HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/09/2023AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 9, 2023 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Carole Mette, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay STAFF MEMBERS: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated August 28, 2023
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MISTER CAR WASH (2023-03)
Request for:
• PUD Concept Plan Review on 1.23 acres
• PUD District Review with Waivers on 1.23 acres
• Site Plan Review on 1.23 acres VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT Building Sustainability Update
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, October 9, 2023 _______________________________________________________________________________ Monday, October 9, 2023 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2023. MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated August 28, 2023 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MISTER CAR WASH (2023-03) Request for:
• PUD Concept Plan Review on 1.23 acres
• PUD District Review with waivers on 1.23 acres
• Site Plan Review on 1.23 acres The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 5460 square foot automatic car wash facility at
the corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Other features include buildings for trash and vacuum machinery, canopies at Point of Sale locations, and a shelter for on-site staff. 19 parking spaces are provided, each with vacuum capability. A waiver is requested from the east side setback, 35 feet is required, 18 feet is requested. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for a PUD Concept Plan Review, PUD District Review with waivers and Site Plan Review of a carwash, conditioned on the removal of the free standing canopies, all on 1.23 acres as represented in the October 9, 2023 staff report and based on
plans dated September 6, 2023.
ANNOTATED AGENDA October 9, 2023
Page 2 VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
A. BUILDING AND SUSTAINABILITY UPDATE VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 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, 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
Commission members Sherwood and Sivilay were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Weber to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of July 10, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PULTE HOMES (2023-08) Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.13 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.13 acres
• Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.13 acres
• Preliminary Plat splitting two parcels into 43 lots and one outlot on 6.13 acres
• Site Plan Review on 6.13 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 2
Dean Lotter, manager of land planning and entitlement of Pulte Homes, displayed
a PowerPoint and explained the application. The development, Kinsley Homes,
consisted of two story townhomes in an infill neighborhood which was bounded by Pioneer Trail at the north, Dell Road at the west, and Valley Road to the south. It had access off of Dell Road. The development would meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement which guided it residential with densities five to 14 units per
acre. The development would also maintain existing vegetation as much as
possible. The development proposed 42 townhomes which were two-story homes, with a price range in the low $400,000s to mid $500,000s and HOA maintained. There
would be a trail/sidewalk connecting the development to Dell Road along Valley
Road, and a trail connecting the neighborhood to an existing trail along Pioneer Trail. The usable open space requirement would be met. City Code required 150 square feet of open space per unit, for a total of 6,300 square feet, and the actual square footage was 6,338 square feet. There would be a fire pit area with seating
and green space. Lotter explained the development review process included a
wetland delineation tree inventory and tree preservation planning, and an endangered and threatened species impact. The NHIS request had been submitted to the DNR. No further study was necessary.
Lotter displayed renderings of Valley Road to private Larimar Trail, a view from
the south of Kinsley, and the plan for trees and a fence to screen headlights. He displayed a view from the northeast corner where an existing single family home looked west at Kinsley and explained the planned buffers between this and other developments.
The townhomes would be single family open concept construction meant for first time home buyers, singles of all ages, young couples, young families, and seniors. He displayed and explained the color pallet and materials.
He expected the development to go before the City Council on September 19 and
October 17, with construction in the spring of 2024. Kirk asked if there was a similar example of this development with similar density in the Twin cities area, and Lotter gave examples of Pembley in Brooklyn
Center, Aster Mill in Rogers and Rush Hollow in Maple Grove, as well as Canterbury in Shakopee. Barnhart presented the staff report. The density was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use, density, and street connection. There
were a number of waivers requested involving density (6.8 units per acre), minimum lot size (smallest proposed was 1,943 square feet), minimum lot depth (shortest proposed was 81.12 feet), lots without frontage on a public street (all
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 3
individual lots along a private road), and setback along Valley Road (20 foot
setback). Staff recommended approval.
