Planning Commission - 05/22/2023APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 22, 2023 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Carole Mette, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote,
Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay
CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze,
Assistant City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural
Resources Manager; Kristin Harley, Recording
Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
All commission members were present.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda as amended to
consider Item VB first, then Item VA and Item VC. MOTION CARRIED 9-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Weber to approve the minutes of May 8, 2022.
MOTION CARRIED 9-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BAKER ROAD ASSISTED LIVING (2023-02)
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on
3.79 acres
• PUD Concept Plan Review on 3.79 acres
• PUD District Review with waivers on 3.79 acres
• Zoning Change from Office to RM-2.5 on 3.79 acres
• Site Plan Review on 3.79 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 2
Eric Reiners, Principal at SRA, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the
application. This was a unique reuse of the southwest quadrant of Highway 62
and Baker Road, with industrial uses to the west, Lifetime Fitness to the east, and
a townhouse association to the south. This 1990s building had been built as an
office, and was underutilized. The site had great potential so the parcel would be
repositioned as an assisted living facility. It was wooded and well screened from
the highway. There was a wetland on the east boundary and all setbacks were met.
A low-lying area to the northwest and the hills to the west and south contributed
to the natural, wooded atmosphere. Phase One would be the renovation and
remodeling of the existing structure for 31 assisted living residents. A commercial
kitchen, dining and group activity spaces, leisure activity spaces, and occupancy
rooms would be added. In the future the owner would wish to expand this
building. Reiners displayed the addition with extended west and south of the
existing building. It would contribute an additional 81 units along with the
requisite parking. Reiners displayed the elevations and materials, which were
similar to the original materials of the current building. He explained the grading
and drainage improvements as well as the access changes. The landscape plan met
all tree replacement requirements. Where the perimeter hills dipped allowed for a
pleasant view but the development would be scantly visible to neighbors, as well
as a low-noise, low-traffic development.
Farr asked if the shared access could handle increased traffic during holidays, and
suggested a parking agreement with the 6200 building to accommodate this.
Reiners agreed to suggest this to the property owner. Farr asked if the receiving
dock was for maintenance purposes and Reiners replied it was for kitchen
deliveries, whereas residents would be brought to the main entrance.
Mette asked if the residents would share bathrooms. Reiners replied they did, but
did not have to go through a public corridor to access it. The residents would all
have private suites with a shared bathroom.
Barnhart presented the staff report. Four waivers were being requested among the
five actions. Covered parking was not required for this development, since most
traffic would come from relatives and visitors. The barrel roof was added at
staff’s suggestion to mimic the original design, and the parking island at the
southwest corner of the building would be partly paved to accommodate a
sidewalk and ADA ramp. The project met the landscaping requirements with tree
replacement as part of Phase Two. Most of the vegetation along the south side
would be kept to provide screening. A neighborhood meeting held in March and
other outreach yielded no comments. Staff recommended approval.
Mette asked what zoning allowed such density, and Barnhart replied there were
none; TOD and Mixed Use allowed for higher density, with 17.04 being the
highest. Mette replied she was surprised there was not a higher maximum density
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 3
requirement for a multifamily zoning district. She asked for and received
confirmation the development entitlement extended into perpetuity. Barnhart
explained any rules changes could trigger a PUD amendment. Mette asked if
previous similar developments required covered parking. Barnhart replied he did
not believe there had been a formal waiver for covered parking but the plan was
approved without it. Mette noted there were different levels of assisted living, and
asked if memory care would depart from other requirements of other kinds of
assisted living. Barnhart replied the City was drafting requirements for the
different levels of assistance (independent living, assisted living, memory care, et
cetera). Kirk stated these three categories were familiar to him, and in other
developments these could be mixed, complicating the requirements. He stated he
supported the waivers. Mette replied this dedicated property was easier to address,
but other developments could have different care levels that changed over time.
Mette asked what the “elderly waiver” affordability category was. Barnhart
replied it related to how this project was funded, how the tenant accessed the
property, the tenant’s incomes, and what proportion of their rent was aided by the
services they received. He offered to provide additional information to the City
Council upon its review of this project.
Farr asked if the landscaping required the removal of significant or heritage trees.
Rue replied perhaps one heritage tree would be removed in Phase One, and the
replacement requirement was being met for Phase Two (36 trees, nonheritage).
Farr asked for and received clarification the size of the tree was determined at the
time of the approval of the application. Farr asked why screening was required
between residential districts. Barnhart replied it was due to the density of the
neighboring developments to the west, south and north. Farr asked if the moving
van would block the circular fire lane. Barnhart replied this had not been raised
during project review. The existing parking lot would be retained during Phase
One and changed in Phase Two. He offered to alert the Fire Chief. Farr stated the
two-story addition was disproportionate with the existing four-story building.
Also, the materials did not match since the addition had a cornice but the original
building did not. He suggested an addition more in keeping with the original
design.
