar designs PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2025 Page 2 had been successful elsewhere. No existing accesses would be changed, but utilized and improved. Wings had a land lease agreement with Jerry’s foods (owner of the subject property), and the existing parcel would not be subdivided. A new PID will be created through a CIC process. The project will be privately funded. The Wings branch would be ready for construction upon approval, with occupancy during the summer of 2026. The property was zoned Regional Service Commercial and the land use as Regional Commercial and was not in a flood plain or wetland area and had no archeological or cultural significance. The new Eden Prairie branch would have a state of art four-sided architecture utilizing Class One materials. There would be extended hours for live teller drive plus a full-service branch. The building design was adapted to complement Cub Foods and meeting the requirements of the City Ordinance. This would result in a reduction of impervious area while meeting parking requirements. The single lane interactive teller machine would accommodate up to three stacked vehicles, exceeding the anticipated peak demand of two vehicles. The XTM would function like a traditional ATM but also provide video and audio connections to a teller in Apple Valley and would be available 12 hours daily, compared to 8 hours for traditional teller service. The ATM would of course be available 24/7. This system distributed services more evenly throughout the day and evening, rather than concentrating them during working hours. There would be shared parking with Cub Foods, seven stalls immediately adjacent to the branch building, including two being accessible, and a bike rack plus improved pedestrian access. The project required the removal of six trees onsite to accommodate the building and provide renewed growth from a landscape perspective. The development would replant more trees than the number being removed. The pilon sign would be located to the side as a signature element, since overhead signs were prohibited. Schmidt showed the examples of the similar Maple Grove, Northfield, Baxter and Rochester branches. With the XTM lane located perpendicular to the flow of traffic, there would be little car stacking. A study on current XTM usage showed an average transaction time of 2.5 to three minutes, average daily transactions were 61, with two to five transactions per hour. Pieper asked for and received clarification that Jerry’s Foods owned Cub Foods. Taylor asked for and received confirmation that other locations had been considered, including the parking lot at the Mall and at Best Buy. Duncan asked for times of XTMs verses ATMs. Tom Schuenke, Vice President of Wings Real Estate, replied customers could complete more transactions much PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2025 Page 3 more quickly with an XTM. Drive up services were on the downswing. Farr stated he was concerned about queuing and stacking into the drive aisle for Cub Foods and suggested the entire XTM island could be rotated 180 degrees to allow all customers to enter west to east instead of east to west and facing north away from the winter sun. Schmidt replied several scenarios were explored, and stated this configuration for several reasons: drivers leaving the ATM were often distracted which was a potential hazard going immediately into a major artery; flipping the design would significantly increase traffic through the parking lot, requiring a U-turn; with the ages of people conducting business in this area, he wished to keep the parking lot’s congestion down. Farr countered the traffic could go through the south loop in a clockwise direction to reach the island. Schmidt offered to correspond offline on this issue. Farr commended the design and asked what had happened to the horizontal sunshade louvers. Schuenke replied they had been removed in favor of tinted film glass. The blue shade came from the interior LED lighting. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the XTMs allowed pedestrian walk- ups, although Schenke said he had never seen an example of this. Barnhart presented the staff report. The project met all design and zoning standards, and there were no waivers, as there had been when it was originally developed. The impervious surface would be reduced by 4,000 square feet and the design would use the existing circulation network and accesses. The parking plan exceeded requirements. Staff had received comments from area residents regarding the loss of trees: tree loss was unavoidable due to utility and building construction, the trees installed were not for specific screening requirements the trees were not installed at the original development for screening and had to be lost due to utility installation. The trees replaced would be adjacent to the building and the parking lot. Other comments staff received expressed concerns with internal circulation based on experiences with the other Jerry’s parking lot with the Chipotle and the Starbucks on Hennepin Town Road. Staff is confident that the parking lot plan will help direct traffic through the parking lot. There would be a pedestrian pathway sidewalk along Den Road and Cub Foods. This was similar to the Lunds and Byerly’s projects when Culver’s was added and to the other Jerry’s Foods development. Minor tweaks needed were outlined in the staff report. The access pathway concern was included as part of the recommended motion to be addressed by City Council. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2025 Page 4 Duncan asked why sustainability standards were not required. Barnhart replied they were only required for developments requesting a PUD and over 10,000 square feet, but staff always encouraged developers to add them. Duncan commended the landscape design. She asked why the variance was allowed to stay with the site plan. Barnhart replied a variance applies to the lot, not to the applicant. Also, this applicant was decreasing impervious surface so that variance did not even apply. Farr stated he did not see the six trees slated for removal in the landscape plan and asked what kind they were. Barnhart replied there were spruce and deciduous trees included. Bourne stated these were crab apples, locust/maple and pines, which would be replaced with similar species. Farr asked if staff would support having a dialogue with the applicant on rotating the circulation. Barnhart replied a motion to flip the pathway be explored further before the application went before the City Council, but the commission should try to avoid redesigning the site. Taylor asked Farr to clarify his concern. Farr stated if there was a stacking of more than two cars it could block the access to Cub Foods and felt the flip would solve a few problems at the same time with no downside. Taylor asked for and received clarification this would move the XTM to the east side of Dell Lane. Barnhart suggested the commission agree on a concern rather than on a solution. Kirk stated he shared Farr’s concern and commended the expertise on this commission to recommend ideas but also agreed it was the applicant’s job to make any redesign. He saw both points of view (Farr’s and the applicant’s). Duncan asked for the City Engineer’s opinion, and Schultze replied he had tried the 180 rotation himself with the applicant. The egress into a major artery was the applicant’s concern then as well. There was a curb that separated the XTM land from the other lane requiring a U-turn and creating more traffic in the space, with cars potentially backing up into each other. He understood Farr’s point, but he was not so concerned with the stacking. In addition, the expected speeds were less than 30 miles an hour. The flipped design could force more cars into that space. In response to Duncan’s question about a stacked fourth car he stated there could be a two-minute wait for a fourth car, should that happen, which would not be detrimental to the flow of traffic. MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Farr stated the concern regarding stacking and the suggested rotation of the XTM location would be reflected in the minutes, with staff aware of it as well, and this did not have to be discussed further. Kirk agreed. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Sherwood, to recommend approval for the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2025 Page 5 Site Plan Review on 9.08 acres as recommended by staff as represented in the December 8, 2025 staff report Motion carried 9-0. VI. Reports A. Planners report B. Members’ reports VII. Adjournment MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Weber, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 9-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Planning Commission Staff Report Date: March 9, 2026 Location: The intersection of Chestnut Drive, Carmody Drive, and Windsong Drive: PIDs 15-116-22-31-0095 and 15-116-22-34- 0082 Subject: Chestnut Townhomes From: Sarah Strain, Planner II Applicant: Red Tail Residential Review period July 31, 2026 expires: ITEM DESCRIPTION There are two (2) vacant properties at the intersection of Chestnut Drive, Carmody Drive, and Windsong Drive, one on the northwest corner and one on the southwest corner. Red Tail Residential is proposing to construct 53 rental townhome units on the combined 5.72 acres. The developer is requesting a Site Plan Review and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5.72 acres • Site Plan Review on 5.72 acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING The properties are currently zoned RM-2.5, multi-family residential, and are guided Medium High Density in the comprehensive plan. The planned density of 9.27 units per acre meets the RM-2.5 zoning district requirements. However, the planned density is not high enough to meet the range required of the Medium High Density Residential guiding, which is 14-40 units per acre. When the City guided these lots for Medium High Density Residential, it was envisioned that additional apartment buildings would be built since the lots were owned by the same entity as the neighboring Reserve at Eden Prairie Apartments. The developer is requesting a comprehensive guide plan amendment to reguide the properties from Medium High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The density range for properties guided Medium Density Residential is 5-14 units per acre. Reguiding these properties to Medium Density Residential would maintain the existing neighborhood character. The Windsong Townhomes and Pinebrook Townhomes developments are both guided Medium Density Residential. The density for Windsong Townhomes is six (6) units per acre, and the Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 2 density for Pinebrook Townhomes is 6.78 units/acre. The proposed project density serves as a transition between the higher density apartment buildings and the lower density townhomes. SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing to construct 53 rental townhome units with 28 units located on the lot north of Chestnut Drive and 25 units located on the lot south of Chestnut Drive, shown in the image to the left. The north lot includes a tot lot, and the south lot has a dog run. Sidewalks will connect each unit to a larger sidewalk within the development, which connects to the existing trails on Chestnut Drive. Both the north and south lot have central location for mailboxes in the middle of each lot and trash collection at the back of each lot. The site plan features a