Planning Commission - 02/12/2024APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2024 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, City
Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and
Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording
Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Acting Chair Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission members Pieper, Farr, and Weber were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
[Sivilay arrived 7:01 p.m.]
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Mette to approve the minutes of December 11,
2023. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 9740 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD
Request for
• Zoning Amendment on 1.77 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 1.77 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2024
Page 2
Dan Blake, 16831 Cedar Crest Drive, owner and operator of Dunlap Company,
displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He displayed a list of past
Eden Prairie developments and gave the general location of the property. The
application proposed to rezone approximately 1.77 acres from Rural to R1-9.5
and a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the property into two R1-9.5-compliant lots
(0.7 and 0.8 acres) and one Outlot A for the provision of a future roadway which
would be deeded to the City. Blake displayed an aerial view of the site and
explained there were many meetings with the adjacent acres and City staff to find
a use for the property, and it was originally determined that combining this
property with another parcel would be the best solution. However, that had not
gone through, and the result would be two lots for two single-family homes 90-
foot lots and with a road to connect through in the future.
Blake displayed a drawing of the site showing the existing Klein and Robins
houses. This was once a gravel parking lot, so the land was mostly gravel and
graded flat, with the exception of a hill to the south. There were no heritage trees
on site, and the trees on the hill would not be altered. The drawing showed the
proximity of the two nearest houses to the site. Sewer and water would have to be
installed, which Blake proposed would be taken up with the building of any new
houses on these sites. There would also be no grading project with this
application. There was no onsite water treatment and he realized he had to work
with the Watershed District. There was a provision for a future road extension to
Prospect Road. He agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the staff report.
Mette asked if the houses could be closer to the street. Blake stated the Zoning
Code would set them closer, but he would prefer them back farther. Mette noted
where the drawing showed “Block One” could theoretically be split to turn this
into three lots. Blake replied a three-way division had been considered and
discussed with staff, but the hill prevented this.
Taylor noted where Lot One was proposed there was a shed in the eastern
extension. Blake stated there was a barn behind (west of) his property, which was
why this property was not able to be combined with his; the present owners
wished to stay where they were.
Barnhart presented the staff report. There were two actions requested: the
rezoning, and the preliminary plat to subdivide the property. The property would
be divided into two lots. The preliminary plat met the density of the
Comprehensive Plan. There was some question during the review process about
extending Prospect Road from the west, and potentially that road could still be
approved with the cul-de-sac. A question came up earlier regarding three lots
instead of two; early drafts showed this possibility, but staff suggested it be
removed due to the hill and the grading change, which would have required the
land to be scraped flat and rebuilt. Staff recommended approval of the application
subject to the terms and conditions of the staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2024
Page 3
Chris Klein, of 9700 Eden Prairie Road (northwest of the proposed development)
stated the previous City engineers expected Prospect Road to connect with this
present dead end. While he had empathy for the applicant, this development
would place the burden on him to make this connection in the future. He was
going to pay for only half of the road with the previous proposal, and now it
would be entirely his cost. This would decrease his property value. His options
were limited being that this was a potential two million dollar cost. He was
previously assessed for nine houses, a holding pond, and now feared he would be
forced to put a road through his property. The standard was to be no driveways
along Eden Prairie Road between Prospect Road and Rodeo Drive. Rodeo Drive
was developed at present, and there were driveways along Eden Prairie Road in
contradiction to this standard, resulting in people getting stuck waiting for traffic
to clear, and the homeowners had not wanted this. The cost to him just went up
and he did not think it was fair. He realized there could not be three houses on this
site with the road, but this development profited Dan Blake at the expense of him.
Liability for the outlot was another consideration, being it was City property,
potentially allowing the public to walk it. He questioned the need for an east-west
road at all, considering the burden it could place on him. Klein did not prefer to
sell to a developer, but now he feared fewer options for sale and a downgrade to
his quality of life.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Grote to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
Kirk asked City staff to respond. Schulte replied this had been a long process of
review, and the City had always encouraged the property owners to package their
properties together (which had not occurred), and there was always a plan to
connect Prospect Road to the west. The land grade was challenging; however,
staff had considered this. Many alternatives were considered, including running
Prospect Road to the north, and it could also be dead-ended with a cul-de-sac.
Klein was correct that the City preferred there were not many driveways on
collector roads. The City wished to accept this plan with the donated Outlot A to
carry a roadway. Barnhart agreed infill projects were challenging due to the
constraints placed on the property by previous development patterns. This
approval did not limit options available. The homeowner to the north did not have
to develop ever, according to his choice.
Kirk noted Prospect Road had been a robust discussion item over the years. Mette
noted the applicant was between a rock and a hard place without the cooperation
of the northern neighbor, and she saw no other solution.
MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Taylor to recommend approval for a
Zoning Amendment on 1.77 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 1.77 acres as
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2024
Page 4
represented in the February 12, 2024 staff report and based on plans dated January
5, 2024. Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
Kirk noted the state legislature might consider suspending the need for parking
requirements in new developments, a concept he had broached previously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.