The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission - 03/23/2026 Meeting Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7 p.m. Monday, March 23, 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, March 9, 2026 V. Public Hearings A. Prairie Lakes Corporate Center Subdivision (2026-01) 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment on 13.07 acres 2. Preliminary Plat of 13.07 acres into two (2) lots 3. Site Plan Amendment on 13.07 acres VI. Planner’s Reports VII. Members Reports VIII. Adjournment Unapproved Meeting Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 9, 2026 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. Commission Member Weber was absent. Planner II Sarah Strain was present. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, December 8, 2025 MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Tuesday, December 8, 2025. Motion carried 8-0. V. Public Hearings A. Chestnut Townhomes (2023-7) • Site Plan Review on 5.72 acres • Guide Plan Change on 5.72 acres Dugan Garrison, project manager with Crede Group, presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced the architects Doug Wilkin, Paul Wilson, and Ted Thompson. Red Tail Multifamily Development was the applicant and was a fully integrated acquisition, entitlement, development, construction management, leasing and property management entity. Garrison displayed images of representative projects, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 including the Atwood and ReNEW Neill Lake in Eden Prairie. Crede Group was partnering with Red Tail Residential and Kaas Wilson Architects and Loucks Engineering. The applicant proposed to build 53 units at Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive, with three units reserved for families at or below 30 percent of AMI, consistent with the City of Eden Prairie requirements. It included 9,008 square feet of open space. The surrounding communities included the Reserve Apartments, Pinebrook Carriage Homes, and Windsong Apartments. The overall site plan was bisected by Chestnut Drive and had gone through multiple iterations. He displayed the North and South Site Plans, which included a grade change on the southeast side with a retaining wall, at which there would be some plantings. The plan included one-, two -and three-story townhouses with two-or three-bedroom units. Garrison displayed the property elevations, floor plans, and photo realistic renderings from various angles. Concerns from the public included traffic, tree removal and landscaping, construction noise, the incorporation of inclusionary housing, and soil stability. The traffic report showed the area generated 348 daily trips at present, showing no significant impact. Trees would be replanted. The development would fully comply with the City Zoning Ordinance containing construction noise between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. There would be three affordable units and soil conditions were adequate for development. Stormwater treatment incorporated onsite and underground systems. The retention basins were integrated into the landscaping and would fully absorb and drain rainfall and snowmelt. Garrison displayed the snow storage site plan. Farr asked who owned the sliver lots to the east, and Garrison replied Pinebrook Carriage Homes to the south, and Windsong to the north; they were not part of this development. Outside of the property lines, the southern portion would be graded to reduce the size of a retaining wall to reduce it from eight to about four feet. There was a temporary easement for that parcel with the Pinebrook Carriage Homes. Nothing would be disturbed on the north side. Taylor asked the average square footage of the townhomes. Paul Olson, architect, replied they were roughly 2,000 square feet with two-car garages. Farr urged decorative materials for the two long retaining walls. Olson replied colored and textured landscape concrete block would be used but the specific materials had not yet been selected. The applicant would work with staff on this. Barnhart presented the staff report. This would be a 53-unit townhome development on two vacant parcels. It met all zoning requirements; the site was currently guided medium-high density residential and the Comp Plan Amendment would be reduce it to medium density. This development was originally envisioned as a higher-density apartment building but the townhome development seemed more appropriate. There were no waivers, and the development complied with landscaping and inclusionary housing requirements, and exceeded parking requirements. Each unit had four parking PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 spaces, two covered, and guest parking spaces on either side of Chestnut Drive. Through the review process, there were configuration changes, resulting in a private drive feeding off of Chestnut Drive and serving smaller driveways, to avoid parking issues and allow access of emergency vehicles. The stormwater plan will meet all City and Watershed District requirements. The landscaping met all requirements, both with regard to the tree caliper inches and the cash in lieu of planting according to the building footprint. Staff responded to comments from the public by recommending additional buffering to the south of the development. The project met the inclusionary housing requirement. Construction noise was unavoidable, and while there will be excavation, construction activity is restricted by Code