combination of two-and three- bedroom townhomes. There are two (2) single level units designed to be ADA accessible, 29 two-story townhomes, and 16 three-story townhomes. The northern lot contains one and two-story townhomes, and the southern lot contains two and three-story townhomes. Each unit will have a two (2) car garage and a driveway. The proposed site plan meets all zoning district requirements in the RM-2.5 zoning district. There are not Planned Unit Development waivers or variances requested in this application. ACCESS AND STREET CONNECTIONS Both parcels will take access from Chestnut Drive. The access points are staggered to be as far apart as possible along Chestnut Drive to reduce the potential for vehicular conflict. The streets on each parcel will be private with access easements granted to the City. Each private drive includes a cul-de-sac to help facilitate emergency vehicle and garbage/ delivery truck turning movements. TRAFFIC STUDY A traffic study was conducted as part of this development proposal. The study determined that the current roadway system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 53 new dwelling units and the anticipated daily vehicle trips. Most of the trips are anticipated to access Anderson Lakes Parkway via Chestnut Drive with a small portion of trips Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 3 accessing Anderson Lakes Parkway via Carmody Drive. The study does not recommend altering any of the intersection controls and noted that an all-way stop at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Chestnut Drive is not warranted. PARKING Each unit includes a two (2) car garage for vehicle parking and a driveway to accommodate an additional two (2) vehicles. Four (4) surface parking spaces are provided on each parcel for a total of eight (8) surface parking spaces. This creates a parking ratio of over four (4) spaces per dwelling unit. City Code requires each dwelling unit to have two (2) parking spaces with one (1) of the spaces needing to be enclosed. The proposed site plan exceeds parking requirements, accommodating guest parking on driveways and surface lots. Street parking is also permitted on adjacent streets. However, an expansion of restricted parking on Windsong Drive and Chestnut Drive is planned mainly for snow plowing purposes. Similar parking restrictions currently exist on Carmody Drive. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There is an existing multi-use trail on the south side of Chestnut Drive and a sidewalk on the north side. The site plan shows sidewalks connecting each unit to the trail and sidewalk on Chestnut Drive, providing access to the City’s trail system. There are marked and signed crosswalks across Anderson Lakes Parkway at both the Chestnut Drive intersection and the Carmody Drive intersection. According to the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, both of these intersections could warrant pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB). The City plans to continue to review these intersections for potential pedestrian improvements. Any required improvements to the system, including RRFBs, will be addressed in the Development Agreement. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was performed for this development proposal. The assessment found no evidence of environmental conditions or concerns on the subject parcels that warrant further study or mitigation. USABLE OPEN SPACE City Code requires all multifamily residential projects to include usable open space as part of the proposal to provide spaces for community gathering. The Chestnut Townhomes project includes sidewalk connections to the trail and sidewalk on Chestnut Drive, a tot lot and fire pit on the north parcel, and a dog run, fire pit, and picnic areas on the south parcel. The proposed usable open space exceeds code requirements. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS There are three (3) main building designs, one for the one-and two-story townhome, one for the two-story townhome, and one for the three-story townhome. The front and back of the two and three-story units are shown on the following page. The façades are a combination of white and grey fiber cement siding, glass, and stone, meeting the building material standards. None of the façades have fiber cement as the main building material. Front doors are tucked back into small alcoves on the two-story units, providing façade articulation. The three-story units include overhangs above the garages and front doors to provide façade articulation. Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 4 Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 5 WETLAND There are no wetlands or water bodies on the subject parcels. However, there is a Moderate quality wetland on the parcel north of the north lot (PID 15-116-22-31-0095), which requires a buffer and buffer setbacks. Due to the distance between the edge of the wetland and the subject parcel, the wetland buffer and wetland buffer setbacks meet the minimum average buffer width and setback requirements. No additional buffer or buffer setback is required from the property line for PID 15-116-22-31-0095. DRAINAGE/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater will be managed on site. On the northern parcel, stormwater will be retained and infiltrated in above-ground basins. One basin will be in the northwest corner of the northern parcel, and the other basin will front Chestnut Drive. The southern parcel has more space constraints, so underground filtration tanks will retain and infiltrate stormwater. The site will also reuse stormwater in the irrigation system. UTILITIES All utilities in the development will be private. An encroachment agreement will be needed for the private utilities that will cross the right-of-way. PARK FEES The developer will be required to pay park dedication fees for these parcels when they apply for their building permit. The park dedication fee for multifamily units in 2026 is $5,500 per unit. TREE LOSS AND GRADING Both parcels are proposed to be graded out to create a level development site, which will require retaining walls. All retaining walls will be concrete. The retaining wall on the northern parcel will be along the eastern property line and be six (6) feet tall at its highest point. The retaining wall on the southern parcel will be along the eastern and half of the southern property line. The highest point of the retaining wall along both property lines will be seven (7) feet tall. The townhomes will be situated perpendicular to the retaining walls, except for the southernmost unit, to minimize visual impact for residents. All trees on site will be removed to accommodate the proposed grading plan. In total, 900 inches of significant trees and 311 inches of heritage trees will be removed. Three (3) trees on the adjacent outlot owned by Pinebrook Townhome Association will also be removed. The developer has obtained a temporary easement to grade onto the Associations’ property. This allows the retaining wall to be shorter than if the developer confined grading just to the area within the property lines. This agreement includes a provision that the area will be restored once grading is complete, including 10 trees being planted on the Association’s disturbed property. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN Based on the total square footage of the townhome buildings, the developer is required to plant 334 caliper inches of landscaping. This includes overstorey trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, and planting beds. The proposed plan meets City Code requirements through a diversity of plantings. Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 6 As noted above, the developer is removing all the existing trees from the site. This requires 1,072 caliper inches of tree replacement. The developer is proposing to mitigate 173 caliper inches of tree replacement on site. The remaining 899 caliper inches will be mitigated through payment to the City’s tree replacement fund as permitted by City Code. Based on staff review and resident comments, staff recommends additional coniferous trees be planted along the south property line adjacent to Pinebrook Townhomes to create a buffer between the developments and to mitigate more of the tree replacement onsite versus fee in lieu. There is not space on site to mitigate all tree replacement caliper inches on site, but additional trees can be accommodated in the outlined area in the adjacent image. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING This project is subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as it constructs more than 15 new attached units. The developer is opting to provide five (5) percent of the units as affordable to households at or below thirty percent of the area median income (AMI). For this project, five (5) percent of the total units equals three (3) units. The Development Agreement will include a provision to provide rent rolls for the three inclusionary housing units to the City confirm compliance on an annual basis. OTHER AGENCY OR MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS A notice detailing the proposed comprehensive plan amendment was sent to impacted agencies, including the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, the Eden Prairie School District, and SouthWest Transit. To date, staff has not received concerns regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Staff has also received no comment or concerns from agencies regarding the site plan. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND RESIDENT INPUT The developer held two (2) neighborhood meetings, one in late January and one in mid-February. The notices for the first neighborhood meeting were not delivered to residents until a day or two Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 7 before the meeting, which raised concerns for both residents and staff about the ability of residents to attend. Roughly 15 people attended the first meeting with the late notice. A second meeting was held, and notices for the second meeting were sent and received two weeks prior to the meeting date. About 15 people attended the second neighborhood meeting. Both meetings were held over Zoom, due in part to the developer being in California and in part to the preference shared by Pinebrook Townhome residents with the City earlier in the project process. The concerns shared at these meetings share the same themes as the concerns shared with staff in the emailed comments attached to this report. Residents in the area are concerned about construction noise and disruptions, tree removal, and traffic. The construction schedule has not been determined yet, but the Developer will be held to all City standards and requirements for noise, mitigation, and notice of utility or service disruptions. The developer is removing all of the trees from the site and plans to meet the tree replacement requirement through a combination of onsite plantings and fee in lieu. As noted previously, Staff recommends that additional coniferous trees be planted along the south property line adjacent to Pinebrook Townhomes to create a buffer between the developments and to mitigate more of the tree replacement onsite versus fee in lieu. Residents shared that parking on Carmody Drive is a concern as the streets are narrow and when vehicles park on both sides of the street, it makes it difficult for two-way traffic to drive through, especially for garbage trucks or larger vehicles. Parked cars can also be difficult