Schulze provided additional comment on the connection and traffic analysis completed for the project. The Valley Road connections was a recommended connection as a part of this development as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He
went briefly through the history of planned travel connections at the site and the
proposed access points. Staff supported the development. Farr asked if there was improvement scheduled for Pioneer Trail. Schulze replied there was not in the near future; the latest note from the county showed an overlay
in 2025, but it would be 2040 before substantial improvements would be
scheduled. Farr noted there were 24-foot wide private driveways and the development due south allowed parking on one side on its streets whereas this development did not
allow parking on either side on the street. Schultz replied this was the preference
of the developer, and the development was also limited due to the number of driveways. The proposed development exceeded parking requirements so on street parking was not necessary. Farr asked for and received confirmation the dead end satisfied fire department access requirements. Weber asked for and
received clarification that the parking configuration on Valley Road, if opened,
would be allowed on both sides of the road. Pieper opened the public hearing.
Don Patterson, resident at 17244 Valley Road, displayed a PowerPoint and spoke
against the opening of Valley Road and against the development as currently proposed. He cited concerns regarding the increased traffic and safety concerns, and requested greater green space, less density, greater space between driveways which did not allow for vehicles to park on the street, and investment in needed
barrier/transition such as sidewalks and trails. He stated he and 70 neighbors on
whose behalf he was also speaking were asking for more than the minimal amenities provided at present by this development. Wolfgang Greiner, resident at 17356 Hanson Court, south of the proposed
development, gave the commission a petition signed by 51 residents and displayed a PowerPoint, He spoke against the proposed development and the extension of Valley Road, outlining the number of accidents in the area in the past year, and citing traffic and safety concerns at the addition of this level of density proposed by the development. He also urged the creation of a real buffer zone and
more green space by moving the private road to the north and reducing some of the development along the south of the site. He also wanted a substantial sound fence along the Bear Path neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 4
Marv Culver, resident at 9433 Libby Lane (Heritage Townhomes), stated he was a
former member of the Planning Commission and spoke against the development
as currently proposed because it would affect the neighborhood’s aesthetics and quality of life. Libby Lane was in a conservation easement with the City, and this proposed development was not in keeping with the neighborhood. He urged the commission to consider the community’s needs rather than return on investment
(ROI). He also raised concerns about the increase in traffic due to this
development. He commented that the proposed townhomes were much larger than the residences surrounding this site. Paul Bartone, resident at Hackberry Court (on Dell Road), stated small changes
could have large impacts on this rural-designated neighborhood. There seemed to
be incorrect information given to the neighborhood regarding this development, and asked why the first neighborhood meeting with the developer had been canceled. He asked if other neighborhoods were notified, and what the EPA requirements were if there was water in or wetlands on the development site. He
found it ludicrous that extra traffic would not speed on his two-lane rural road.
Automobiles regularly sped at 50 MPH on that road. He asked for a survey to be done for impact of this development and stated the number of children and buses in the area made the development as currently proposed incomprehensible.
Becca Frederick, resident at 9236 Preston Place, spoke against the development as
currently proposed. She objected to the density of this development in her backyard, and the loss of the large-caliper trees beyond those deemed adequate to screen the development. Rather than just a “resistance to change” issue she found this a “quality of life” issue and she had lost sleep over the fear for her children’s
safety with the increased traffic in the neighborhood.
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0.
Mette asked staff if the extension of Valley Road was rejected, if the commission
could do that with a motion for approval, or if the motion had to be voted down entirely. Barnhart stated the commission could vote to approve the development with the condition that Valley Road was not extended. The commission’s motion was a recommendation to the City Council, and there would be a public hearing at
the City Council meeting as well. Mette asked for and received clarification that even if the commission voted to deny this proposal, it would still be brought to the City Council. Taylor asked for and received clarification Valley Road was not originally
recommended to be opened or extended, and it was staff who had recommended the extension. Barnhart stated the initial concept only had a connection to Dell Road. Weber asked for the original planned connection between these roads. Barnhart replied there had been an east-west connector in the area in the 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 5
Comprehensive Plan, but now Valley Road was the only option available. Taylor
asked if there was a minimum number of homes required to create an extension
for access/egress. Barnhart stated there was not. Kirk stated the road was “the elephant in the room” and density less of an issue. He reminded the audience commission members were volunteers who had no
stake in the developments under their purview and could only make
recommendations to the City Council, and he thanked the speakers for their insights. He was attempting to delineate between discomfort with change and crucial concerns that could adversely affect the surrounding environment, and the commission could give a recommendation or ask for a continuance, which would
send the proposal back to staff for revision.