to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, not on Sunday or holidays. There is a balance to regulating construction. Too restrictive, it lengthens the construction period. Traffic was a major concern, and Schulze would address these. Schulze stated the traffic data collected beyond the traffic study indicated 53 unit generated 350 trips in the area per day, lower than the higher number of units earlier proposed. On Anderson Lakes Parkway nearby there were 6,300 vehicles per day (2024 count) and a 1,600 vehicle spread between 2016 (when the traffic count estimated 7300 vehicles per day) and 2024 (2020 counts were 5700 vehicles per day). The capacity of Anderson Lakes Parkway ranged from 8,000 to 13,000 on this collector street, so currently not even at the minimum capacity. There was discussion from residents about an all-way stop, but proved to be unwarranted and likely to cause long backups, perhaps all the way back to City Center. Anderson Lakes Parkway clearly had right-of-way. Poor decisions on when to pull out onto this collector road accounted for most of the accidents, not speed or other causes. Speed data: the 2025 average speed was 34 miles per hour, upward to 39 miles per hour in the 85 percentile. Dynamic speed signs could be put up; they were effective, as was dedicated police enforcement. There had been no serious crashes on Anderson Lakes Parkway in ten years. The accidents at Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway were mostly rear-ends and angle crashes. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety, there were no crashes on record. Due to the trails and pedestrian traffic and the speed on Anderson Lakes Parkway, those factors would warrant a flashing light at Chestnut and ALP, and he would work with the developer on this. Carmody Drive would merit more examination to verify pedestrian traffic. A large tree could be removed to improve the sightlines at this intersection facing south. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the larger collector roads were studied and traffic counted every four years, including four years from now. Taylor noted he had observed three cars making a U-turn at Chestnut and Windsong Drives and asked if “No U-turn” signs would be erected. Schulze stated it was unlikely signs would be placed but promised to keep an eye on this issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Farr commended the flashing speed sign and asked for a response on the comment from the public about challenging road widths due to people parking along one or both sides. Schulze replied Chestnut Drive was wider than the typical local street, and Carmody was the typical 28 feet in width. He stated he had driven on both with cars parked on both sides, and it was still possible to get two cars through on Chestnut, though not on Carmody. “No parking” signs would be included on Carmody during snow removal times. Katie Rysted, 20-year resident at Pinebrook and on the board of directors, stated her biggest concern with the landscaping and tree replacement. 900 caliper inches of significant trees and 311 caliper inches of heritage trees (1,072 inches total) would be removed, but only 257 caliper inches would be planted (24 percent of the total amount). The fees paid in lieu of plantings did not replace the forest or the aesthetics. She requested the commission require higher tree replacement and buffering to benefit existing neighbors and future residents, and any fees benefit the entrance to the Purgatory trail entrance. Residents of Pinebook had two access points: Chestnut Drive and Carmody Drive. The morning/evening rush made egress to Anderson Lakes Parkway nearly impossible. Buses had challenges entering and exiting. She had taken photographs of what became a one- way road with on-street parking. Cars had to back up, and buses had to use reserve parking lots. Snow events would make this even more challenging, going all way up Carmody Drive. Four visitor parking spaces per housing group was not enough, especially in the winter. She also did not believe the snow site plan was sufficient. On behalf of the Pinebrook Homeowners Association she asked the commission give careful consideration the neighborhood meeting compliance regarding landscaping, tree replacement and traffic impacts. Lori Cornwell, resident in the Pinebrook neighborhood, spoke in favor of the development. She found this to be the best option of the many iterations but also urged the commission to take the community comments into consideration. Christine Galquin, resident on Carmody Drive, stated her mirrors almost touched parked cars on both sides while driving during the last snowstorm, necessitating “no parking” signs November to April. Semis used Chestnut Drive which did not seem to be reflected in the traffic report. People regularly ran stop signs or struck it, and she did inform the police of this, which put up a traffic sign, which was not effective. The large tree was not the problem but people speeding. She asked the City to help manage the traffic in the area. She also requested the existing retaining wall be kept and the green space preserved for the wildlife. Barbara Buckner, homeowner in Pinebrook, spoke in favor of the open green space that existed in the area which in her opinion had no need of additional development. She and her neighbors preferred low traffic and natural areas, not landscaping and townhomes. She feared the construction noise from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and saw only benefits for the developer and for the City in terms of tax revenue. She spoke against this all-rental PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 property and urged the commission to consider the residents who already lived in the area. Patricia Mattson, a new Eden Prairie resident since May 2025, stated she left the West Coast due to construction impacts, such as dust, dirt, runoff and toxic debris, and now faces the issue here. She she would not have bought in Eden Prairie had she known beforehand about this development. She stated the large southern tree was not the cause of the visibility problem, but the grade change. 