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 9-0.
Mette stated the architecture was her main concern, but was not able to get
specific as to why this was not what she expected. She supported the waivers.
Kirk stated his support for the project. He added he was surprised Eden Prairie
has a lot of assisted living but there was high demand. This was a good location,
yet the architecture was a difficult question, as Farr and Mette had stated. In
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 4
general the rules produced good results and he proposed going ahead with this
development despite its incongruities.
Grote stated the residents would be looking out at a wonderful view, which
overruled the concerns about the exterior architecture. Farr agreed, and stated he
trusted staff to work with the applicant on a development that had so many good
points in addition to the building design.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Sherwood to recommend approval of the
Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 3.79
acres; a PUD Concept Plan Review on 3.79 acres; a PUD District Review with
waivers on 3.79 acres; a Zoning Change from Office to RM-2.5 on 3.79 acres;
and a Site Plan Review on 3.79 acres, as represented in the staff report dated May
22, 2023 and the plans stamp dated April 28, 2023. Motion carried 9-0.
B. BUSH LAKE PET HOSPITAL (2023-04)
Request for:
• Zoning Change from Office (OFC) to neighborhood Commercial (N-
COM) on 1.19 acres
• PUD Concept Review on 1.19 acres
• PUD Review with waivers on 1.19 acres
• Site Plan Review on 1.19 acres
Michael Kohne of Highland Ventures, LTD, detailed the application. The
proposed development was a 5,074 square foot, single-story building, which
would divide 3,958 square feet for the hospital and 1,015 square feet for other
commercial space. This was a vet relocation from Bloomington. There would be
no overnight boarding of pets with the exception of surgical patients.
The zoning was currently office, and the proposed change was to PUD guided
commercial. The site had an unusual lot shape bounded by Hennepin Town Road
and Highway 169 which resulted in design challenges that required waivers. The
landscape material, water and sewer met requirements. There were a number of
sustainable elements, including one conduit with a pole wire for EV charging in
the parking lot.
The anticipated start date was July 1, 2023 with a projected completion date of
January 1, 2024.
There was no shoreline and the site did not abut any water, so the flood plan
Ordinance did not apply. Kohne displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the
stormwater management plan with the stormwater retention tank beneath the
building.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 5
Dr. Douglas Gates of Bush Lake gave a brief history and overview of the pet
hospital. Kohne displayed some renderings showing the elevation and materials.
Residents attending the neighborhood meeting had concerns about traffic but were
in general supportive of the project.
Sivilay asked for and received confirmation there was space between this site with
its fence and the access to the Kinderbury Hill PUD development. There would be
some vegetative screening with trees. He offered to return with an answer as to
how far the fence extended.
Mette noted the retail parking was 5 per 1,000 and asked if the remaining vacant
space would be sufficient for the neighboring tenant. She asked what kind of
tenant the applicant was considering. Kohne did not have a specific answer but
stated the intent was to avoid filling the retail space with a high-traffic tenant (a
coffee shop, et cetera), but perhaps with light retail use. Mette suggested the main
landscaping island in front of hospital entrance have plantings that would survive
dogs’ uses of that area. Plant selection would be significant. Kohne replied the
rear left corner had a 10- by 15-foot fenced in area for animals to use the restroom
while on leash.
Farr suggested the EV ready accommodation have panel boards and transformers
of sufficient size that could handle the load. He also suggested the trash enclosure
be rotated 90 degrees so that the gate would open to the right (south) and keep the
doors out of public sight. He was an opportunity for signage on the site alongside
the northbound Highway 169 frontage road and stated the tenant might request
that, so the parapet should be kept at a consistent height to facilitated this.
Taylor stated he had met with staff at the neighboring daycare center who were
concerned about sharing the parking lot. Kohne replied there was the intention to
include speed bumps but this plan was not that granular.
Barnhart presented the staff report. The site was currently vacant and the
applicant was seeking four actions: a zoning change from Office to Neighborhood
Commercial; a PUD Concept Review; a PUD Development District Review with
waivers; and a Site Plan Review. The zoning change required a waiver, and this
change was the best fit for the neighborhood and was supported by staff. Nothing
about the lot was changing. The setback and materials requirement were met and
exceeded in this application. The access was through a shared parking easement
and staff thought this connection was effective in reducing trips on Hennepin
Town Road. Four parking spaces would be provided for the neighboring childcare
service providing the connection. Staff recommended approval.
Mette asked if the connection had previously gone through the PUD process and
wondered why it was not going through this process now. Barnhart stated this site
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 6
had intended to be an office, but since it had never gone through the PUD process
to be rezoned as office, it was not required for this application.
Alicia Reeves, resident at 9673 Belmont Lane, stated she was speaking on behalf
of a group that fully supported the hospital development but was concerned about
the traffic on Hennepin Town Road. She requested the speed limit be reduced
from 45 miles per hour on the approach to the site and 40 miles per hour around
the corner along it. She also wished to hear the details about the connection with
the childcare center, and suggested speed bumps and “child at play” signs.
