Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 08/24/2026Meeting Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7 p.m. Monday, August 24, 2026 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Commission Members: Trisha Duncan, Ed Farr, John Kirk, Steve Schumacher, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Pete Palmisano, Phou Sivilay 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, June 22, 2026 V. Public Hearings A. Variance - 6633 Harlan Drive (2026-01BOA) 1. Variance allowing expansion of existing deck PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA August 24, 2026 VI. Planner’s Reports VII. Members Reports VIII. Adjournment Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, June 22, 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 Members Taylor and Kirk were absent. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Schumacher moved, seconded by Palmisano, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. IV. Minutes A. Planning Commission meeting held Monday, June 8, 2026 MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Palmisano, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Monday, June 8, 2026. Motion carried 7-0. V. Public Hearings A. 11609 Leona Road Phase II (2026-03) 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.44 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with Waivers on 3.44 acres 3. Preliminary Plat of 3.44 acres into three lots and one outlot PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2026 Page 2 4. Site Plan review on 3.44 acres. Gary Dreyer, of Told Development, 200 Southdale Center, Edina, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The old Office Depot had been demolished and Dreyer proposed to build a Shake Shack and a Valvoline on the site. The Planet Fitness opened in January 2025, but the proposed Starbucks fell through. Dreyer displayed past and current conditions (Phase I) showing the completion of the east parking lot and the Planet Fitness. Dreyer displayed the Site Plan showing the proposal situated between Den Road and Flying Cloud Drive on Leona Road. He displayed the elevations and explained he had worked with staff to integrate these in terms of materials and design. He displayed the renderings, showing the matching brick. Dreyer highlighted the sustainability features: stormwater management above and below ground, improved pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, including a sidewalk that would tie in Planet Fitness, enhanced landscaping, EV charging stations at Shake Shack, building material reuse, and the reduction of impervious surface. Farr asked the purpose of the eastern driveway, and Dreyer replied it would be service drive for trucks to Valvoline, which could also be a bypass access for customers. Barnhart presented the staff report. There would be no zoning change or Comprehensive Plan amendment. The waivers requested front yard setbacks for both sites. The Shake Shack site waiver would be a 18.5-foot setback from Leona instead of the required 35 feet, and the Valvoline site would be a 21.3-foot setback from Den Road instead of the required 35 feet. The waivers would bring the buildings closer to property lines allowing for increased internal parking and circulation. Regarding the sign waivers, the existing sign at the northwest corner would be reused, but the sign area would be enlarged, and the setback would be 10.5 instead of 15 feet. Two freestanding signs would be combined into one at the corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Leona Road. There was an opportunity for more freestanding signs, but the applicant was proposing only two. The site allowed for two signs, one at 80 square feet and one at 36 square feet, but the applicant was combining them into one. The applicant would also use the existing materials instead of creating one solid mass at the existing sign’s base. This sign also had an agreement with the existing Qdoba and Caribou lot, so the development agreement would stipulate the corner sign would also advertise the Shake Shack and Valvoline businesses. To improve access and circulation, an eastern driveway was shifted away from PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2026 Page 3 the intersection of Leona and Den Roads to provide access to the Shake Shack lot, which also enlarged the lot. The Valvoline met all parking requirements, and there were no parking waivers. The Planet Fitness exceeded parking requirements, and there would be cross parking and access easement between the three businesses. There would be additional sidewalks on the site. A parking study and a traffic study had been conducted, and the development was consistent with all City Codes and standards. Staff had a comment on the architecture. While the buildings met material requirements, staff noted that there should be some communication between the buildings, though not necessarily a match. The Shake Shack did share materials with the Planet Fitness building, but there was a band of soldier course brick proposed for the Shake Shack building that staff suggested could be brought out more. Barnhart showed color renderings showing the materials and color communication and pointed out the soldier course, the color of which was perhaps too subtle. The Valvoline proposal did a good job of bringing out the characteristics between buildings. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Farr asked for and received clarification Qdoba and Caribou buildings would also share parking with the new development during what were anticipated to be two lunchtime rushes. He asked for and received confirmation the parking easements would remain unchanged after the applicant sold off the two outlots. Farr added he appreciated the attempt at consistency within reason with a 1980s building, and he agreed with bringing the design up to date. Schumacher expressed concern about traffic congestion around the Shake Shack area. He asked for the best route for those working at Shake Shack in the winter and if there were pedestrian walkways from Leona. Barnhart replied there were two sidewalks: one from the east parking area through the central parking area, and along Leona Road. Duncan asked for and received confirmation staff was comfortable with the signage sightline issues at Leona Road and Flying Cloud Drive. Barnhart added wall signage was also allowed within the site. There is a sign in the southeast corner of the site. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the driveway closer to the corner of Leona Road and Den Road would be closed in favor of access along Den Road. Farr asked if the signage consolidation would come with a restriction to new owners and future property owners of a monument sign, potentially defeating the purpose of a consolidation waiver. Barnhart replied there was no restriction, but City Ordinance did have certain requirements that would prevent a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2026 Page 4 monument sign. Staff could bring a recommendation forward to the City Council if this was a concern. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Palmisano, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Farr commended the project, saying it would be a good completion of the Phase I seen years ago, and he supported all waivers and the circulation with the reconstructed driveway. Duncan also commended the development, including the water treatment on site. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Grote, to recommend approval Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with Waivers on 3.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 3.44 acres into three lots and one outlot; and the Site Plan review on 3.44 acres as recommended by staff as represented in the June 22, 2026 staff report Motion carried 7-0. B. 6345 Eden Prairie Road Zone Change (2026-06) 1. Request for approval of a Zone Change from Public to R1-22 on two parcels, totaling 1.22 acres. Barnhart presented the staff report. The City of Eden Prairie was the applicant. In reviewing an application for a deck, staff discovered the property had been zoned Public since 1969, though this was a single-family home, and the family wished to make improvements to the property. This zoning change would bring the property into compliance with its actual and intended use. There were comments and questions from the public, some of whom were concerned about a new development, which this was not, but a correction to the Zoning Map. Neighbors were also concerned about tree removal. Forestry staff was working with the property owner about their tree removal. There was no intention of future subdivision of the property. The small parcel to the north was also owned by this property owner; both properties needed to be combined for the rezoning. Mal Fay, resident at 15600 Eden Prairie Road, asked for and received confirmation there would be no new development and the house would remain as is. Barnhart explained this was no development and added any landscaping and interior work would not need Planning Commission approval. Fay stated his real concern was the speed limit on Eden Prairie Road. This had a blind bend to the south, a dip to the north, with a 40-mph speed limit from PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2026 Page 5 County Road 5 to Valley View Road, then a 45-mph speed limit from there to Townline, then at 35 mph speed limit after crossing into Minnetonka. He suggested a consistent 35 miles per hour speed from County Road 5 into Minnetonka, as many drivers actually drove 55 miles per hour. Duncan suggested he speak with City Engineer Schultze after the meeting. MOTION: Palmisano moved, seconded by Schumacher, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Duncan commended the City bringing this forward so as not to place the burden on the applicant. She stated she appreciated the public comments. MOTION: Schumacher moved, seconded by Palmisano, to recommend approval Request for approval of a Zone Change from Public to R1-22 on two parcels, totaling 1.22 acres as recommended by staff as represented in the June 22, 2026 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. VI. Reports A. Planners report B. Members’ reports VII. Adjournment MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Schumacher, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Duncan adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Planning Commission Staff Report Date: August 24, 2026 Location: 6633 Harlan Drive Subject: Variance – Front Yard Setback From: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner Applicant: Susan Ray, property owner Review Period Expires: November 23, 2026 ITEM DESCRIPTION Variance to permit the expansion of a deck 8 feet into the required front yard setback of 30’, creating a 22’ front yard setback. REQUESTED ACTION Approve a variance to allow the expansion of an existing deck at 6633 Harlan Drive with the expanded portion encroaching into the required 30’ front yard setback along Edenvale Boulevard. The expanded portion of the deck will be as close as 22’ to the front property line. The lot has frontage on both Harlan Drive and Edenvale Boulevard. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND In 1999, a variance was granted permitting the construction of a 10’ by 12’ deck into the Edenvale front yard setback, establishing a 24’ setback. The order allowed a specific size deck and a specific encroachment. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the deck. This additional square footage and encroachment will not conform to the 1999 order. The request is for a 10’ by 12’ deck with an encroachment of 8’. Prior to submitting the application for a variance, the applicant began constructing the deck expansion but stopped the work pending the results of this variance process. The house, at 6633 Harlan Drive, is situated on a three-sided corner lot with frontage on both Harlan Drive and Edenvale Boulevard. The property is zoned R1-9.5, which requires a 30’ front yard setback along both Harlan Drive and Edenvale Boulevard. When the house was built in 1985, it was built right at the 30’ setback line along Edenvale Boulevard. This left little space for a deck. The property is 10,612 square feet with water and sanitary sewer lines running through the southern portion of the lot. The lot, as platted, has a Drainage and Utility Easement (D&U) over the southern corner of the lot encumbering 1/3 of the total lot area. There is also a 10’ wide D&U along Harland Drive and Edenvale Boulevard and a 5’ wide D&U along the north property line. The home is a split-level home, which was built with a sliding glass door off the dining area on the upper level. The sliding glass doors face Edenvale Boulevard. Existing Deck The current property owner is requesting a variance to extend the existing deck 12’ to the south and add stairs. The deck extension would increase the original encroachment to 8’ into the 30’ setback. The proposed deck would be as close as 22’ from the front lot line. State Statute establishes criteria for the granting of variances. Variances may be granted when they are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Below is an analysis of how the variance request satisfies these criteria. 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan EVALUATING THE VARIANCE REQUEST Expanding the existing deck provides functional space for the current and future owners. The property is guided residential, and a deck is a common element in residential districts. 2. Harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance Though the deck expansion encroaches into the front yard setback along Edenvale Boulevard, the deck does not negatively impact the harmony of the neighborhood. The deck expansion is a reasonable use on the property and the encroachment is not excessive. 3. Unique Circumstance and Practical Difficulties There are several unique circumstances and practical difficulties on the subject property that limit the deck expansion options that would conform to City Code. The property is three sided, with 2 sides along public streets. The public streets require a 30’ front yard setback. A substantial drainage and utility easement protects sanitary sewer and water lines running across the south side of the lot. The easement encompasses 1/3 of the lot area. There are also standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines. The City does not allow structures in the drainage and utility easements. Once the setbacks, the placement of the home, and the drainage and utility easements are accounted for, it leaves little room for options to expand the deck. There are very few three- sided single-family lots with 43% of the lot area encumbered by easements that would otherwise be buildable. 4. Alteration of the Essential Neighborhood Character The expansion of the existing deck will not alter the neighborhood character. Setbacks are intended to establish minimal yard and open spaces between structures. In a yard adjacent to a street, as is the situation with this application, the intended impact is the preservation of open space and distribution of building mass along suburban streets. Driving southwest along Edenvale, the existing fencing, slope of the road, and vegetation screen the improvement from the road until the passerby is immediately adjacent. Driving north bound on Edenvale, the deck improvement is not visually impactful, and the passerby does not note the reduced setback. Staff recommends the Commission approve Final Order #2026-01 as recommended by staff in the August 24, 2026 staff report. ATTACHMENTS Draft Final Order Applicant’s Narrative STAFF RECOMMENDATION Susan Ray 6633 Harlan Dr Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Attn. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Re: Request for Area Variance – 6633 Harlan Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 (Parcel ID: 04-116-22-41-0025) Dear Members of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I respectfully request approval of an area variance for my property located at 6633 Harlan Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 (Parcel ID: 04-116-22-41-0025). The requested variance would allow the construction of a modest extension to my existing second-story deck and the addition of an exterior staircase to provide direct access from the deck to the backyard. [Exhibit 1: Drone View of Property] The addition of an exterior staircase would significantly improve both the safety and functionality of the home. Currently, the only means of exiting the second-story level are through the front entry, the adjacent garage entry at the split-level landing, or through the basement. The existing deck, which is approximately 12 feet above ground, has no direct exit to the yard. In the event that the patio door was blocked or malfunctioned, there would be no safe exterior means of egress from the deck. [Exhibit 2: Photo of Existing Deck] The existing deck is located approximately 24 feet from the property line. I am requesting a modest variance and approval for the new proposed deck extension and stairs to be located no closer than 22 feet from the property line at its nearest point. Importantly, this portion of the extension would be constructed over the footprint of the existing patio rather than creating new space beyond the current patio area. There is an additional 10foot easement