53 units would add 110 cars on two streets. She supported housing but wished to keep the green space and not add to the traffic which she described as a “nightmare.” In addition, taxes in Eden Prairie were as high as in Los Angeles. The townhome development would flatten the existing hill and not flow well with the community. She did not want to discourage housing, but two years of construction disruption, utility disruption, and lowered property values would be intolerable for her and others, including sleeping children who attended local schools. She commended the “beautiful job” of the development but objected to the development as proposed. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8- 0. Farr acknowledged the many issues brought up from the public. The Comprehensive Guide Plan called for a higher-density development, so this application was headed in the right direction being that the proposal was reduced from the original 99 units, then from 73 units to the current 53 units. He found the stepping of scale down to the Pinebrook and Windsong development was appropriate and suggested more screening and plantings to assist with buffering. The commission was concerned about safety but had not heard sufficiently compelling evidence there was a significant level of impact of the attendant traffic and parking. The developer did not do themselves any favors, in his opinion, by packing so much building and parking edge-to-edge into these two parcels. He agreed with the speakers’ concerns about removing so many heritage and large trees and the City taking the cash in lieu of the requirement; this was not good optics for the development, and he was glad to hear that staff would work with the developer to increase the number of trees planted, hopefully as many as possible around the site. He encouraged the neighbors to also plant trees on their properties. Farr stated he wished to clarify the residents would not see the retaining wall on the south side of the development, whereas on the north side could be visible. However, this would not impact the Pinebrook view; a possible safety fence above it would be more visible than the wall. Offsite trees would offer the most beneficial screening. He recommended the general contractor utilize prefabricated wood frame, wall trusses, floor trusses, and wall assemblies which would significantly cut down on hammer-and- nail noise for neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 He added in the post-Covid world today, more people were working from home, and existing noise ordinances were not set up for this. This reduced rush hour traffic but exposed more residents to noises they would not hear at the office. The commission was mindful of these concerns. Kirk added he wished to explain the process so the public would understand it. The commission members’ roles were not connected to City government; they were volunteers seeking to improve the community. Balance was key. Stakeholders included residents, the landowner (and the developer), and the City, which had ordinances, policies and staff to benefit all the stakeholders. Compromise in reaching a reasonable solution was inevitable. The commission members had read all of the 90-plus pages of information, including the public’s comments, and it is glad to see Eden Prairie residents expressing their views. The commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would watch the video of this public hearing, then hold its own public hearing at which the public was also invited to attend. The City would consider public comments as well. Hopefully, through everyone’s participation, the final configuration represented what was best for the community. Duncan asked if the tree removal fees paid in lieu of tree replacement could be determined by the developer where that money went. Bourne replied they were paid into a fund used for tree planting or natural environment enhancement, but not necessarily in the immediate area of the development. They were used for public property only. Duncan stated it sounded like there was a lot of congestion along Carmody Drive. Schulze replied it was a 28-foot local street, whereas Chestnut Drive was 32 feet wide. A solution could be posting more signs on Chestnut and Windsong Drives. 28 feet was the City standard since the 1980s. Staff could have conversations with the neighboring communities regarding parking during the snow. He was opposed to a permanent no- parking sign along one side of Chestnut Drive, but the neighborhood could alternate sides each day, etc. He corrected his earlier comment about the large tree, which did not have to be taken down. Duncan commended the lack of waivers in the development and suggested that additional trees be added to the intersection. Taylor also commended the design. He thought the commission addressed the safety issue along Carmody Drive. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation there were no concerns during the peak traffic times; there were 25 peak morning trips, and 27 peak evening trips. Sivilay expressed concern about the traffic on Carmody as a resident in the area and appreciated the developer working with staff to refine the design. Peiper added he was glad this was no longer a 99-unit development, finding the present proposal and appropriate middle ground design. MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Sherwood, to recommend approval for the Site Plan Review on 5.72 acres and Guide Plan Change on 5.72 acres as recommended by staff as represented in the March 9, 2026 staff report Motion carried 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 VI. Reports A. Planners report Barnhart stated there would be a commission meeting on March 23, 2026, after which Peiper and Weber would retire from the commission. Duncan would be the new Chair. B. Members’ reports VII. Adjournment MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. Planning Commission Staff Report Date: March 23, 2026 Location: 11010 Prairie Lakes Drive Subject: Prairie Lakes Corporate Center Subdivision From: Sarah Strain, Planner II Applicant: Ben Huninghake, Kraus Anderson, Inc. Review period July 2, 2026 expires: ITEM DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots. The intention is to maintain ownership of the northern lot and to sell the southern lot for redevelopment. The proposed subdivision requires waivers due to existing conditions on the site. There are no planned building, landscaping, or parking changes with this application, but a Site Plan Amendment is required to reflect the new property lines. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Planned Unit Development Amendment on 13.07 acres • Preliminary Plat of 13.07 acres into two (2) lots • Site Plan Amendment on 13.07 acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING The property is zoned Office and guided Office in the comprehensive land use plan. There are no zoning or comprehensive plan changes with this application. SITE PLAN While there are no proposed site changes with this application, a Site Plan Amendment is required to approve the site details for the newly created lots. The existing parking, buildings, and landscaping will remain in the current configuration. The proposed property line bisects the breezeway between the two (2) buildings and goes along the pavement markings of the parking stalls. This will require two (2) setback waivers: one (1) for a zero (0) foot building setback and one (1) for a zero (0) foot parking setback. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing the subdivide one (1) lot into two (2) lots. There would be one (1) building on each lot after the plat. The new property line subdividing the properties is outlined in yellow on the following page. Both lots meet the minimum size requirement of the Office zoning district. Lot 1, the northern lot, requires a waiver for lot width at the right-of-way line. The Staff Report – Prairie Lakes Corporate Subdivision March 23, 2026 Page 2 Office zoning district requires lots to have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street. The proposed plat shows 74.6 feet of lot frontage on Prairie Lakes Drive. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design. This site is currently part of a PUD, and the applicant is requesting an amendment to add the following waivers: 1. Building Setback: City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet in the Office Zoning District. There is a breezeway that connects the two (2) buildings. The new property line is proposed to bisect this breezeway, creating a zero (0) foot building setback from the property line. This waiver is supported as it is an existing condition along the interior property line of the PUD area, minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. 2. Parking Setback: City Code requires parking areas to be set back at least 10 feet from side lot lines. The proposed property line would create zero (0) foot parking setbacks. This Staff Report – Prairie Lakes Corporate Subdivision March 23, 2026 Page 3 wavier is supported as a shared access and parking agreement will be required as a condition of approval, and several properties, especially PUDs, have zero (0) foot parking setbacks. 3. Number of Parking Stalls: City Code scales the number of required parking spaces for office use based on the size of the building(s). In this case, the site is required to provide 4 parking stalls per 1000 square feet of office space. This is currently met between the two (2) lots. This waiver allows both office buildings to maintain a parking ratio of 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet, even if the buildings are altered in the future. Staff is supportive of this waiver as the interior property line was drawn to anticipate current and future parking needs on both sites. 