Shakopee Planning Commission Regular Meeting – July 10, 2026

This summary covers the Shakopee Planning Commission regular meeting. The agenda in the source materials is dated July 9, 2026, while the supplied meeting timestamp is July 10, 2026; this summary uses the supplied timestamp. The commission's main action was a unanimous recommendation that the City Council approve the Southbridge Crossings East Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment.

Consent Calendar

• Roll call was taken, and the agenda was approved as presented with no changes.
• No citizens came forward during the recognition of interested citizens for items not on the agenda.
• The consent agenda, consisting of approval of the June 4, 2026 Planning Commission minutes, was approved unanimously after corrections to the spelling of Commissioner Sandu's name and the word "Minnesota" in the minutes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Steve Solto of Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership testified in support of the PUD amendment while requesting relief from the tree preservation ordinance's economic penalty. He described the project as years in the making and noted the site's fixed constraints, including highways, River Valley Church, the transit station, and existing stormwater ponding. He said the proposal is conceptual and likely to evolve as individual tenants are identified.
• Solto said he is "not an enemy of trees" and cited preserved tree clusters elsewhere in his developments, but argued that large commercial and industrial sites have little room to save mature trees or fully mitigate on site. He noted about 50% of the trees are box elder, a species many municipalities do not consider a valuable tree, and argued the existing approved PUD did not contain a tree penalty. He asked not to be subject to the penalty, which he characterized as an improper impact fee when the money is not directly related to the development, citing the Minnesota Housing First lawsuit against Edina and the Harstead v. Woodbury transportation-fee case.
• Mark Anderson, the applicant's civil engineer from Sambatek, said the site has about 200 trees, including oak, elm, willow, box elder, and cherry. He stated the allowable removal limit is exceeded by about 1,400 caliper inches even though the commercial landscape plan complies with code, producing a penalty of nearly $200,000. He said the plan proposes 176 replacement trees at 2.5-inch caliper, but because the existing trees are larger, the caliper-inch deficiency remains.
• In response to commissioner questions, the applicant said future owners would be bound by reciprocal easement agreements, cross-parking rights, cross-access rights, and utility easements, with more specific easements created as individual lots develop. The applicant also said he would like to begin moving dirt this year, but acknowledged the preliminary plat, final plat, and hearing process could take three to four months and make that timeline unrealistic.

Discussion Items

• Planning staff presented the proposed PUD amendment for the 14.26-acre site at 1300 Crossings Boulevard, owned by Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership and zoned Highway Business B1 under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Sambatek is the applicant.
• Proposed uses include a 7,300-square-foot car wash; three 5,000-square-foot retail buildings, two with drive-through windows; a 23,000-square-foot retail garden center with an 8,000-square-foot greenhouse; and a 48,000-square-foot landscape yard. The plan reconfigures stormwater ponding into two regional ponding lots; wetland replacement had already been approved by the City Council.
• Staff noted vehicle access would be via a 28-foot-wide private drive, widened from 24 feet after city engineering review, and a shared driveway through River Valley Church. Pedestrian connections would serve all buildings and the private street.
• The retail garden center impervious surface alone is slightly above the 75% requirement, but the entire development is below 75% by counting regional ponding. A draft condition allows individual lots to exceed 75% as long as the overall site does not; pervious pavers are part of the compliance approach. The plan also includes a required tree fund contribution for replacement trees that do not fit on site.
• Staff recommended that the City Council adopt the draft PUD ordinance. The City Council would review the PUD amendment at the next council meeting; staff would review a grading permit; and future individual users and buildings would require separate preliminary plat and site plan approvals.
• During discussion, commissioners confirmed the road width concern was resolved with city engineering. Staff noted the tree ordinance is ultimately a council matter and compared Edina's ordinance as still more restrictive. Staff also cited prior tree fund contributions, including about $245,000 from the Henchens yard near Sam's Club and an estimated $300,000–$400,000 from the Sam's Club site.
• Some commissioners expressed sympathy for the applicant's constraints, but one described himself as "a guardian of trees" and favored approval as drafted. Another noted that after City Council approval the developer could apply for a grading permit, begin site work, or pursue legal options if dissatisfied. Several commissioners credited the applicant for working through wetland and drainage complications.

Key Outcomes

• The Planning Commission closed the public hearing.
• Commissioner Robbins moved, and Commissioner Redding seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed PUD amendment for Southbridge Crossings East. The motion passed unanimously on a roll-call vote.
• No other business was discussed. The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. until August 6.