to see around as vehicles turn onto Carmody Drive. The concern is that adding 53 townhomes will worsen the parking and drivability of Carmody Drive. Carmody Drive is currently signed to restrict parking to one side of the street during winter months to allow snowplows to drive through and clear the streets. The Public Works department plans an expansion of restricted parking around this development mainly for snow plowing purposes, which will help ease concerns about parking on the narrow streets. The parking proposed exceeds the minimum requirements. Another concern related to traffic is the two intersections with Anderson Lakes Parkway at Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive. Both intersections give Anderson Lakes Parkway the right of way with traffic from Chestnut and Carmody Drives stopped at stop signs. Residents shared concerns about limited response time to turn onto Anderson Lakes Parkway and also shared concerns about speeding on Anderson Lakes Parkway, which may be related. Residents noted the difficulty in taking a left turn onto Anderson Lakes Parkway even at off-peak times with the Carmody/Anderson intersection being repeatedly problematic. The traffic study shows the road system around the development, including Chestnut Drive, Carmody Drive, and Anderson Lakes Parkway, can accommodate the proposed development traffic and does not suggest additional traffic control or turn lanes. Pedestrian safety across Anderson Lake Parkway was another concern. Residents shared that crossing flags have been placed at the Carmody/Anderson intersection periodically, but they have always been hit and damaged. Both the Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive intersections with Anderson Lakes Parkway have signed pedestrian crossings. According to the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, both intersections could warrant pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The City plans to continue review these intersections. Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site plan for 53 townhomes units and the comprehensive plan amendment from Medium High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This is based on architectural plans dated February 3, 2026, the civil plans dated February 5, 2026, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant must: A. Revise the landscape plan to include more coniferous trees along the southern property line of the southern parcel to provide screening between the Pinebrook Townhome development and the Chestnut Townhomes development 2. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant must: A. Provide a Utility Easement over the infrastructure on the Properties that provides utility access to the City of Eden Prairie. B. Provide an encroachment agreement that allows private utilities to cross public right-of-way. C. Pay trunk sewer and water charges or sign a Special Assessment Agreement. D. Pay connection fees. E. Provide copies of legal documents, either in Association format or private covenant and agreement format to be approved by the City that shall address the following: • Describe the long-term private maintenance or replacement agreement for the retaining walls. • Insertion of language in the documents that relinquishes the City of Eden Prairie from maintenance or replacement of the retaining walls. F. Obtain permits and approvals from other agencies as needed. G. Obtain City approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the property. H. Submit detailed utility and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. I. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. J. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. K. Provide a construction grading limits and tree protection plan for review and approval by the City. L. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. M. Install fencing at the construction grading limits and tree protection areas as shown on the approved plans. N. Submit and receive written approval of an executed landscape agreement. O. Submit a landscaping letter of credit or escrow equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping. P. Provide documentation of temporary easements to do work off-site. Q. Make a cash payment for Tree Replacement as provided by City Code. R. Obtain a building permit for retaining wall construction from the City for retaining walls greater than four feet in height. Staff Report – Chestnut Townhomes March 9, 2026 Page 9 S. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the cost of the land alteration. T. Provide proof that the Inspection and Maintenance Agreement for Private Stormwater Facilities has been recorded. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant must: A. Provide proof that the Utility Easement has been recorded. B. Pay the appropriate cash park fees. 4. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the applicant must: A. Construct retaining walls in accordance with the terms of the permit and conditions of Exhibit C. B. Complete construction of the trash enclosures. C. Complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan. D. Install all features that are intended to meet the Usable Open Space requirement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resident Comments From: Patty Mattson To: Dugan Garrison; Tyler Reich; Sarah Strain Subject: Carmody and Chestnut Developement Date: Saturday, February 14, 2026 12:25:04 PM Hey Dugan Happy Valentines Day! Hopefully you have something fun to do with your family, friends or loved ones today!! I’m hoping you saw the Idea about discounted High Quality Triple Paned Windows for people living within a 2 block radius roughly of the site. (Or someone who asks such as myself). I just CAN NOT BELIEVE the Realtors did not disclose this to me when I bought just last MAY of 2025! I specifically said nearby construction was a HARD DEALBREAKER FOR ME because of what I do for a living and also I just left a year of living on top of a construction site in LA. Having said that -I’m trying to focus on a solution that would create supportive vibes rather than dread - at least about being able to parlay this into a cost effective upgrade that would help with noise. I know triple paned High Quality Windows will because they did at my place in LA when they put them in there. My other concerns are: - Some of what the gentleman in the last zoom brought up about the land stability itself prior to even starting the build, and how that could effect nearby properties integrity - and who pays if damage starts to occur? - How the drainage from leveling that hill of debris, (created from that apt complex years ago), is going to be stopped from running straight down Carmody at my Dead End just 4 doors down from Main Carmody. (The street slopes down from the proposed site to the end of my Cul de sac) - How you are going to keep the dust and soot from being all over our homes when dozing and leveling that giant dirt hill ? - If water is the way then we are back to the drainage not coming down Carmody at the culdesac. - Also HUGELY - The Carmody side plan you showed at the last meeting looks awful, it’s like “A Project”, sorry it’s awful and not a blend at ALL. The Chestnut side Idea is very pretty but that’s where the 3 story Project looking units should be as they are coming from the apartments and there is separation from any community by the street. The Carmody Side should be like your Chestnut presentation side so there is a cohesive flow from this community into your townhomes.That way this invasion of our community will not look like such an eyesore and obvious Rental Project. That 3 story monolith looks like a project especially coming off a quaint Townhome community. On the corner of Chestnut it’s not so obvoious since that apartment complex is on the other side without Pinebrook at the end, instead it’s just the street before Windsong. and Windsong has more rentals -We are a PRIVATE LOW RENTAL COMMUNITY - That is WHY WE BOUGHT HERE !! Imagine how someone living here feels right now. Our investment in a quiet, quaint area with LOW RENTALS ALLOWED is literally being INVADED with a MASSIVE RENTAL COMPLEX ?? Literally attached to the community property. Pride of ownership always keeps a place looking better. Now we are being forced to LOSE THAT ?? It’s hard to believe no laws exist to protect us from this. NO offense but, if you invested in Pine Brook you’d be MAD! Honestly consider us, our retirement is in these in many cases and it’s our quality of daily life to boot. We have the right to the Quiet Enjoyment of our Homes!! Sorry it just won’t be a positive move UP for us, ESPECIALLY with that Project looking 3 story at the end of Carmody. It’s awful looking in that location. Hopefully you can reconsider this plan if it’s allowed to go through - make it a more cohesive flow with this quaint community and offer nearby residents an opportunity to have a high quality upgrade at a 75% discount or something for enduring this total nightmare for 2 years on top of the serious increase in traffic that IS about to mess up this small main street and create long waits and accidents at Anderson Lakes and Chestnut and at Anderson Lakes and Carmody (Currently a fairly blind curve) LAST THOUGHT - Why are you not doing this down by Mitchell Village on that Giant piece of Opus Land where you could do a bigger structure with more land and access???? Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON From: Sarah Strain To: "Christine Galkin" Subject: RE: Chestnut townhome development - Concerns Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 3:08:13 PM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png Thank you for your email and pictures, Christine. To answer the questions from your first email: Will the development include visitor parking, and if so, how many spaces are planned for the 53 units? Yes, visitor parking was factored into the development. City Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit. These 2 spaces are provided in attached garages. Each unit has an additional 2-car driveway to allow for guest parking, plus the 8 surface spaces (4 on the north side and 4 on the south side). Parking is limited on the adjacent streets, so we asked to developer to provide enough parking on the site to cover resident and guest needs. What measures are proposed to prevent increased traffic and nonresident parking on nearby side streets? A traffic study was conducted as part of this project review. It found that the current street system can support 53 additional townhome units. My understanding of the traffic study shows most of the new trips using the Chestnut/Anderson Lakes intersection over the Carmody/Anderson Lakes intersection, which would help keep traffic to a minimum in your neighborhood. Cars are allowed to park on Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive, but they are not allowed to stay over 24 hours. Vehicles parked in the street over 24 hours without moving may be reported to Jim Schedin, our Code Enforcement Officer. He may be reached at jschedin@edenprairiemn.gov or 952-949-6222. Semi- truck parking is not allowed on City streets and should be reported too. How will residents be discouraged from walking dogs on private property? Will there be a designated dog park or on-site walking areas? Chestnut Townhomes is including a dog run area in their site plan, so hopefully it will deter folks from going on to private property. There will also be sidewalks within the new development that will connect to the sidewalks along Chestnut Drive. Are