4. Minimum Lot Width along a Public Roadway: Properties in the Office zoning district are required to have at least 100 feet for lot frontage on a public roadway. The proposed plat shows Lot 1 having 74.6 feet of frontage on Prairie Lakes Drive. The waiver is supported as the frontage feels larger due to Lot 1 sharing driveway access with 11200 Prairie Lake Drive. ACCESS AND STREET CONNECTIONS There are two (2) access drives to Prairie Lakes Drive, one (1) in the southwest corner and one (1)on the southern tip of the lot. The current parcel shares the southwest access to Prairie Lakes Drive with 11200 Prairie Lakes Drive. There are no proposed access or street changes with this application. A Cross Access agreement between the two (2) new lots will be required. WETLAND AND SHORELAND This property is within the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District as it is within 1,000 feet of Anderson Lake. With the recent Shoreland Code amendment, non-residential properties may have up to 70 percent impervious surface coverage. Lot 1 is proposed to have approximately 63 percent impervious surface coverage, and Lot 2 is proposed to have approximately 67 percent impervious surface coverage. UTILITIES Easement agreements have been written to guarantee each property will maintain access to all utilities and access across the sites. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Amendment on 13.07 acres. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This is based on plans dated March 4, 2026, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st Reading at City Council, the applicant must: A. Revise the project narrative to reflect correct shoreland regulations and impervious surface percentages. Staff Report – Prairie Lakes Corporate Subdivision March 23, 2026 Page 4 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the applicant must: A. Provide a Cross Access, Parking and Utility Easement document over the private driveways, parking areas, and infrastructure located on the Property that provides cross access, shared parking, and utility access between Lots 1 and 2 of the Property. 3. The following waivers are granted through the PUD for the project as indicated in the plans dated March 4, 2026. A. Building Setback: 0 feet from the interior side property line where 20 feet is required. B. Parking Setback: 0 feet from the interior side property line where 10 feet is required. C. Parking Stalls: 4 parking stalls per 1000 square feet. D. Lot Width: 75 feet where 100 feet is the minimum. March 3, 2026 PRAIRIE LAKES PLAT PROJECT NARRATIVE Kraus-Anderson currently owns Lot 3, Block 1 of the Prairie Lakes Business Park Plat. The site contains two buildings along with the associated parking and all utilities servicing the property. The Owner is splitting the property into two separate lots. Lot 1 will be 5 acres and contain the northern building, and Lot 2 will have the remaining space along with the southern building. Each property has access to Prairie Lakes Drive through separate driveways. Easement agreements have been written to guarantee each property will maintain access to all utilities and access across the sites. At this time, no construction activity is planned on either property. After initial talks with the City, it was determined that a modified PUD/lot split process would be used. The City reviewed the requirements for a PUD application and removed any plans and documentation that would not be needed. The waivers being requested with the PUD are: - Reducing the parking setback: The new property line will go through the existing parking lot. - Reducing the building setback: There is a bridge connection between the two buildings. The new property line will maintain the setbacks from the main building structures. - Reduce the parking stall ratio: The city has stated that a ratio of 4 stalls/1000 sf shall be used for the new properties. - Reduce the minimum road frontage: The city has stated that they are aggregable to reducing the frontage for Lot 1 due to the average width of the lot exceeding the minimum 100’ width, and allowing better options for redevelopment of Lot 2 in the future. The submission provides all information and documentation requested by the City for this specific application. The following describes each requested document, other than the preliminary and final plat drawings. C001 – Parking Exhibit The proposed property line was placed to allow each property to meet a parking stall count of 4 stalls per 1000 sf of floor space. The building on Lot 1 has a gross floor area of 73,026 sf leading to a required stall count of 293 stalls with 7 ADA stalls. The proposed lot contains 299 stalls with 11 ADA. The building on Lot 2 has a gross floor area of 133,312 sf leading to a required stall count of 534 stalls with 11 ADA. Lot 2 has 40 underground parking stalls with another 500 at grade stalls for a total of 540 stalls with 11 of them ADA. C002 – Utility Exhibit Each building has all required utilities installed. No construction is planned on the properties. Easement agreements have been written to guarantee each property will maintain access to all utilities and access across the sites. Each property has access to a hydrant and a fire connection point. C003 – Drainage Exhibit There is an existing storm basin located SE of Lot 2. Storm drainage from the buildings is collected into a storm sewer running along the rear of the buildings and outlets directly into the basin. Most of the parking lot is collected into a separate storm sewer network that flows through a pretreatment device located east of Lot 2’s PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / LHBCORP.COM PRAIRIE LAKES PLAT PAGE 2 PROJECT NARRATIVE loading bay prior to entering the basin. No changes to the existing storm infrastructure are being made at this time. C004 – Salt & Snow Management Exhibit No changes are planned for the current snow removal plan. Snow is plowed to the edges of the parking lot and onto the internal islands