Farr stated the commission members were citizens of Eden Prairie who attempted to look out for residents’ needs through difficult conversations. He stated he lived near the high school with a road marked “no shortcuts” and in monitoring this he
found Eden Prairie did a good job with signage and enforcement of this. The
commission relied on City engineers, et cetera, to do detailed engineering and technical work and as a commission member he was hard pressed to go against a recommendation for greater safety, but it was important that the trips though this neighborhood be distributed. Traffic could be controlled and this was a planned
connection for a long time for a good reason. This extension was not a surprise, so
he did support the connection, though wished to weigh it against the other factors. Regarding density, the commission dealt often with these transitions, between zones and between developments of different densities. He found the road to be
exacerbating the issue. He supported the south side waiver, but was open to
compromise, especially lowering the density and removing one or two waivers. The fence plan could be altered and plantings increased. He found the use to be consistent along Dell Road but wished for more green space. Improved buffers and transitions were his recommendations at this time.
Mette stated Lot One brought up the issue of the proximity of this development to the road, and she wished to address the main concerns of the neighbors to the south. Removing Lot One would strike two waivers. This connection was always desired and planned, and it did make sense to her, but hearing from the
community, she had to weigh staff recommendations against how she would respond in the shoes of those residents who had spoken tonight. She found she was not inclined to go against the staff recommendation for the road, since it had been planned and recommended, but was on the fence about it.
Kirk stated he was inclined to side with the community’s overwhelming and unexpected response to the road, despite the City’s good work and planning on this. Weber agreed; generally he supported road connections such as this for practical reasons, but in the face of unanimous objections tonight from those
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 6
affected, he could not support the road extension. Kirk stated it was the
commission’s job to air the issues, and the City Council would watch this video;
he suggested to make a motion as usual and see how the votes fall out. Taylor stated that as a global motor vehicle program lead and safety manager, he found having multiple egresses out of a community led to greater safety than
restricting the road connectivity. He was in favor of the road connection.
Lotter stated his firm would look at whatever the commission recommended regarding the road connection. He suggested a motion to recommend approval with a study of the road, so the City Council could look at the application while
his firm worked with staff. Unit count had already been decreased, so he asked
this not be reduced further. This would be a narrower road, with berms and buffering. Mette echoed the idea of a motion to recommend approval with a study of the
road. Farr agreed, and stated there were advantages to not having the road go
through, but a road was a public utility, like water, sewer, and gas, and a public service in Eden Prairie which had many cul-de-sacs. He too was struggling with not backing this road connection. Pieper added he was also struggling with balancing the City’s recommendations against the community’s wishes.
Discussion followed on the wording of a motion regarding the road connection
and the waivers. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to recommend approval of a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.13 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 6.13 acres; Zoning Change from
Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.13 acres; Preliminary Plat splitting two parcels into 43 lots and one outlot of 6.13 acres; Site Plan Review on 6.13 acres as represented in the August 28, 2023 staff report, as represented in the plans dated August 28, 2023 in the staff report. Motion carried 4-3 with nay votes from Weber, Kirk, and
Pieper.
B. THREE OAKS ESTATES (2023-05) Request for:
• Zoning Amendment from Rural to R1-9.5 and Parks and Open Space on 5.06 acres
• Preliminary Plat five lots and one outlot on 5.06 Nathan Haskin, owner and developer for the project, displayed a PowerPoint and
detailed the application. He was proposing to develop five residential lots ranging from 0.51 to 0.91 acres with access directly to Crestwood Terrace. The site would be rezoned from Rural to R1-9.5, which would reduce lot sizes from 85 feet to 70 feet (with side yard setbacks reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet) and with 1.72 Outlot
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 7
deeded to the City. A trail would be completed between 9618 Crestwood Terrace
and 18653 Ponderosa Court. This development would conform with and
complement neighboring parcels and protect Riley Creek. He displayed the preliminary plat and surrounding home styles. He displayed the preliminary tree replacement plan.