Jerry Maher, resident at 9778 Belmont Lane, stated at the exit on Belmont Lane
the next car in sight would be 112 feet to the north (three seconds at 45 miles an
hour), placing the onus upon the driver leaving Belmont Lane to change lanes or
stop in time due to oncoming traffic. That was the reason for the request to lower
the speed limit; however, increasing the sightline from Belmont Lane to Linden
by cutting foliage would restore the street to how it looked 20 years ago at the
formation of the association which owned the land on the west side of Belmont
Lane. This was a protected wetland, so there were limitations on what could be
cut. Concerned neighbors were meeting with the Traffic Engineer to brainstorm
ideas. If the sightline could not be increased, the speed limit needed to be reduced
and/or flashing signs need to be installed.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 9-0.
Kirk noted this was a difficult property for any design and found the plan to be a
good use of it. Traffic movement inside and outside of the property were the main
issues. Rue stated there were a few roads in Eden Prairie that were being reviewed
for speed limits, and Hennepin Town Road was one of them. A traffic study
would be required to reduce the speed limit. Enforcement was always an issue,
and expansion of the sightlines was a viable option. Kirk noted there were already
meetings with the Traffic Engineer on this issue.
Mette agreed this was an important issue and wished the City Council to hear
these concerns. Overall she found this site appropriate for the zoning change to
Neighborhood Commercial and found the internal connection a good solution.
Farr also expressed support for the development and hoped the issue of traffic on
Hennepin Town Road would be resolved in a broader discussion. He stated he
could make a motion that included the condition of rotating the trash enclosure 90
degrees and raise the parapet wall on the east elevation to accommodate signage.
Barnhart replied the section of the building over 20 feet tall would be considered a
second floor, which would require the applicant to come back and process a
waiver at that time. Mette stated she would not support a future possible waiver
that was part of a motion. She found that overly restrictive. Rather, the property
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 7
owner could consult with the trash provider to provide a flexible solution. Farr
offered to make recommendations instead. Kirk concurred.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval for a Zoning
Change from Office (OFC) to neighborhood Commercial (N-COM) on 1.19
acres; a PUD Concept Review on 1.19 acres; a PUD Review with waivers on 1.19
acres; and a Site Plan Review on 1.19 acres as represented in the staff report dated
May 22, 2023 and based plans stamp dated May 20, 2023 with the further
recommendation for staff to study the orientation of the trash enclosure and the
height of the east building wall in relation to the highway. Motion carried 9-0.
C. KIWATCHI (2022-11)
Request for:
• Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.11 acres
• Preliminary Plan of four lots and three outlots on 2.11 acres
Craig Schmidt, resident of Eden Prairie, introduced Todd McWealth, project
engineer. Schmidt displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site
would be converted to four lots, one retained by Schmidt for his family. He had
invested in this site in 2008 with the intention of developing it. He displayed arial
photographs and explained the site plan. Neighbors to the north would be sold 10-
foot outlots and Outlot A would be deed to the City, since it bordered a wetland.
The current house would be demolished and replaced, and the other three lots
would be sold. The proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. The project
would be completed by 2024.
Sivilay asked if Schmidt had estimates for remediation of the contamination from
the environmental study. Schmidt replied he had not, but would receiving bidding
estimates once he did. Taylor remarked this project would be an upgrade to the
community. Farr also commended the project, and received clarification the
northern neighbors had always expressed interest in acquiring more land, which
Schmidt had given them as a neighborly gesture. Pieper asked for and received
clarification this was for additions.
Mette noted to the east there was another property almost as large, and asked if
there was consideration of continuation with this neighboring lot. Schmidt replied
that land was deeded to the City of Eden Prairie as wetland.
Barnhart presented the staff report. All of the lots met minimum size and depth
requirements. The lot deeded to the City would have stormwater management.
Staff had received no comments from the public on this proposal. Payment would
cover the deficit of trees added to the development (92 instead of 109 trees). Staff
recommended approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2023
Page 8
Farr asked for and received clarification the sidewalk was on the east side of the
development (Duck Lake Road).
Mette asked if a new homeowner wishing to building a home would not need to
go through the Planning Commission again, and Barnhart replied that was true.
She asked how the City determined who installed the trees. Barnhart replied that
would either be completed before construction, or it would be written into the
development agreement(s) for each owner.
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 9-0.
Kirk commended the addition as a good use of the land. Weber agreed this would
be a marked improvement.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor/Grote to recommend approval of the
Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres; and a Preliminary Plan of four
lots and three outlots on 2.11 acres as represented in the staff report May 22, 2023
and on the plans stamp dated May 5, 2023. Motion carried 9-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
Pieper announced this was Rod Rue’s last meeting, and congratulated him for 43
years of service at Eden Prairie.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Grote to adjourn. Motion carried 8-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.