of the parking lot and trucked off site as needed throughout the year. All snow storage areas are managed to avoid impacts on drainage patterns, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and accessible routes. Salt and deicing materials are applied as needed to maintain safe conditions and are stored off-site by the snow removal company. Materials are brought to the site on an as needed basis during removal operations. C005 – Emergency Response Exhibit A vehicle tracking program was used to verify that each lot can have fire and rescue vehicles enter and exit without crossing the proposed lot line. Water hydrants and fire connection points are provided on each lot. S001 – Location & Existing Conditions Survey The existing property is Lot 3, Block 1, of the Prairie Lakes Business Park Plat. The existing property description, owner, and other existing site data are provided in this drawing. Shoreland Management Review The existing lot falls within the shoreland management zone as defined by Eden Prairie, but is not a riparian lot. The proposed lots were laid out to meet the following standards: - Access to public sewer and water - Minimum lot width of 200’ at the building. - Minimum lot width of 200’ at the OHW. - Minimum setback from OHW of 200’ o The existing buildings are not being modified and there is no new construction planned at this time. - Lots must not exceed 30% impervious coverage o The existing lot exceeds the standard and the new lots maintain a similar coverage compared to the existing. The proposed lots meet all requirements set forth by the City and the documents provided show all information request by the city for the modified PUD application. LHB, INC. BEN HUNINGHAKE, PE c: Audra Williams, Adam Besse LHB Project No. 250537 m:\25proj\250537\300 design\regulatory\project narrative.docx EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS 2 0 ' D R A I N A G E & U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T S88°35'08"E 705.00 S 1 1 ° 3 9 ' 1 3 " E 5 3 9 . 1 8 S 2 3 ° 0 2 ' 5 7 " E 1 0 6 . 4 0 S37 ° 0 6 ' 4 3 " W 1 1 4 . 5 9 S78°20'47 " W 4 2 1 . 2 6 S53 ° 1 6 ' 1 9 " W 36.2 5 N 3 6 ° 4 3 ' 4 1 " W 8 5 . 0 0 N0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " E 2 5 2 . 5 8 R = 8 5 8.5 1 L = 4 4 1.1 3 Δ = 2 9 ° 2 6'2 6 " R=358.10 L=189.26 Δ=3 0°16 ' 5 5 " R = 2 12 .21 L = 6 4 . 9 4 Δ =1 7 ° 3 2'01" HY D H Y D H Y D RLS 16456 RLS 16456 RLS 16456 FIRE CONNECTION FIRE CONNECTION EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING (N87°02'18"W) ( N 0 0 ° 0 6 ' 2 1 " W ) ( N 2 1 ° 3 0 ' 0 5 " W ) (S 3 8 ° 3 9 ' 3 5 " W ) (S79°53'3 9 " W ) (S5 4 ° 4 9 ' 1 1 " W ) ( S 3 5 ° 1 0 ' 4 9 " E ) CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE PAVERS 80 80 S0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " W 1 5 0 . 0 0 S2 7 ° 0 7 ' 2 4 " W 7 1 . 1 7 S0 1 ° 3 2 ' 2 9 " E 1 9 7 . 7 0 S1 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 1 " W 5 6 . 5 6 S3 0 ° 5 8 ' 3 1 " W 29 . 7 3 (N 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " E ) (S 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " W ) (S 2 8 ° 4 0 ' 1 6 " W ) (S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 2 3 " E ) (S 1 3 ° 1 3 ' 3 3 " W ) (S 3 2 ° 3 1 ' 2 3 " W ) APPROXI M A T E G A S L I N E PER MAP S P R O V I D E D APP R O X I M A T E G A S L I N E PER M A P S P R O V I D E D APPROXIMATE COMMUNICATIONS LINE PER MAPS PROVIDED PIV 870 868 866 864 8 4 6 8 4 8 8 5 4 8 5 6 8 5 8 8 6 2 8 6 0 86 8 8 7 0 8 7 2 874 87 2 8 7 2 87 2 876 872 872 872 874 8 7 6 8 7 2 870 870 868 866 870 868 866 864 862 860 858 856 854 870 86 8 86 6 86 4 86 2 860 86 0 8 5 8 8 5 6 8 5 4 8 5 2 8 5 0 8 4 8 8 4 6 8 4 4 8 4 2 8 8 0 87 8 876 87 4 87 2 8 8 0 P R O P O S E D 2 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T N3 3 ° 2 1 ' 2 0 " E 1 9 0 . 2 0 2 6 . 3 2 5 1 2 . 8 6 FILE:..\250537\500 Drawings\Survey\250537 Ex Conditions.dwg BOUNDARY & LOCATION SURVEY of: Lot 3, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park 324 Garfield St. South | Cambridge, MN 55008 763.219.1235 | LHBcorp.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Kyle J. Roddy , MN PLS 42627 Signature:Date:11/19/2025 0 4020 (SCALE IN FEET) 1 Inch = 40 Feet BEARING NOTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK, IS ASSUMED TO BEAR SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST. FLOOD ZONE THIS SITE IS INCLUDED ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP-COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 27053C0435F. THE SITE IS SHOWN TO BE LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE 'X' WHICH IS DEFINED AS AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. GENERAL NOTES 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN PER MAPS PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND PREVIOUS SURVEY DATA PROVIDED TO LHB, INC. BY CLIENT. 