Barnhart presented the staff report. Only one phone call and one letter objected to
the rezoning, but staff had no objection to it, and the trail would not be provided by the developer, it was part of the City’s long term plan. There were no waivers. Staff recommended approval.
Mette noted this was not a PUD, therefore no waivers. Farr observed the chosen
zoning district was appropriate, however the lots lines across the street from this development only resulted in four lots, which with this five-lot development would change the rhythm of the driveways on the street. He suggested this be taken into account. Mette stated this did not concern her, and there was a diversity
of lot configuration in the area.
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval of the
Zoning Amendment from Rural to R1-9.5 and Parks and Open Space on 5.06 acres and Preliminary Plat five lots and one outlot on 5.06 acres as represented in the August 28, 2023 staff report based on plans listed in the August 28, 2023 staff report. Motion carried 7-0.
C. 15201 BIRCH ISLAND RD. VARIANCE (2023-03BOA) Request for:
• Approval for variance to permit the construction of an attached deck 0.1 feet from the rear property where a 25-foot setback is required. Michael Stroozas, owner of Norsemen Construction, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The applicant was requesting a variance for a small grill
deck off the back of her home. The property was complicated by an extensive railroad variance, the house placement and design, and a trapezoid-shaped lot, making it difficult to build the deck off the kitchen. Stroozas displayed photographs of the yard, much of which the owner could not use.
Barnhart presented the staff report. This was a simple variance that met the five conditions of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff found there were no adverse impacts either on the railroad property or neighboring properties. Due also to the unique circumstances of this property, staff recommended approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023
Page 8
Grote asked for and received confirmation the two existing sheds were used by
the current property owner, though Barnhart could not say who built them. Farr
stated he had wished to ask this as well. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0.
Mette stated the fact of the land use issues and encroachments did not have any legal repercussions she could find in her research. Hopefully the issue of the ownership of the sheds would be resolved in the future should a new owner arrive. The setback affected only to the deck, not the house itself. She supported
the variance.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to recommend approval of the Approval for variance to permit the construction of an attached deck 0.1 feet from the rear property where a 25-foot setback is required as represented in the August
28, 2023 staff report. Motion carried 7-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner
DATE: October 9, 2023 SUBJECT: Mister Car Wash
LOCATION: 8340 Crystal View Rd. REQUEST: PUD Concept Review on 1.23 acres PUD District Review with Waivers on 1.23 acres
Site Plan Approval on 1.23 acres 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD: The 120 day review period has been extended and expires on December 1.
BACKGROUND Mister Car Wash is proposing to construct a new automatic car wash facility, replacing a Burger King restaurant building that was removed in 2022. The property is located at the intersection of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Crystal View Road forms the northern border of the
site. The property is 1.23 acres and is zoned Commercial-Regional-Service, and is guided Regional
Commercial. The proposed car wash facility is a permitted use in the zoning district.
SITE PLAN
The project includes a new 5400 square foot single story building located on the south side of the
site. Access to and from the site will be from a single driveway off of Crystal View. Users will route internally through a proposed canopied Point of Sale (POS) area on the west side of the site and enter the car wash building from the west. Cars will exit from the east side of the building. The plan provides for three lanes of stacking to the POS canopy. Nineteen on-site parking spaces are
Staff Report – Mister Car Wash
October 9, 2023 Page 2
2
provided, north of the building. Each of these spaces will have a vacuum capability, including the
accessible space. The electronic machinery for the vacuums will be located in roofed structures, one
at the east end of each parking row. There will be lighted vacuum arms serving each side of each parking space. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The following waiver is requested:
Front Yard setback off of Flying Cloud Drive. The required setback for the building is 35 feet, the plans show 18 feet of setback. The applicant is requesting the waiver to allow for better internal circulation. To offset the waiver, the applicant proposes building materials that exceed the minimum requirements, and a robust landscaping plan. Staff supports the waiver
because the encroachment will not negatively impact the perception of open space due to the
existing retaining wall and proposed landscaping. BUILDING DESIGN/ MATERIALS There are 3 buildings and three canopies proposed for the site. The principal building will be
faced with a combination of stone veneer, brick, glass, and metal. The building exceeds the
minimum requirement of 75% for class I material on all four sides, with a range between 78% and 82% on each side. A separate building is proposed to house the dumpster. This building is faced with matching brick and is located immediately north-east of the principal building. The access doors are wood.