there currently issues with trail users going onto HOA private property? What measures will be implemented to prevent trash from blowing onto neighboring properties? There will be 2 trash enclosures, 1 on the north side of the site and 1 on the south side. Your comments will be included in the Planning Commission and City Council packets (contact information redacted). You are welcome to send me any additional comments/concerns you have and to attend the public hearings with Planning Commission and City Council to speak. The project meets all zoning and site plan requirements. The developer is asking City Council to amend the future land use plan to decrease the density of the site to allow them to build the proposed project. Under the current future land use plan, they would need to add units to meet requirements. I agree there was insufficient notice given ahead of the meeting. The developer is holding a second neighborhood meeting in Mid-February and sending new now notices to allow sufficient time to receive the meeting notice and attend the meeting. All meetings with Planning Commission and City Council will be noticed 2.5 weeks in advance. Thank you, Sarah Strain, AICP (she/her) Planner II 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-949-8413 edenprairiemn.gov   From: Christine Galkin Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 6:40 PM To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Re: Chestnut townhome development - Concerns Sarah, After seeing the proposal I have a huge concern along with many other people who voiced concern about the limited parking spaces they have on site. There could be at least another 106 vehicles and parking is very limited on the streets. How can we address this concern. How can we help prevent them from moving forward? Do we have any rights or a say? There are many units, how can we reduce them? I don’t believe all the home owes received the notification regarding the meeting. We need to allow adequate time for the next meeting and adequate notices to be sent out so people can attend. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 28, 2026, at 4:36 PM, Christine Galkin wrote: Sent from my iPhone Hello Sarah, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the proposed Chestnut townhome development. As a nearby homeowner, I would appreciate it if the following concerns could be included in the meeting notes and presented to the Chestnut townhome development team. I have lived in my home for nearly nine years, and over the past few years I have observed a significant increase in vehicle traffic and street parking in the surrounding area. This has created several safety and quality-of-life concerns. Traffic volume and speed have increased noticeably, and vehicles frequently travel well above the posted speed limit. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut Drive, Carmody Drive, and Windsong Drive near the walking trail that has had to be replaced every few years due to vehicles sliding into it during icy or snowy conditions. This raises concerns about the safety impact of any additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Nonresident street parking has also increased substantially. As a result, one of the board members had to install “No Parking from November – April” signage on side streets to allow snowplow trucks adequate access. On one occasion, a garbage truck was unable to access the street due to parked vehicles. While the streets are wide enough for two vehicles to pass, parked cars reduce them to a single lane and create blind spots. We have seen an increase in cars, semi-trucks, utility trucks with trailers, moving trucks, and other large vehicles parking along these side streets. I live at the end of a finger street, and many vehicles drive down the street and turn around in my driveway. This has caused wear and tear on my driveway, and I am concerned about increased vehicle volume exacerbating this issue. Pinebrook Carriage Townhomes includes private property between our homes and the wooded area. I am concerned about residents or visitors using my yard or this private property to walk their animals. I purchased my home for privacy, and this property is not intended for public use. I am providing a map for reference, with the side streets highlighted in purple. The map also identifies a left-hand turn from Carmody Drive onto Anderson Lakes Parkway (marked with a yellow arrow). Making this turn has become increasingly difficult due to vehicles speeding uphill; when traffic exceeds 35 mph, there is often insufficient time to safely complete the turn. Additional concerns include the increase in trash accumulating near the pond by the walking trail (circled in blue on the map). Trash appears to be discarded or blown in from nearby properties. Although the city owns the land, trash is not routinely collected. The pond is used by wildlife, yet dog waste and other debris are frequently left behind. Each year, I collect approximately four to five bags of trash, including alcohol bottles, and last year I even found a crack pipe. Activity involving drinking near the pond has increased significantly over the past few years. I would also appreciate clarification on the following points related to the proposed development: Will the development include visitor parking, and if so, how many spaces are planned for the 53 units? What measures are proposed to prevent increased traffic and nonresident parking on nearby side streets? How will residents be discouraged from walking dogs on private property? Will there be a designated dog park or on-site walking areas? What measures will be implemented to prevent trash from blowing onto neighboring properties? Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to share these concerns and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Christine <image001.png> Pictures below a car parked on the street and normally there are other cars parked on the opposite side. The build up of snow is due to the fact that people park on the street and snow plow trucks can’t clean up the snow. Normally there are more cars parked on the street, but most of them are gone because tickets were issued to tow them. Pictures of trash that have blown or have been discarded at the top of the hill by the pond at the edge of the woods by the walking trail. Picture showing how narrow the streets are when a school bus goes by and there are concerns that they won’t have enough room if more residents park on the side streets and if there’s a buildup of snow. <image0.jpeg> <image1.jpeg> <image2.jpeg> <image3.jpeg> Sincerely, Christine Picture showing how narrow the streets are when a school bus goes by and there are concerns that they won’t have enough room if more residents park on the side streets and if there’s a buildup of snow. Sincerely, Christine From: Jeremy Barnhart To: Sarah Strain Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Chestnut Townhome Development Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:48:33 AM FYI and response. Jeremy Barnhart City Planner 952-949-8529 -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Buckner > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:32 PM Cc: Barbara Buckner Subject: Comments on Proposed Chestnut Townhome Development To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi Jeremy, thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the proposed development called Chestnut Townhome Development. I want to convey my strongest opposition to this development. During these times of intense conflict in the state, in the country, and around the world, more than ever our homes are our sanctuaries. The land around us also provides sanctuary in terms of rest, quiet recreation, and open green space with mature trees. This area and its residents benefit greatly from the green space that is there, relatively low streams of traffic, quiet, as well as bordering the regional trail. It is truly a quality living environment that has no need of additional development. Hearing the plans for the townhome development from the developer, which is out of California - not even local - was disturbing to hear, and unsettling to say the least, regarding what we have to look forward to. Though they stated they did a traffic assessment and it “passed,” there was no information that told us how many multiple times more traffic there will be coming down our streets as all traffic must follow a certain route to get onto 494.The green space which we have treasured and offers a quiet vibration and beauty to the neighborhood - will be gone. What they offer instead is “landscaping” which will not preserve anything that we have. That is a joke. There will be noise from construction and vehicles and other types of chaos during construction for 1.5 years. The only advantages I can see are for the developer via profits from the venture and the city with additional tax revenue. To be quite honest, as an Eden Prairie homeowner I pay quite a bit of tax currently. This hardly inspires me. Please don’t let greed for more tax revenue be the impetus for approving a project like this. In addition, this will be an all-rental residential property. It is well known that renters do not care for property as much as owners do. This is why we cap the number of renters allowed in our own Association. In summary, there is absolutely NO benefit from this development to the residents who are already living here! People are tired of having government overreach, profiteering, and developments which encroach upon their peace and goodwill. We’re tired of it. I strongly oppose this development. I see no benefits for the people who already live here, only negatives. Noise increases, more residential congestion, construction for 1.5 years, more traffic, eradication of green space, and an all renter property. Please support the people who already live here. Please don’t frame it as “an improvement for Eden Prairie.” I live here, I pay taxes here, and I work nearby. This proposal does nothing but decrease our quality of life. Thank you, Barbara Buckner Pinebrook Townhome Association Cortland Road, Eden Prairie Sent from my iPhone From: Jeremy Barnhart To: Sarah Strain Subject: FW: Chestnut Townhome Development Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:49:27 AM Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:54 PM FYI Jeremy Barnhart City Planner 952-949-8529 -----Original Message----- From: Faith Williamson To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Chestnut Townhome Development [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hello Jeremy, I’m a 26 year long Pinebrook resident, both myself along with the co-owner, object to the development. Our concerns involve a heavy increase of noise and traffic, along with environmental impacts including clear cutting trees, runoff, more waste and trash in the area, etc. I walk along by this area frequently and consistently see and pick up trash and experience many who are driving quite fast and can barely stop at the sign on that corner. Also the taller buildings will be quite obstructing. The Purgatory Creek area and walking path across the proposed site is treasure, but we fear this development could really have an impact on the land and wild critters in the area. It’s a shame to see so much open space and land being built up in our city, and even more so, by out of state land grabs. We sincerely hope it’s given a rest. Sincerely, Faith Williamson Robin Green Pinebrook ​​​​ From: Justin Weidl To: Sarah Strain Cc: Dugan Garrison; Bob Garrison Subject: Fw: Public Comment Received - Chestnut Townhomes Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 4:50:17 PM Attachments: cf555f08-4096-43c6-a44a-bc4508799fca.png e8b541c7-455e-4930-99db-59a7d4718e67.png Hi Sarah, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today and for addressing our questions. We truly appreciate it. I also wanted to share an additional public comment that I received, which we plan to address in our presentation for PC. Please see the message below. Thank you, Justin Weidl | Project Coordinator justin.weidl@credegroup.com 16800 Aston St Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92606 O: (949) 336‑4735 C: (909) 957‑5670 murowdc.com From: Judy Ryder > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2026 1:36 PM To: Justin Weidl <justin.weidl@credegroup.com> Subject: Chestnut Townhomes Hi Justin, I've lived in the Pinebrook Carriage Home development off of Anderson Lakes Pkwy and Carmody Drive for over 32 years. Recently we received information about Zooming a City Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 12th, regarding the Chestnut Townhome development. I, two of my neighbors, and probably many more, tried to attend the Zoom meeting. When we clicked the link, it said that the meeting didn't exist. Did it? Regarding this townhome development - in well over a year, I have heard rumblings of Pinebrook owning some of that Chestnut Townhome development land. I was clueless as to what it was all about. Still am, LOL. But I just read that neither Pinebrook, or the City of Eden Prairie, owns the land; that it is owned by the developer. Yet some of my neighbors aren't happy at all about the upcoming construction. And traffic on Carmody. It's already a huge pain to turn left onto Anderson Lakes Pkwy. It's a blind intersection. My question is, do I want to spend any time on this? Isn't this townhome development going to go up regardless of neighbor's objections? I want to support my neighbors who feel strongly about it, but I don't see that complaining will carry any weight. Any chance that this development will be abated? Oh, my neighbor asked me if I was going to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, Feb. 23rd. I looked it up on the calendar, and it says it's cancelled?? Thank you, Judy Ryder, 8472 Cortland Rd, Eden Prairie Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, On January 28, the Board of the Pinebrook Homeowners Association met to review and discuss the proposed Chestnut Townhome development. Following that meeting, the developer held a virtual neighborhood meeting in accordance with City policy, which was attended by approximately 10 residents. Several concerns were raised during that meeting that the Pinebrook HOA Board believes will warrant formal consideration by the Planning Commission. These concerns, along with our specific requests, are outlined below. 1. Neighborhood Meeting Notice Issue: City policy requires that notice of a neighborhood meeting be provided at least ten (10) days in advance to all affected property owners. In this case, many residents did not receive notice until the day before or the day of the meeting. As a result, only 12 of Pinebrook’s 184 residents were able to attend, five of whom were HOA Board members and Pinebrook Property Management. This lack of timely notice did not allow residents adequate time to review project materials, prepare questions, or meaningfully participate in the discussion, which undermines the intent of the City’s neighborhood engagement requirements. Request to the Planning Commission: We ask that the Planning Commission consider this deficiency in meeting notice as part of its review and ensure that meaningful neighborhood engagement requirements are met prior to any project approvals. We appreciate that the developer has scheduled a second neighborhood meeting in response to these concerns and have encouraged our residents to attend. 2. Landscaping and Tree Replacement Issue: A member of the Pinebrook HOA Board met with City planning staff to review the proposed plans in detail. One of our primary concerns is the proposed clear-cutting of all existing vegetation on the site, including the mature buffer currently separating the development property from Pinebrook Townhomes on the south side. According to the City’s landscape calculator, the project would remove approximately 900 caliper inches of “significant” trees and 311 caliper inches of “heritage” trees, requiring a total of 1,072 caliper inches of replacement. However, the submitted landscape plan proposes replacement of only 257 caliper inches—approximately 24% of the required amount. While the ordinance allows for a fee in lieu of full tree replacement (estimated at approximately $101,000), fees do not replace the environmental, visual, and buffering benefits of mature on- site vegetation. The loss of this buffer will have a direct and lasting impact on adjacent Pinebrook residents. Request to the Planning Commission: We respectfully request that the Planning Commission require additional on-site landscaping, including increased tree replacement and/or larger-caliper trees, to better reestablish the buffer of mature vegetation that is being removed. We also suggest that a portion of any in-lieu fees be directed toward improvements to the nearby trail entrance to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, which would benefit both existing neighbors and future residents. 3. Traffic Impacts Issue: Residents of Pinebrook Townhomes, Windsong, the Reserve Apartments, and the proposed Chestnut Townhomes rely on only two access routes: Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive. Both streets intersect with Anderson Lakes Parkway, a major east–west arterial with high traffic volumes and speeds, particularly during peak morning and evening hours. Residents are already experience difficulty entering onto Anderson Lakes Parkway during peak periods, especially from Carmody Drive. The proposed development could add up to 106 additional vehicles (based on two vehicles per unit), further increasing traffic volumes and turning movements in an already constrained area. Request to the Planning Commission: We ask that the Planning Commission confirm that a comprehensive traffic analysis has been completed and reviewed by City staff, and that any identified traffic impacts—particularly along Carmody Drive—are fully mitigated prior to project approval. 4. Street Parking Issue: The Board is concerned about potential on-street parking impacts associated with the proposed development, particularly along Carmody Drive. Townhome developments frequently experience parking demands that exceed on-site capacity, resulting in overflow parking on adjacent public streets. Carmody Drive already serves as a primary access route for multiple residential developments. Due to vehicles parking on both sides of the street and blocking access to residential streets— particularly for large vehicles such as trash and recycling collection and delivery vehicles—the Pinebrook HOA previously requested the installation of no-parking signs along one side of Carmody Drive. These restrictions prohibit overnight parking from November through April until 8:00 a.m. to maintain safe and reliable access. Additional on-street parking associated with the proposed development could further reduce roadway width, limit visibility, complicate snow removal, and create safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, emergency vehicles, and service providers. In addition, residents of the Reserve Apartments frequently park along Chestnut Drive when their parking lots are full or temporarily unavailable, such as during snow removal operations when vehicles must be moved to avoid towing. This existing parking pressure further increases concern about cumulative on-street parking impacts in the area. Request to the Planning Commission: We respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully evaluate whether the proposed development provides sufficient on-site parking to meet both resident and visitor demand, and that on-street parking along Carmody Drive not become a default solution for inadequate parking design. The Pinebrook Homeowners Association appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this proposal. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission give careful consideration to neighborhood meeting compliance, landscaping, and tree replacement adequacy, traffic impacts—particularly on Carmody Drive—and on-street parking concerns as part of its review of the Chestnut Townhome development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Pinebrook Homeowners Association Board of Directors Don Uram, Karrie Murnan, Katie Rysted, Susan Rossmeisl, and Marcy Gilles North view from Pinebrook (13600 & 13527 Carmody Drive) facing existing tree buffer. North view along Carmody Drive facing Chestnut Drive and Windsong. From: Sarah Strain To: "Cory Salveson"; justin.weidl@credegroup.com Subject: RE: Comments on proposal for Chestnut Townhomes Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 1:51:51 PM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png Thank you for your email, Cory. I am sorry to hear that you were unable to join the virtual neighborhood meeting last night. I shared your concerns about infrastructure capacity and pedestrian safety on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Carmody Drive with the City Engineer. The traffic study anticipates most of the new cars utilizing the Chestnut Drive intersection over the Carmody Drive intersection. The developer is revising the traffic study to reflect the current layout and confirm there are no anticipated intersection back-ups or delays due to the new development. This will be ready prior to the public hearing at the Planning Commission, where both the developer and staff will be available to answer questions and address concerns about traffic and safety. The request to install a full signal or an RRFB has been shared with Public Works and will be considered. The construction plan is under development now, which is why there is no public documents. The developer has expressed the goal of starting construction in the fall, and the anticipated timeline is two years from start to completion. The developer will be required to follow City Code, which permits construction activities involving electric, diesel, or gas-powered machines or other power equipment only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activities may occur on Sundays or legal Holidays. The City Manager may, upon good cause being shown, vary these days and hours in writing. Any utility shortages or road closures will be communicated prior to the shortage or closure. Please let me know if you have additional comments or questions. A copy of your message will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of their project review. Your email address will be redacted for confidentiality. Thank you, Sarah Strain, AICP (she/her) Planner II 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-949-8413 edenprairiemn.gov From: Cory Salveson Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:12 PM To: justin.weidl@credegroup.com Cc: Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov>; Planning <planning@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Comments on proposal for Chestnut Townhomes You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello, I am writing to share my comments regarding Chestnut Townhomes, the proposed 53-unit townhome development near Anderson Lakes Parkway