Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/23/2026Approved Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, March 23, 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 Members Kirk and Grote were absent. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Farr, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, March 9, 2026 MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Sherwood, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Monday, March 9, 2026. Motion carried 6-0. V. Public Hearings A. Prairie Lakes Corporate Center Subdivision (2026-1) • Planned Unit Development Amendment on 13.07 acres • Preliminary Plat on 13.07 acres into two (2) lots • Site Plan Amendment on 13.07 acres Robert Cunningham, of Kraus-Anderson, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The land was currently owned by Kraus-Anderson on which there were two buildings. The applicant would split the lot between the building PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 23, 2026 Page 2 that was functional and the building to be demolished, although there were no planned building or site changes in this application. The waivers included a reduction of the parking setback, due to the new property line going through the parking lot; a reduction of the building setback because of this new property line; a reduction of the parking stall ratio to 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building; and a reduction of the minimum road frontage to 75 feet to allow for better development opportunities in the future for Lot Two (the north lot). Cunningham displayed the proposed preliminary plat showing the unusual rhombus-shaped building in the southern lot (Lot One). Cunningham displayed the parking exhibit showing the number of parking spaces per lot which met all requirements. Each building had the required utilities installed. Easement access would be maintained and was reciprocal. He displayed the drainage and salt management exhibits and explained any changes to the emergency access/response would have to come back before the commission for approvals. There were hydrants and fire connections provided onsite. Regarding the Shoreland Management, there was a parcel of land owned by the Park District and a parcel of land owned by the City of Eden Prairie between the site and the shoreline of Anderson Lake. The rhombus building was a wedding cake style construction with restrooms and elevators all located to the west, a functionally obsolete structure that the applicant anticipated complete demolition of in the future. Farr recommended the applicant straighten the acute angle to the southwest in splitting the properties which would solve the problem of the street frontage currently requesting a waiver. Cunningham commended the solution and stated he would make that change. Farr asked what would happen to the land on which the building to be demolished currently stood (Lot Two). Cunningham replied there probably should never have been one lot with two buildings on it in the first place, but this was an attempt to rectify the situation. There was no plan for demolition at this time, only concept plans to have the subdivision in place for future development opportunities. This was similar to a site in the Southtown section of Bloomington on which Cunningham had worked. Farr asked for and received confirmation there could be another PUD request in the future. He stated his concern if the lot was split, and a buyer came in, the property line was being drawn prematurely. Cunningham agreed there could be a sale of one or both of the parcels, but each would be subjected to the PUD requirement in any case. Farr agreed, but if one property owner pursued a PUD and the other wished to redraw the property line this could hold up development on the other property. He stated he did not see the advantage of drawing this partition at this point in the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 23, 2026 Page 3 Barnhart presented the staff report. There were four waivers being requested: the building setback related to the corridor between the two buildings; the parking setback along the west side, which were common in commercial zoning districts; the parking stall ratio setback, which was reduced due to the expectation of shared parking and cross-parking; and the and a reduction of the minimum road frontage to 75 feet to allow for better development opportunities in the future for Lot Two (the north lot). There was no proposed development or site change with this application. It was staff’s recommendation to reduce the frontage even more than was presently being proposed to maximize the available redevelopment space as much as possible on the parcel. The property was currently being used for offices and would have the same use in the future. At minimum a site plan, and likely a PUD Amendment, would be required for future development. . The northern property would likely be developed, and the other, larger development would need a buffer zone. The two future property owners could work together but that was not a requirement. More screening and buffering could facilitate this and there may be some opportunity for shared parking between the two. Staff recommended approval of the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the waivers as presented. Duncan asked if there was a requirement for perimeter drainage and utilities. Barnhart this was a common requirement, but the City did allow parking in easements. Perimeter drainage and easements were not shown here but would be required as part of the final plat. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the Comprehensive Plan did not yet require this conversion of the southern parcel to residential. Duncan echoed Farr’s concern regarding the frontage and asked if the properties needed to be divided now or if the applicant could demolish the building and sell Lot Two as a vacant parcel. Barnhart replied a change from office to any other use would require the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a full review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The division site was the most logical due to the non-vital corridor between the two. Duncan replied the parking area was a blank canvas, and some of the islands or divisions could be eliminated more easily than the buildings. She asked if it was possible to start over on the southern side and create a new site plan without worrying about the parking structures. Barnhart replied the prospective owner of the southern lot was not limited to the current parking configuration, but all other setbacks would apply. This site was developed before current parking standards, which would require more islands. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 23, 2026 Page 4 Duncan asked if the location of the proposed new property line was to have a larger southern property. Barnhart replied there were some contractual requirements regarding each lot, and the division was intended to ensure that both parcels could function if one or the other parcels were redeveloped. Staff and the applicant did not want to create problems from a parking perspective later. Duncan stated she understood but agreed with Farr’s proposed division. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the division was to give the owner the flexibility to sell one or both of the properties rather than buy and develop the entire site. Farr stated he assumed the demolition would trigger damage to the parking lot and stormwater requirement. Schulze replied such demolition typically did not cause his office to issue land alteration for the building itself. Farr asked for and received confirmation that if the new south property owner came back with an application, it would not require the presence or agreement of the north property owner. Farr expressed concern the potential new owner could sell off more of the north property without a review. Barnhart replied that was not the case; the north property owner would have access to a boundary adjustment review process before the proposal was brought again before the commission. Farr asked for and received confirmation that with the proposed boundary, which eliminated a turnaround, there would still be access to both properties. Barnhart stated both parties would have to agree to amend the cross-parking and access easement agreement. Duncan asked if, in order to meet the parking requirements presently there, the new building would have to remain the same size or less. Barnhart replied he did not have the precise calculation, but a new smaller building might require more parking due to the ratio. However, in either case the parking would be sufficient, four stalls per thousand. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the waivers were based on the size of the two buildings. Barnhart reminded the commission there would be no changes to the site or either building. Access and cross access parking easements would be needed. Farr asked if the PUD Amendment could be omitted from the motion, or if the commission could insist upon the preliminary plat remaining preliminary. Barnhart replied no to the first suggestion as there is an existing PUD, and stated a final plat was required for any sale, s the final plat created the lot. Farr suggested using the preliminary plat approval as a tool the applicant could use to go to market, then request final plat before an actual sale. Barnhart replied this would be up to the applicant. MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Duncan, to close the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 23, 2026 Page 5 Motion carried 6-0. Farr asked if the applicant planned to come back with a final plat request as was the usual procedure, and Cunningham affirmed. Farr then asked if the final plat request could be delayed until there was a buyer for the land with a site plan from the purchaser. Cunningham replied he could not pursue refinancing and marketing the component with only a preliminary plat. Farr asked if Cunningham understood the potential risk to the north parcel owner, and Cunningham stated the intention with the proposed division was to allow each building could stand on its own. Each owner had some level of control and there was a protective mechanism in place with a mutual agreement and shared easement. Barnhart stated the City Council would review the final plan, and staffs recommendation is based on whether the standards of the development agreement were met and the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission would not see or review the final plat. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the site could be replatted by the new owners. Pieper noted there did seem to have protections in place for the prospective new owner. Sivilay stated he initially understood Farr’s and Duncan’s concerns, but had faith in the City Council’s oversight. MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Sherwood, to recommend approval for the Planned Unit Development Amendment on 13.07 acres; Preliminary Plat on 13.07 acres into two (2) lots; and Site Plan Amendment on 13.07 acres recommended by staff as represented in the March 23, 2026 staff report Motion carried 5-1 with one nay vote (Farr). VI. Reports A. Planners report Barnhart announced this was Commission Chair Pieper’s final public hearing. Pieper had served on the Planning Commission for 12 years, 10 of them as chair. This would also be Weber’s last meeting as well. Pieper thanked Barnhart and the commission for their work and congratulated Duncan on her role as Commission Chair. B. Members’ reports VII. Adjournment MOTION: Pieper moved, seconded by Pieper, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 23, 2026 Page 6 6-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.