Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/11/2026Approved Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, May 11, 2026 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Commission Members: John Kirk, Steve Schumacher, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Pete Palmisano, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan 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 Duncan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Commission Member Grote was absent. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, March 23, 2026 MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Sherwood, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Monday, March 23, 2026. Motion carried 8-0. V. Public Hearings A. Prairie Bluff Commons (2025-11) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Office to Medium Density Residential on 23.59 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 4.82 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review on 28.41 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with Waivers on 28.41 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2026 Page 2 4. Zone Change from Office to RM-6.5 on 23.59 acres and from Office to R1- 9.5 on 4.82 acres 5. Preliminary Plat of 28.41 acres into 166 lots for the townhome units, 16 lots for the single-family units, 9 lots for common open space and 8 outlots 6. Site Plan Review on 23.59 acres Josh Metzer, of Lennar Minnesota, presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. Metzer displayed the Site Plan showing the proposed townhomes and villas of Prairie Bluff Commons and explained this was a vacant site owned by C. H. Robinson. The site was west of Flying Cloud Drive and Charleston Road, and north of the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area. There were several areas that would be left untouched, landscaping along Charleston, and a landscape buffer on the east side. He showed and explained the front-loaded, three-bedroom townhomes, the prices of which were starting in the mid-400s. He envisioned buyers in their 30s or 40s, single and young families, or snowbirds. The villa homes were single- story, two-to-three bedrooms, with prices starting upper 500s, for residents age 50 and up, offering single-level living. The yards would be maintained by HOA. The open space plan included a River Valley overlook area with gazebo, a tot lot and playground, paved space with picnic tables and grills, an open field play area, a dog park, park benches with viewsheds overlooking the ravine, and trail connections. Metzer displayed a map of these areas within the development. Metzer estimated office building demolition and grading occurring in summer 2026, utility and street construction in two to three phases beginning late fall 2026, home construction beginning late fall 2026, and full buildout in five to six years. Since the development was close to the airport, windows would be glazed and residents would be required to sign an acknowledgement of the airport’s proximity. These would be EV ready townhomes but the narrow rooftops prevented solar ready construction. The villas would be solar-ready. Metzer stated physical samples of vinyl siding were available for the commission members to view. He estimated the monthly cost for HOA around $200/month, since there was no pool or clubhouse. Taylor asked if there would be any landscaping along the removed chained link fence aside the trail, and Metzer replied trees would be planted. Farr noted a variety of siding patterns and received confirmation they were all vinyl. Metzer stated the color choice were stone colors. Farr asked for and received confirmation only the villa owners had the choice of colors. Metzler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2026 Page 3 added the HOA would prevent identical colored homes to be next to each other. Schumacher asked if there was any possibility phase three would become phase one as the building was demolished. Metzer replied this was possible, but the hope was to start on the east end, beginning with the villas. The developer would come to staff before street utility work was begun. Barnhart presented the staff report. There were a number of actions requested including the zoning change and the waivers. The density proposed was approximately seven units per acre and the lot sizes were not unusual for a townhome development like this. The villas are similar to a detached townhome with HOA maintenance. The waivers were in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan such as inclusionary and affordable homes. The plan exceeds open space and landscaping/buffering requirements. There would be one-and-a-half acres of open space, three times the requirement. The design offered one larger open space instead of two smaller due to applicant’s choice to unify the neighborhood and to have the space used more efficiently. All garages would be EV-ready, with solar-ready villas. The Sustainability Coordinator supported the deviation of having non-solar-ready townhomes. The development was near the 24-7 reliever Flying Cloud Airport, requiring buyers to sign the disclosure and requiring certain building standards, including windows and sliding glass door design and the siding, according to the Building Department’s calculations. A neighborhood meeting was held April 8, 2026 and was not heavily attended but many questions emerged. Since then staff received written comments from the from Hennepin Village HOA representative, which was included in the commissioners’ packets. The trail from Hennepin Village may or may not be open during construction; the option was being kept open. The traffic memo was in the commissioners’ packets summarizing findings from the traffic study. Farr asked if this had gone or would go through Metropolitan Council review. Barnhart replied the Metropolitan Council required the City Council to draft a resolution agreeing to the change, then had 15 days to review for completeness and 60 days to answer. It had