and Carmody Drive. I am submitting these comments in writing as I was unable to attend the meeting scheduled this evening. I tried to join the Zoom meeting late, but after waiting for multiple minutes in the virtual lobby, I exited because it seemed nobody would let me in. As a resident and a parent of a young child, I want to express my support for the inclusion of diverse housing options in our community. Increasing density through townhomes is a positive step for Eden Prairie’s growth. However, for this development to succeed, I feel the city must address the existing infrastructure failures related to crosswalk safety at the intersection of Carmody Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway. I have significant concerns regarding the following: Public Safety & Personal Experience: This intersection hosts the only official crosswalk for a significant stretch on Anderson Lakes Parkway, and it is already failing. I have personally had a near-miss while carrying my young son across this intersection. A driver, clearly stressed and focused on finding a gap to turn left before being "stuck" by oncoming traffic, failed to see us. I've also experienced very long wait times to cross as a pedestrian because drivers routinely fail to slow down or stop for pedestrians who are clearly waiting to cross the road. The "Flag" Indicator: I've noticed that some kind of crossing flags (I'm not sure what they're called) are sometimes stationed at the crosswalk to aid visibility. However, vehicles frequently strike and damage these flags—an ominous sign that drivers are already failing to sense or safely react to the presence of the crosswalk. In other words, if drivers are striking flags, it indicates the intersection's signage or lighting or visibility or something is not preparing them adequately. In light of my previous anecdote about waiting for a long time to cross: I don't think drivers are seeing me and choosing not to stop; I think they're either not seeing me in time or not seeing me at all. Infrastructure Capacity: Anderson Lakes is a single-lane road. Anyone who lives in the area is familiar with the stress of timing left turns against oncoming traffic, even during non-peak times. Everyone has experienced getting stuck waiting for a gap to turn left (or waiting for someone ahead of them who is stuck waiting to turn left). Based on the new development's placement, this intersection will likely be the primary access point for 53+ new vehicles (estimating at least one per unit). I just don't think this intersection can handle that much additional traffic without design changes. I understand from the public document “Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Narrative.pdf” (dated December 18, 2025) that “A traffic analysis was previously prepared for a higher- density concept on the site. That analysis identified no roadway capacity or circulation concerns. With the project revised to a lower unit count, traffic impacts are expected to be further reduced.” That just doesn't add up for me based on my lived experience as a local resident. To summarize: long wait times and unsafe driving behaviors already stress this intersection, even before considering cross walk safety. My lived experience of being "invisible" at this crosswalk as a pedestrian—and almost getting hit while walking with my young child as a result—concerns me about the safety implications of adding yet more traffic that can only serve to make drivers more unsafe under current conditions. In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that the City require the following as conditions for approval: 1. A Comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA): Specifically one that measures the "Peak Hour" delay for left turns and evaluates pedestrian safety in the summertime, or late spring, whenever pedestrian and vehicle traffic peak. The document mentioned above includes a provision for this requirement: “If required by the City, additional traffic evaluation will be completed during subsequent development review stages in coordination with the City Engineer.” 2. Signalization or Mitigation: I strongly urge the city to consider a full traffic signal or, at minimum, a pedestrian-activated rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at Carmody Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway to ensure the safety of families in this area. I support the goal of this project, but I believe developers and the city must ensure that our infrastructure and safety measures keep pace with new density. I look forward to your response regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis. Separately from the topic of road safety, I'd also like to ask about the project's construction impact plan (as I was not admitted late to the meeting tonight). Could someone please clarify the projected duration of the construction phase and what specific noise mitigation measures will be taken by / required of the developer? These points appear to be unaddressed by existing public documents. Sincerely, Cory Salveson From: Patty Mattson Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 5:51 PM To: Justin.weidl@credegroup.com Cc: Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Hey Justin and I cc'd Sarah You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Happy Monday! I just received the letter for the next meeting on the 12th regarding the proposed development on Chestnut and Carmody. The first I ever heard of this was Jan 26 2026. Honestly it is not legal for a new owner to not have this disclosed prior to purchase by sellers and the HOA. Having said that: Upon reviewing this planned project it does look thoughtful, architecturally attractive with green space, retaining walls to create separation from Pinebrook but not ruin the view, safe water and waste removal, and a few Ultra low units, (affordable housing is needed badly). Although there are some exceptions, (depending on quality, craftsmanship, grounds, no crowding, keeping parking off adjoining pvt community streets and upkeep etc), it is well known that "Rental complexes overall" do NOT improve the value of nearby owner occupied communities. They in fact can cause significant losses. The aforementioned would have to be the case for a rental complex to be considered “exceptional”, also keeping rents commensurate with the going rates that Pinebrook would charge or higher, (withstanding UUL Units of course), would contribute to stability in value. My questions now are: - What is the official number of UUL units going in there? - Where are you parking all the work trucks going in and out of that construction site for close to 2 years? - Will there be a designated delivery lot for supplies and parking that is NOT on the Pinebrook side to keep huge earth rumbling trucks OFF Carmody? - Is it possible to put signs up at Chestnut and Carmody Drive where you turn to enter Pinebrook, and also one on Anderson Lakes Pkwy entering Pinebrook that say: “PRIVATE ROAD Pinebrook Owners, Occupants, Maintenance and Deliveries Only - Not a Throughfare” - Are you putting a turn signal at Chestnut and Anderson Lakes? - Has there been any consideration given to creating another street to exit the area on the Chestnut side or Windsong side to avoid the gridlock? - Will you be warning nearby residents days prior when days of “Big Digging” or “Hammering into the ground” are going to occur? - Once you are done with the big digging what are you doing to prevent constant hammering, Jackhammering, drilling, workers yelling, music etc from being heard across the wind every single day for 2 years when someone want to enjoy their patio just doors or a block away?? IF it’s not loud enough to be heard INDOORS. - What are you doing to ensure Pinebrook or other surrounding people will not lose their Internet signals, Electricity, Gas, Water or Sewage service or have disruptions to any of those during this construction period. - Are you offering the owners or tenants nearby this project any compensation for enduring the daily noise and disruption for 2 years? Being unable to sit outside during the day in peace without hearing it. - If damage happens to surrounding homes due to ground shaking and earth settling are you going to pay for that? I’ve recently lived through and seen what a construction project does to peoples lives and sometimes nearby structures during the bigger "digging and building phase”. If you could prevent these kinds of problems and disruptions and give assurances to Pinebrook residents that it will be a “Nothing Sandwich” … and assure them that will definitely improve values….. people will be wayyyyyy more likely to acquiesce and endure what will NOT BE FUN. For a remote worker like me that records - it could cause a loss of income if any of that rumbling or noise is heard inside the home. Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON From: Patty Mattson To: Sarah Strain Subject: Re: Potential solution for Pinebrook Residents Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:55:40 PM Attachments: image002.png Thanks so much for that. I sent an email to the developer for this as well with this input. They need to put the townhome or “Lower Elevation Part” of that community plan on the PINEBROOK SIDE !! Currently they have that lower elevation part designed for the Windsong side. It will flow WAY BETTER from Pinebrook side and make it hard to tell whether that is a rental community. That could help the value of owners properties in Pinebrook - a"low rental units allowed" community. The current plans have a "Project Looking” EYESORE of an abrupt 3 story complex on the Carmody corner and It looks awful coming off of the Pinebrook Community. That 3 story should be on the Windsong side of Chestnut as it would blend with the more visible big apartment building and there are more Rentals at Windsong. Also If you lived here you would know adding 120 cars is going to constant traffic up little Carmody with more accidents at both Carmody and ALP and Chestnut and ALP. I’m so sorry - I wish to god I was not in this conversation right now and I’m not just frustrated I am FURIOUS. The fact that this could be done to a person that was as REPEATEDLY ADAMENT as I was about NO CONSTRUCTION or PENDING BUILDS BEING NEARBY IS JUST …. CRIMINAL. -I said this almost every single conversation I had with my Realtor Sue Gonyea as I record from home for a living. Sue said she was doing a “Deep Dive” on Comps and on “Pending or Planned Construction” to protect me from getting fleeced or stuck where I cannot work. She says she called the city of EP and spoke to someone who told her nothing about this planned project, a project mind you that has been in the works for 2 years. She is looking at her records to find out who she spoke to there, but for me this is a sirens blaring lack of "Critical Unseen Facts” kind of problem. The previous Owner Helen Doyle knew and said nothing. Her agent likely knew and said nothing. Any way as you know…. I’m trying to work the "Discounted Window Upgrade solution” as a possible silver lining in, what for me specifically, is a nightmare scenario. It IS possible that the window remedy will help quite a bit. It’s just a matter of who’s going to pay for that in my situation as a seriously screwed over buyer. Thanks for your time and attention to this crazy scenario.   Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON On Feb 18, 2026, at 11:29 AM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairiemn.gov> wrote: Hi Patty, Thank you for your emails. I understand your frustration that a new construction project is planned when you sought an area to specifically avoid construction. As part of their application, the developers provided a geotechnical analysis of the area. My understanding of this report is that there are no unexpected issues with the soils. What were the ground concerns that were brought up at the meeting? The developer is also updating the traffic analysis to confirm there will not be backups and delays with the anticipated increase in car traffic. This study is currently being conducted. The study conducted for the earlier 78 unit proposal did not suggest any delays caused by the project. The two lots where the proposed Chestnut Townhomes are located are currently guided on the future land use plan for Medium-High Density residential, which would allow for larger apartment buildings. To better fit into the existing neighborhood context, the developer is asking to decrease density to medium density to create townhomes. This is a good fit with the existing neighborhood character. Currently, the apartments and Windsong Townhomes are also rental properties, so the proposed rental project is not out of character with the neighborhood. The architecture and building materials of the townhomes meet the City’s building material and design standards. The developer is the current owner of the property, and to our knowledge has not explored other projects. The large lot where Opus is located is currently not on the market, so a developer cannot propose development on the land if the owner is unwilling to sell. Thank you, Sarah Strain, AICP (she/her) Planner II 952-949-8413 From: Patty Mattson Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 8:21 AM To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Re: Potential solution for Pinebrook Residents Importance: High Just making sure you saw this below. I wish to god I was not in these conversations. HAD I BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH I WOULD NOT BE. Also to add to that other message: The last meeting was helpful. One of the individuals on the zoom pointed out that the builder has not done their homework on the history of ground issues at this site and the serious problems that could be encountered when they start digging it all up. I want you and the folks at the City to PLEASE REALIZE the position this puts owners of Pinebrook in. Most purchase at Pinebrook because there are LIMITED rentals allowed here. We wanted a community that is OWNER OCCUPIED with pride of ownership to protect our investments. In many cases they are part of peoples retirement investments. To now put a 3 story (what looks like a project from recent pictures), rightNEXT TO and WITHIN the actual community of Pinebrook wipes ALL of that OUT for the people who invested or live here. For most, the Idea of a massive rental complex inside Pinebrook flies in the face of why they purchased here’s specifically.Everyone I speak to is worried about adding 120 cars to these 2 streets with Carmody being inside this community and not a normal size street with a very blind curve on approach from Anderson Lakes. People near the site will lose the Quiet enjoyment of their homes for 2 YEARS almost every day from 7-7 depending on their schedules. What if you lived and invested here? THIS is one of the reasons no one wants to own anymore. From affordability, to being victimized by companies not fully considering the damage they could do to peoples Investments or neighborhood in their effort to create more profit making housing. We need housing yes, but where and at what cost to owners actually matters. I’m sorry - I wish to god I was not in this conversation. I told everyone involved in my purchase my dealbreaker so this for me is a nightmare. I feel stuck spending my time completely stressed out about this every day while   I’m dealing with my reason for being here - My moms Alzheimers. I want to find solutions that will help. It’s my nature to seek solutions but….this one is about money. I wish I was not forced into this position. I also just wondered - WHY isn’t the city and the developer looking to do this on the HUGE plot of land across from Mitchell Village that Opus is on???? Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON On Feb 11, 2026, at 11:09 AM, Patty Mattson wrote: Hey Sarah thank you. Yes I did forward that email to Jenn Piper at the Hoa as well. The 7am-7pm timeframe for large disruptive construction equipment is longer than most, which end at 4:30, but either way I’ll be unable to schedule any sessions on these days. Currently if a moving truck is 2 doors down you can hear it indoors. Same with the plow. A massive piece of this project is 4 doors down on the parcels at the end of my street. I’m just flabbergasted that ANY realtor or seller would do this to a client that specifically told all parties involved that Construction nearby was a deal breaker. I lived over a construction project for a year before buying here so I was ADAMENT. My agent told me   she’d do a deep dive on this prior. I trusted that she spoke to the HOA and the City since it was such a serious issue for me specifically…..so knowing that this has been KNOWN for 2 YEARS?? Who does that to someone? Anyway, triple paned sound reducing windows could help a great deal if High quality. I just think the realtors, seller and Hoa should be working out who’d paying in my case. If we get a deal then it will be less painful for us all and help us avoid litigation. Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON On Feb 11, 2026, at 10:14 AM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairiemn.gov> wrote: Hi Patty, Have you contacted the HOA regarding your idea about upgrading the windows? I can only speak to the how the City notifies residents when there are planned disruptions to public utilities, but my understanding is there is communication from private utilities when there are planned shortages during construction. Per City Code, no person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas-powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday. No construction activities may occur on Sundays or legal Holidays. The City Manager may, upon good cause being shown, vary these days and hours in writing. Thank you, Sarah Strain, AICP (she/her) Planner II 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-949-8413 edenprairiemn.gov From: Patty Mattson Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 10:30 AM To: Justin.weidl@credegroup.com; Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Potential solution for Pinebrook Residents Importance: High You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good Morning Justin and Sarah. I’ve been reviewing this impending development situation and I did have an Idea to share that would definitely help. What if the developer partnered with the HOA and the City to offer residents of Pinebrook that are near this construction site (within 1 1/2 - 2blocks) a chance to upgrade to High quality Triple Pane Sound proof / Sound reducing windows at a screaming discount with a tax credit to boot? Quality will really matter on the effectiveness of this solution. I’ve seen this solution really help in LA. For me this should be paid by the HOA, Seller or Realtor that did not disclose this project when I specifically STRESSED that being near any construction was a deal breaker on a purchase for me. The HOA and owner/sellers knew this was coming for a couple years. It’s a mystery why not 1 person disclosed this until Jan 26 2026. Having said that however. This solution will provide relief for those living near this project and create work for a great window company during the slow season, (Now). This option will not only improve the properties participating but it motivates them to support the project and most of all to be relieved of the serious noise that is imminent and will continue daily from 7:30am until 4:30 pm except inspection days for 2 straight years. There must be some statute or law that protects homeowners from living through something like this without compensation of some kind as the disruptions will be severe near the site with critical needed utilities shut off potentially on short notice. For remote workers Electric, Cable or Internet shut- off would have to be planned for. Just trying to think of a potential solution to motivate some level of excitement instead of dread. Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON From: Patty Mattson To: Sarah Strain Subject: Re: Questions regarding Redtail Project Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 11:17:13 AM Attachments: image002.png Importance: High Thank you Sarah. I need this shared with the Planning Commission. Thank you! This is a 2 year nightmare for residents of Pinebrook near the site. Changes need to be made to the current plan minimally. The Townhome design of their current layout would need to be put on the Pinebrook side for esthetic flow. As it stands the 3 level TH complex slated to be on the Pinebrook side looks like a Project. It’s awful looking right next to a TH community like this. Also, massive steel girders will need to be hammered deep into the ground once the hillside is leveled for that 3 level part of their plan and it will shake the ground of nearby homes possibly creating shifting. Who pays for that kind of damage should it happen? That is on top of serious noise, serious ground rumbling thumping and dirt in the air all over the roofs and in the venting of these Pinebrook homes that WILL HAPPEN. Noise will be 7-7 every day for 2 years except inspection days. If you lived near this site, (within a block) imagine how you’d feel. Your quiet enjoyment ruined. For a remote worker like me… your ability to work threatened every single day. That’s not considering the unknown Utility disruptions. When did RedTail Alert the Owners of Pinebrook of this Proposed Build? It was critical to my purchase decision due to what I do for a living. It was a Deal Breaker for me that I adamantly shared with my Buyers Agent at Remax. Also Laws that Protect Homeowners. The end of Carmody is literally “Within the actual Community of Pinebrook”. How is it legal to subject Owners in a Low Rental allowed community, to this 2 year noise nightmare as well as an adjacent Full Rental Complex that could damage value? Please City Planning Commission Imagine if you JUST invested here thinking it was this quiet quaint low rental complex that you could happily and quietly work remotely in?? Imagine if you told your agent your deal breaker only to be faced with this now….Imagine for people that have babies that need to sleep. (I presented an Idea to RedTail about offering owners near the site, say...within a block and a 1/2, triple paned sound reducing windows at a discount since they could buy from a maker in bulk. This is another option you could require them to do prior that would greatly reduce this daily noise that will last 2 years.) Please Planning Commission Help us to get this plan corrected minimally.   Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON On Mar 5, 2026, at 10:49 AM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairiemn.gov> wrote: Hi Patty, I’d like to confirm if you wish to share these questions with the Planning Commission or if these questions are just for staff? Redtail Development will need City Council approval to build the proposed project. Staff is recommending approval of the project to the Planning Commission at Monday’s meeting. Both the Chestnut and Carmody properties are currently zoned for multi- family residential and guided for multi-family residential in the City’s future land use plan. Recommending one of the lots be left as open space would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Chestnut Drive is the only road access these parcels have; there are wetlands to the north that would prevent any road construction or connection to Technology Drive. The City first received an application for development on these parcels in April 2023. The project was originally much denser, and staff worked with Redtail between the original application and today to bring the density to 53 units. The application was incomplete until December 2025, which is why it only recently appeared on the City’s Development Project Map. I do not know the timing of when Redtail would have reached out to Pinebrook HOA. Staff encouraged Redtail to reach out to all neighboring developments early in the process to share concepts and address concerns. My understanding is Redtail had contact with the HOA board prior to the neighborhood meetings. City staff sent all Pinebrook residents a public hearing notice for Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting and will send all residents another for the City Council public hearing. We do not send development information to realtors or agencies unless specifically requested. Thank you, Sarah Strain, AICP (she/her) Planner II 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-949-8413 edenprairiemn.gov From: Patty Mattson Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 7:12 PM To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@EdenPrairieMN.Gov> Subject: Questions regarding Redtail Project Importance: High Hey Sarah hope all is going well. I have a few questions regarding this proposed Redtail development that the City of EP has authorized. -Is the Redtail Project definitely going to build this? -If so is Redtail definitely building in Pinebrook on the Carmody side of Chestnut? Is it possible you could make them leave that area green? -Can the Redtail Project build on just the Chestnut side and make a road out to Technology drive for traffic? This would be WAY better. -When did The City Of Eden Prairie First get word of the proposed 53 Unit complex from RedTail? -When did the City first inform New Concepts HOA and Residents of Pinebrook of the Proposed 53 Unit Rental Complex being built directly across from the last 3-4 blocks of that community, so technically “within it” ? Pinebrook being a Limited Rental, Ownership heavy Community. -Were consistent letters and information sent to The HOA and Residents of Pinebrook and if so do you have a list of when that information was sent? -Were Real Estate Companies sent this information as well so their buyers could be informed? If so When? -My Realtor promised a “Deep Dive” on this issue PRIOR to purchase since being near construction was a hard deal breaker for me. It will greatly impact my ability to work due to that kind of noise and vibration nearby. She is unable to provide a single name that she spoke to to date. It’s hard to believe anyone would ruin a clients LIFE so they could get a commission, but it’s not looking good for her currently. I’m trying to establish when everyone knew to ascertain whether the HOA, Seller or her Agent hold some accountability for this. Let’s Create Magic! PATTY MATTSON RENTALS. Rental properties are just not cared for the same by the majority of renters as they do not have a financial stake in the place. If this construction project was townhomes for SALE starting at 400K that would be good for Pinebrooks value but even then it would still present a vast number of problems for the community, huge increase in traffic on only 2 small streets, noise in the neighborhood in general once completed, the demographic will vastly change, the trash trucks, trash in general, additional sewage strain, toxic run off from the project itself, and worse…. 2 years of construction noise 5 DAYS A WEEK ALL DAY. Have you ever lived near a construction project???? I have it’s not something I’d have ever repeated. I just am horrified. I am furious. Not one disclosure. And all the parties knew the importance of a quiet community to my livelihood. HOW do we STOP THIS? PATRICIA MATTSON Pinebrook Resident - unfortunately ChestnutTownhomes Welcome to P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n - M a r c h 9 , 2 0 2 6 Building 6: Chestnut Dr - Facing Carmody Dr F u l l y I n t e g r a t e d : A c q u i s i t i o n , E n t i t l e m e n t , D e v e l o p m e n t , C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t , L e a s i n g & P r o p e r t y M a n a g e m e n t E x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h m u l t i f a m i l y d e v e l o p m e n t 1 3 ,0 0 0 + u n i t s o w n e d a n d m a n a g e d a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y D e v e l o p h i g h q u a l i t y r e n t a l w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g F o c u s o n q u a l i t y d e s i g n a n d p o p u l a r , a t t r a c t i v e a m e n i t i e s I n t e r n a l p r o p e r t y m a n a g e m e n t s u p p o r t i n g s a f e , c l e a n , w e l l -r u n c o m m u n i t i e s Red Tail Multifamily Development Representative Projects ReNEW Neill Lake - Eden Prairie, MNThe Atwood - Eden Prairie, MN Arrive - Longmont, CO A p p l i c a n t : R e d T a i l M u l t i f a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t A r c h i t e c t : K a a s W i l s o n A r c h i t e c t s C i v i l E n g i n e e r : L o u c k s E n g i n e e r i n g P r o j e c t M a n a g e r : C R E D E G r o u p Project Team Project Location& Overview L o c a t e d a t : C h e s t n u t D r i v e & C a r m o d y D r i v e , E d e n P r a i r i e , M N 5 5 3 4 4 T y p e : T o w n h o m e s T o t a l U n i t s : 5 3 I n c l u s i o n a r y H o u s i n g U n i t s : 3 U n i t s r e s e r v e d f o r f a m i l i e s a t o r b e l o w 3 0 % o f A M I P r o p e r t y A r e a : 5 .7 2 a c r e s O p e n S p a c e P r o v i d e d : 9 ,0 0 8 S F SurroundingCommunities Re s e r ve A p a r t m e n t s P i n e b r o o k C a r r i ag e H o m e s W i n d s o n g A p a r t m e n t s P r o j e c t S i t e : C h e s t n u t Tow n h o m e s Overall Site Plan North Site Plan South Site Plan *5% of units, 3 homes, will be deed restricted for inclusionary housing at or below 30% of Area Median Income (~$39,700)* O v e r a l l U n i t M i x P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Building 1 F l o o r P l a n s Building 1 P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Buildings 2 & 6 F l o o r P l a n s Buildings 2 & 6 P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Building 8 F l o o r P l a n s Building 8 Photo Realistic Views View 1: Windsong Drive View 2: Chestnut Drive (South Site) View 3: Carmody Drive (South Site) Community Concerns TRAFFIC - TREE REMOVAL & LANDSCAPING - CONSTRUCTION NOISE - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING - SOIL STABILITY - Concerns Responses O u r s i t e i s p r o j e c t e d t o g e n e r a t e 3 4 8 d a i l y t r i p s . E x i s t i n g t r a f f i c o n A n d e r s o n L a k e s P a r k w a y i s 6 ,3 0 0 v e h i c l e s p e r d a y , i n c r e a s i n g s l i g h t l y t o 6 ,6 5 0 w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h r e m a i n s w e l l b e l o w t h e r o a d w a y c a p a c i t y o f 8 ,0 0 0 t o 1 3 ,0 0 0 v e h i c l e s p e r d a y . W h i l e s o m e e x i s t i n g t r e e s w i l l b e r e m o v e d , a c o m p r e h e n s i v e l a n d s c a p e p l a n i s p r o p o s e d t o p r o v i d e b u f f e r i n g , r e p l a c e m e n t p l a n t i n g s , a n d l o n g t e r m s i t e e n h a n c e m e n t . O u r p r o j e c t w i l l f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f E d e n P r a i r i e ’s z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , w h i c h p e r m i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n n o i s e a u d i b l e a t t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e b e t w e e n 7 :0 0 a .m . a n d 7 :0 0 p .m ., M o n d a y t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y , e x c l u d i n g S u n d a y s a n d l e g a l h o l i d a y s . B e y o n d c o m p l i a n c e , w e a r e c o m m i t t e d t o m i n i m i z i n g i m p a c t s t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g c o m m u n i t y . T h e p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s t h r e e i n c l u s i o n a r y h o u s i n g u n i t s d e s i g n a t e d f o r v e r y l o w i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g 3 0 p e r c e n t o r l e s s o f t h e a r e a m e d i a n i n c o m e . S i t e s o i l c o n d i t i o n s h a v e b e e n e v a l u a t e d a n d d e t e r m i n e d t o b e f e a s i b l e f o r d e v e l o p m e n t . A s i t e s p e c i f i c g e o t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d c o n f i r m i n g s o i l s t a b i l i t y a n d s u i t a b i l i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t . Community Concerns Concerns Responses S n o w s t o r a g e h a s b e e n c a l c u l a t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h l o c a l s t a n d a r d s , a n d d e d i c a t e d a r e a s o n t h e p r o p e r t y h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e r e q u i r e d c a p a c i t y . T h e s e a r e a s e n s u r e s n o w c a n b e s t o r e d o n s i t e w i t h o u t i m p a c t i n g a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s , s t r e e t s , o r s i t e a c c e s s . T h e p r o j e c t i n c o r p o r a t e s o n s i t e a n d u n d e r g r o u n d s t o r m w a t e r s y s t e m s t o c a p t u r e a n d t r e a t r u n o f f b e f o r e i t i s d i s c h a r g e d i n t o t h e C i t y ’s s t o r m w a t e r n e t w o r k . R e t e n t i o n b a s i n s a r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e l a n d s c a p i n g d e s i g n t o c a p t u r e a n d r e t a i n r a i n f a l l a n d s n o w m e l t o n s i t e . T h e y a r e e n g i n e e r e d t o f u l l y a b s o r b w a t e r w i t h i n 4 8 h o u r s , r e s t r i c t o f f s i t e r u n o f f , s u p p o r t i n g s i t e d r a i n a g e , a n d c o n t r i b u t i n g t o o v e r a l l s t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t a n d l a n d s c a p e h e a l t h . T h e p r o j e c t p r o v i d e s n e e d e d h o u s i n g w h i l e r e s p e c t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d . W e b e l i e v e d o w n z o n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y , w i l l p r e s e r v e t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d ’s s c a l e a n d o p e n f e e l . T h o u g h t f u l l a n d s c a p i n g a n d i n -h o u s e p r o p e r t y m a n a g e m e n t a r e d e s i g n e d t o m a i n t a i n g r e e n s p a c e , m i n i m i z e d i s r u p t i o n , a n d e n h a n c e t h e o v e r a l l q u a l i t y o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . ONSITE SNOW STORAGE - STORMWATER TREATMENT - RETENTION BASINS - COMMUNITY BENEFITS- North Site Plan - Snow Storage South Site Plan - Snow Storage Thank you Additional Information North - Civil Site Plan South - Civil Site Plan Previous Project Iteration TOTAL - 160 UNITS TOTAL - 178 STALLS P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Buildings 3, 4, & 5 F l o o r P l a n s Buildings 3, 4, & 5 P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Building 7 F l o o r P l a n s Building 7 P r o p e r t y E l e v a t i o n s Buildings 9 & 10 F l o o r P l a n s Buildings 9 & 10