due to the location to Edenvale Boulevard The need for this variance is created by the unique physical characteristics of the property rather than by personal preference. The home is situated on an angled corner lot adjacent to Edenvale Boulevard, resulting in an enlarged setback requirement that significantly reduces the usable building area. In addition, the property has a double-wide frontage, contains a utility easement, and has a long, narrow configuration. These conditions severely limit the placement of improvements and make it difficult to construct a functional deck and staircase allowing for safe egress from the existing deck while complying with the required setback. A review of the enclosed property survey illustrates how the lot's shape and location constrain the available space. . [Exhibit 3: Survey Map of 6633 Harlan Dr] Before arriving at the proposed design, my contractor and I evaluated several alternatives that would keep the stairs within the footprint of the existing deck and 24 foot setback. Unfortunately, each alternative presented significant practical or safety concerns. Alternative 1: Installing the stairs on the southeast side of the existing deck. [Exhibit 4: Existing Deck Stairs Survey View] This proposed alternative would interfere with the existing design and is not practicable. In particular, this approach would cause the gate providing backyard access to interfere with the deck support post. This exit is the primary access to the water spigot for the backyard. Accommodating this design would require relocating either the gate, water spigot, or the support post. In addition, the stairs would extend approximately six feet beyond the existing patio, be only about seven feet from the side fence, and terminate approximately eighteen feet from the rear fence, making them highly visible from the neighboring property. [Exhibit 5: Photo Measured Stair Footprint] Alternative 2: Installing the stairs on the southwest side of the existing deck. [Exhibit 4: Deck Stairs View] This proposed alternative would interfere with the safe use of the basement patio door. The stairs would begin descending four feet from the patio door and descend approximately six feet beyond the end of the patio. This would limit safe access to the basement and partially obstruct the hot tub under the existing deck. Alternative 3: Installing the stairs on the south side of the existing deck. [Exhibit 4: Deck Stairs View] This proposed option, placing the stairs on the front of the existing deck, would position them approximately eighteen feet from the property line while extending six feet beyond the south end of the existing deck. This design would be too close to the existing hot tub, restricting access and making routine use and removal of the hot tub cover impractical. [Exhibit 5: Photo Measured Stair Footprint] The proposed extended deck with stairs design provides the most practical and functional solution. It extends the existing deck approximately ten feet to the southwest (though only two feet closer to the road as per the previous variance request) and incorporates a staircase that provides adequate clearance from the patio. It also allows the stairs to descend at a safer grade due to the upward slope of the yard. The closest corner of the proposed deck would remain approximately 22 feet from the roadway easement. [Exhibit 6: Survey with Deck and Stairs] The proposed improvement will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The deck extension does not project beyond the footprint of the home in a manner that is visually intrusive. It is only minimally visible from Edenvale Boulevard and is largely screened from pedestrians using the adjacent walking path, who can currently see only the top of the existing deck railing. The deck and staircase would not be visible from the front of the home. There are no neighboring homes directly behind or southeast of the property, and the neighbor to the southwest would see little more than the existing deck. As a result, the project will not negatively affect neighboring properties, pedestrian traffic, or vehicular traffic. [Exhibit 7: Edenvale Boulevard Photos] The deck extension would also provide additional shade to the lower level of the home, reducing direct solar heat gain during the summer months and improving the home's energy efficiency. In summary, I believe this request satisfies the criteria for granting an area variance. The need for the variance is created by the property's unique configuration, corner location, utility easements, and enlarged setback requirements rather than by personal preference. Reasonable alternatives have been carefully evaluated and found to be impractical or less safe. The proposed design represents the minimum variance necessary to provide safe and functional access to the backyard while having no adverse impact on neighboring properties, traffic, or the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I appreciate your thoughtful review and would be pleased to answer any questions or provide any additional information that may assist the Commission. Respectfully, Susan Ray 6633 Harlan Dr Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Appendix Exhibit 1: Drone View of Property Exhibit 2: Photo of Existing Deck Exhibit 3: Survey Map of 6633 Harlan Dr Exhibit 4: Existing Deck Stairs Survey View Exhibit 5: Photo Measured Stair Footprint Exhibit 6: Survey Map with Deck and Stairs Exhibit 7: Edenvale Boulevard Photos Exhibit 1: Drone View of Property Exhibit 2: Photo of Existing Deck Exhibit 3: Survey Map of 6633 Harlan Dr Exhibit 4: Existing Deck Stairs View Exhibit 5: Photo Measured Stair Footprint Measured footprint of southeast stairs Measured footprint of south stairs Exhibit 6: Survey with Deck and Stairs Exhibit 7 Edenvale Boulevard Photos