not yet been submitted, but the public review portion had been sent to area agencies in February. Comments had been received from some but not all. The Metropolitan Council would approve a resolution for submittal. Farr asked for and received confirmation staff was satisfied with the sewer and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2026 Page 4 utility design. Farr asked why the properties were located where they were, resulting in an odd triangular shape at the corner near the play area, a zero lot line with C.H. Robinson, and no through street with right-of-ways. Novak-Krebs pulled up the plat. Barnhart replied the northern part of Phase One was a private drive currently serving two office buildings. Adjusting the property lines would be a lot of work for no real benefit. The spine road would be protected with an easement for access, utility and trails. There was no benefit to involving multiple funding sources and multiple property owners. Putting in a 50-foot-wide right- of-way would adversely affect the property and introduce more waivers with less open space. The triangle was part of the C.H. Robinson property that was not being developed. For the east side, the existing parking lot abutted that and staff left the existing building alone to enhance the screening. Staff considered having another connection on Charleston Drive, but this took away the ability to add buffering, whereas the development could use the spine as the primary access to and from the phases. Staff could however look into straightening out the line to the Charleston Driveway. Farr asked for and received confirmation there was a maintenance agreement to maintain the property. Taylor asked what feedback MAC provided regarding safety concerns in the area. Barnhart replied that as part of the Comprehensive Plan process MAC provided comments on the proposal. No development was preferable, but it recommended building standards and buyer acknowledgement. Avoidance of open water and fruit-bearing trees were also in the comments. Duncan asked if the buyer acknowledgement form was new; Barnhart said it was not. John Miller, 15465 Junegrass Lane, of the Hennepin Village Heritage Board and the Hennepin Village Master Board, spoke on behalf of the 603 homeowners in the nearby Hennepin Village. He state the biggest concern was the road going into the new development straight to Plumstone Drive. This was a narrow street with 40 homes along it, and traffic was a concern. The stop sign at Leatrice and Charleston, and Charleston and Spring Road, were also a concern. He wished to see adequate traffic mitigation for the upcoming 182 homes. Some residents were concerned about buffering and sightlines and the existing vegetation between Hennepin Village and the new development. The conservation area was also a concern, with only one designated trail, yet it was often invaded by wedding photographers who went off-trail, and he feared adding residents might compound this problem. As an HOA board member, he did not envision a workable way the dues could be kept to the low 200s as Metzer claimed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2026 Page 5 Duncan thanked him for his comments and for the written comments submitted by the residents of Hennepin Village. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Schumacher, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Farr summarized his findings. He was in favor of the project, finding that the applicant maximized the density while providing buffering and open space. He stated he was even in support of the shared driveway. Kirk echoed Farr’s support and stated the waivers requested were reasonable. Taylor asked staff to respond to Miller’s comments regarding Plumstone Drive. Schulze replied the developer had no mitigation options; the street was actually safer when lined up with other intersections than when offset. Staff preferred the street be lined up with Plumstone. The traffic study indicated 30 percent of traffic would go to Charleston instead, as Plumstone was busy. The preference was to design a typical intersection. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the conservation area was for public use. Duncan commended the development as well MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk, to recommend approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Office to Medium Density Residential on 23.59 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 4.82 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review on 28.41 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with Waivers on 28.41 acres; Zone Change from Office to RM-6.5 on 23.59 acres and from Office to R1-9.5 on 4.82 acres; Preliminary Plat of 28.41 acres into 166 lots for the townhome units, 16 lots for the single-family units, 9 lots for common open space and 8 outlots; Site Plan Review on 23.59 acres as recommended by staff as represented in the May 11, 2026 staff report Motion carried 8-0. VI. Reports A. Planners report Barnhart stated there would probably be no May 25 meeting and the next Planning meeting would be June 8. There would be updates to the Comprehensive Planning process in June. B. Members’ reports Farr stated he had discovered a hidden asset, a Minnesota River vista overlook in Eden Prairie at Flying Cloud Drive and Charleston Road, across Flying Cloud Drive accessed by a tunnel. There was no signage and no public parking, and it was not visible from the road. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2026 Page 6 He asked for amenities to make this more accessible to the public. Discussion followed on the location of this vista. Sivilay stated it was labeled on Google Maps. Bourne stated this was put in when the historic wayside closed. He agreed it could be made more visible so the public could better enjoy it. VII. Adjournment MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Farr, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. Chair Duncan adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.