Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/09/2026Approved Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, 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 MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Duncan, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8- 0. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 2 and was a fully integrated acquisition, entitlement, development, construction management, leasing and property management entity. Garrison displayed images of representative projects, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 3 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 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 4 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. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 5 “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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 6 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. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2026 Page 7 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. 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.