2. EXISTING CONTOURS ARE PER USGS LIDAR DATA (NAVD 88 DATUM) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Together with a perpetual exclusive easement benefiting said Lot 3, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress over and across the real property described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, said Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, lying Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 08 degrees 57 minutes 47 seconds West, basis for bearings is said Prairie Lakes Business Park, 150.00 feet along the easterly line of said Lot 2 to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 28 degrees 40 minutes 16 seconds West, 71.17 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 23 seconds West, 197.70 feet; thence South 13 degrees 13 minutes 33 seconds West, 56.56 feet; thence South 32 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds West, 29.74 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 2 and there terminating. CURRENT OWNER KRAUS ANDERSON, INC. C/O KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY CO. 501 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 NOTE REGARDING UTILITIES THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". SITE AREA GROSS LAND AREA: 569,459 SQ.FT. / 13.07 AC. DENOTES SET IRON PIPE WITH CAP DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE DENOTES EXISTING CATCH BASIN DENOTES EXISTING HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING WATER VALVE DENOTES EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DENOTES DIMENSION PER PLAT OF PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK LEGEND (N87°02'18"W) E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR COM M >> COM M COM M >> COM M COM M >> COMM COMM >> CO M M COMM >> COMM CO M M E-BUR >> COMM COMM >> COMM >> COMM CO M M E-BUR E-BUR >> COMM COMM >> COMM E-BUR E-BUR CO M M >> CO M M CO M M >> CO M M COM M >> C O M M COM M >> H COM M >> C O M M COM M >> COM M C O M M >> COM M C O M M >> C O M M C O M M > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > D COMM COMM > > COMM > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > COMM COMM > > > > COMM > > > > > > > > > > COMM COMM COMM COMM C O M M COMMCOMM COMMCOMM ST > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S S S >> >> E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E-BUR E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R E - B U R | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | GA S GA S GA S GA S G A S GAS G A S GAS GAS G A S GAS G A S GAS G A S GAS G A S GAS GA S GAS GA S GAS GA S GA S GAS GAS GAS GAS G A S GAS G A S G A S G A S G A S G A S GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS I P R A R I E L A K E S D R I V E ST ST S Y C W W ST ST S ST S TP EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS 2 0 ' D R A I N A G E & U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T S88°35'08"E 705.00 S 1 1 ° 3 9 ' 1 3 " E 5 3 9 . 1 8 S 2 3 ° 0 2 ' 5 7 " E 1 0 6 . 4 0 S37 ° 0 6 ' 4 3 " W 1 1 4 . 5 9 S78°20'47 " W 4 2 1 . 2 6 S53 ° 1 6 ' 1 9 " W 36.2 5 N 3 6 ° 4 3 ' 4 1 " W 8 5 . 0 0 N0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " E 2 5 2 . 5 8 R = 8 5 8.5 1 L = 4 4 1.1 3 Δ = 2 9 ° 2 6'2 6 " R=358.10 L=189.26 Δ=3 0° 1 6 ' 5 5 " R =212 . 21 L = 6 4 . 9 4 Δ =17 °32'01" HY D H Y D H Y D RLS 16456 RLS 16456 RLS 16456 PROPOSE D L O T L I N E LOT 1 LOT 2 BLOCK ONE EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING (N87°02'18"W) ( N 0 0 ° 0 6 ' 2 1 " W ) ( N 2 1 ° 3 0 ' 0 5 " W ) (S 3 8 ° 3 9 ' 3 5 " W ) (S79°53'3 9 " W ) (S5 4 ° 4 9 ' 1 1 " W ) ( S 3 5 ° 1 0 ' 4 9 " E ) CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE PAVERS 80 80 S0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " W 1 5 0 . 0 0 S2 7 ° 0 7 ' 2 4 " W 7 1 . 1 7 S0 1 ° 3 2 ' 2 9 " E 1 9 7 . 7 0 S1 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 1 " W 5 6 . 5 6 S3 0 ° 5 8 ' 3 1 " W 29 . 7 3 (N 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " E ) (S 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " W ) (S 2 8 ° 4 0 ' 1 6 " W ) (S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 2 3 " E ) (S 1 3 ° 1 3 ' 3 3 " W ) (S 3 2 ° 3 1 ' 2 3 " W ) PIV 870 868 866 864 8 4 6 8 4 8 8 5 4 8 5 6 8 5 8 8 6 2 8 6 0 86 8 8 7 0 8 7 2 874 87 2 8 7 2 8 7 2 876 872 872 872 874 8 7 6 8 7 2 870 870 868 866 870 868 866 864 862 860 858 856 854 870 86 8 86 6 86 4 86 2 860 8 6 0 8 5 8 8 5 6 8 5 4 8 5 2 8 5 0 8 4 8 8 4 6 8 4 4 8 4 2 88 0 87 8 876 87 4 87 2 8 8 0 P R O P O S E D 2 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T N78°22'39 " E 5 0 5 . 6 5 N3 3 ° 1 0 ' 3 6 " E 22 . 4 0 N77°04'5 1 " E 15.93 N3 3 ° 2 1 ' 2 0 " E 1 9 0 . 2 0 2 6 . 3 2 5 1 2 . 8 6 L=72.85 Δ=4°51'43" L = 3 6 8.2 8 Δ = 2 4 ° 3 4'4 3 " 20 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 20 . 0 ' N78°02'06 " E 1 0 5 . 2 6 N 1 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 1 " W 1 8 9 . 5 9 20 . 0 ' 20.0' 20 . 0 ' FILE:..\250537\500 Drawings\Survey\250537P_2026.03.03.dwg PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK 1ST ADDITION Preliminary Plat of: 324 Garfield St. South | Cambridge, MN 55008 763.219.1235 | LHBcorp.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Kyle J. Roddy , MN PLS 42627 Signature:Date: 0 4020 (SCALE IN FEET) 1 Inch = 40 Feet BEARING NOTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK, IS ASSUMED TO BEAR SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST. FLOOD ZONE THIS SITE IS INCLUDED ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP-COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 27053C0435F. THE SITE IS SHOWN TO BE LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE 'X' WHICH IS DEFINED AS AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. ZONING INFORMATION ZONING DISTRICT - OFC (Office) MINIMUM LOT SIZE 20,000 S.F. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FT MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 100 FT FRONT YARD SETBACK 35 FT SIDE YARD SETBACK ONE SIDE 20 FT, BOTH SIDES 50 FT REAR YARD SETBACK 20 FT MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 30 FT MAX FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.3 - 1 STORY 0.5 - MULTI STORY LOT 1:73,026 SF/208,409 SF = 0.35 LOT 2:133,312 SF/361,050 SF = 0.37 MAX BASE AREA RATIO 0.3 LOT 1: 24,355 SF / 208,409 SF = 0.12 LOT 2:33,688 SF/361,050 SF = 0.09 GENERAL NOTES 1. UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, AND GAS LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN PER MAPS PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND PREVIOUS SURVEY PROVIDED TO LHB, INC. BY CLIENT. 2. EXISTING CONTOURS ARE PER USGS LIDAR DATA (NAVD 88 DATUM) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Together with a perpetual exclusive easement benefiting said Lot 3, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress over and across the real property described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, said Prairie Lakes Business Park, Hennepin County, lying Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 08 degrees 57 minutes 47 seconds West, basis for bearings is said Prairie Lakes Business Park, 150.00 feet along the easterly line of said Lot 2 to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 28 degrees 40 minutes 16 seconds West, 71.17 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 23 seconds West, 197.70 feet; thence South 13 degrees 13 minutes 33 seconds West, 56.56 feet; thence South 32 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds West, 29.74 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 2 and there terminating. CURRENT OWNER KRAUS ANDERSON, INC. C/O KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY CO. 501 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 NOTE REGARDING UTILITIES THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". SITE AREA GROSS LAND AREA: 569,459 SQ.FT. / 13.07 AC. DENOTES SET IRON PIPE WITH CAP DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE DENOTES EXISTING CATCH BASIN DENOTES EXISTING HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING WATER VALVE DENOTES EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DENOTES DIMENSION PER PLAT OF PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK LEGEND (N87°02'18"W) PROPOSED LOT AREAS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 4.78 ACRES LOT 2, BLOCK 1 8.29 ACRES >> >> >> >> >> H >> >> >> D >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S>> >> P R A I R I E L A K E S D R I V E ST S S ST ST S Y W W ST ST S ST S TP C001 .. \ 2 5 0 5 3 7 \ 5 0 0 D r a w i n g s \ C i v i l \ 2 5 0 5 3 7 P a r k i n g E x h i b i t . d w g 501 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 PREL I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 01/05 / 2 0 2 6 250537 1 10/24/2025 OWNER REVIEW 2 01/05/2026 CITY REVIEW 3 03/04/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS S88°35'08"E 705.00 S 1 1 ° 3 9 ' 1 3 " E 5 3 9 . 1 8 S78°20'47 " W 4 2 1 . 2 6 N 3 6 ° 4 3 ' 4 1 " W 8 5 . 0 0 N0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " E 2 5 2 . 5 8 R = 8 5 8.5 1 L = 4 4 1.1 3 Δ = 2 9 ° 2 6' 2 6 " R=358.10 L=189.26 Δ=30° 16 ' 5 5 " R = 2 12 . 2 1 L = 6 4 . 9 4 Δ =17°3 2' 01" RLS 16456 RLS 16456 PROPOSE D L O T L I N E LOT 1 LOT 2 BLOCK ONE EXISTING BUILDING AREA - 33,328 SF/FLOOR 4 FLOORS GFA - 133,312 SF 4 STALLS/1,000 SF 534 STALLS EXISTING BUILDING AREA - 24,342 SF/FLOOR 3 FLOORS GFA - 73,026 SF 4STALLS/1,000 SF 293 STALLS (N87°02'18"W) ( N 0 0 ° 0 6 ' 2 1 " W ) (S79°53'3 9 " W ) ( S 3 5 ° 1 0 ' 4 9 " E ) CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE PAVERS 80 S0 7 ° 2 4 ' 5 5 " W 1 5 0 . 0 0 S2 7 ° 0 7 ' 2 4 " W 7 1 . 1 7 S0 1 ° 3 2 ' 2 9 " E 1 9 7 . 7 0 S1 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 1 " W 5 6 . 5 6 S3 0 ° 5 8 ' 3 1 " W 29 . 7 3 (N 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " E ) (S 8 ° 5 7 ' 4 7 " W ) (S 2 8 ° 4 0 ' 1 6 " W ) (S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 2 3 " E ) (S 1 3 ° 1 3 ' 3 3 " W ) (S 3 2 ° 3 1 ' 2 3 " W ) PIV 870 868 866 864 8 6 2 86 8 8 7 0 8 7 2 874 87 2 8 7 2872876 872 872 872 874 8 7 6 8 7 2 870 870 868 866 870 868 866865864 862 860 858 856 854 870 86 8 86 6 86 4 86 2 860 8 6 0 8 5 8 8 5 6 8 5 4 8 8 0 8 7 8 876 87 4 87 2 8 8 0 86 5 865 864 8 6 4 8 6 6 866 867 860 86 5 8 7 0 856 857 858 8 5 9 861 862 8 6 3 86 4 86 6 86 7 8 6 8 8 6 9 8 7 1 8 7 2 8 7 2 8 7 5 8 7 2 8 7 3 8 7 4 8 7 6 8 7 7 8 7 8 8 7 9 HY D H Y D H Y D PIV H Y D >> >> >> >> Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e : 20 2 6 / 0 3 / 0 3 5 : 2 0 P M DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJ. NO: DRAWING NO: 14 15 25 10 7 297 STALLS (10 HC) 19 4 20 20 19 26 27 26 27 9 10 10 11 43 45 5 10 15 REQUIRED PARKING STALLS (4/1000 SF FLOOR) TOTAL PROVIDED STALLS ADA REQUIREMENT PROVIDED HANDICAP STALLS PARKING STALLS LOT 1 293 299 7 10 LOT 2 534 540 11 11 15 502 STALLS (11 HC) 45 45 40 39 35 32 28 28 25 24 40 STALLS UNDERGROUND DRAWING TITLE: I P R A R I E L A K E S D R I V E >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > W W ST ST S 701 Washington Ave. N, Ste 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.338.2029 THIS SQUARE APPEARS 1/2" x 1/2" ON FULL SIZE SHEETS PRAIRIE LAKES PLAT 11000 PRAIRIE LAKES DR. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 COPYRIGHT 2025 BY LHB, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PROJECT NAME: NO DATE REVISION NO DATE ISSUED FOR KRAUS-ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO. CLIENT: S S 26 ST ST S 3 03/04/2026 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 2 02/06/2026 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 1 01/05/2026 CITY COMMENT