A similar building for the vacuum equipment is proposed just north of this building. Finally, a building for the POS attendant is also proposed. This roughly 7’ by 5’ building is faced with stone veneer, brick and glass to the match the building. 100% of each of these facades is class I materials.
Canopies The site plan includes three canopy structures over the POS stations. Each canopy is about 80 sq ft. The posts are painted metal, and the canopy itself is painted metal. City Code provides some
design guidance for canopies for auto fuel businesses, where customers are required to exit the
vehicle. In those situations, the canopy is to be connected to the building, among other design requirements. Mister Car Wash customers are not expected to leave the vehicle during the wash selection or pay phase of the transaction. Staff has communicated to the applicant that the canopies are not consistent with the Design
Guidelines of the City. Staff is recommending that the plans be revised to remove the stand alone canopy structures prior to the 2nd reading of the project by the City Council.
Staff Report – Mister Car Wash
October 9, 2023 Page 3
3
TREE LOSS AND GRADING
There are 7 trees on site currently, 6 of them meeting the City’s standard as significant trees. A total
of 5 significant trees will be removed with the project, resulting in a replacement of 38 caliper inches of trees. Replacement of 31 inches of trees are shown generally in the western edge of the site, the balance of 7 replacement inches will be paid through the tree replacement fee.
The site is generally flat, and much of the current grading will remain. The existing retaining wall
along the south side of the property along Flying Cloud Drive will remain, though it will be lengthened to the east. Berming will be added along the west side of the property, along Prairie Center Drive, for additional screening and to further the goals of the Major Center Area Plan.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
The landscape plan includes a variety of plant materials providing screening and interest along Prairie Center Drive and Crystal View Road.
This property is located within the Major Center Area, occupying a prominent corner at the
intersection of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Since the building cannot be located at
the corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center Drive, anchoring that corner due to the overhear power line easement, the landscaping and berming is used to anchor that corner. Additional
Staff Report – Mister Car Wash
October 9, 2023 Page 4
4
landscaping was added to the west slope of the berm for additional interest, texture, and color.
Berming, landscaping, and grade will screen headlights for traffic on Prairie Center Drive and Flying
Cloud Drive. The western 1/3 of the site is constrained by an existing overhead power line easement, preventing tall trees. The landscaping plan has been preliminarily approved by the utility easement holder.
SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There is an existing sidewalk along Crystal View Rd and trails along Prairie Center Drive and Flying Cloud Drive, which will be retained. Portions of these public amenities encroach into the subject property, additional easements have been requested and agreed to ensure these features are
controlled by the public. Pedestrian ramps are being improved to be ADA compliant at the
northwest and southwest corners of the property. A sidewalk is proposed from the building north to the public sidewalk along Crystal View Rd. DRAINAGE
Stormwater will be collected and directed to an underground management system on site. Some of
this water will be used for the irrigation system. An in-pavement heating system will melt snow and ice at the entrance and exit of the car wash. Stormwater management conforms to applicable requirements. LIGHTING
Lighting on the site complies with applicable City Code. SIGNS The elevations show building signs on four sides of the building, and no free standing sign. Any
signage will require a separate permit. UTILITIES The existing water service line will be replaced with a new 6’ water line. The building will be sprinklered. Approximately ½ of the water necessary for each car wash cycle will be reclaimed from
previous washes.
PARKING City Code does not have include a specific requirement for car wash businesses. In these situations, the City Manager establishes the parking requirement.
Staff reviewed the parking requirements for car washes in other peer communities. The table below illustrates the parking requirements if parking was applied to the entire structure, or just the ‘retail’ portion of the building, (excluding the car wash area). A review of area cities suggests a range of parking requirements for car wash businesses between 3 and 10 parking spaces if applied to the retail
Staff Report – Mister Car Wash
October 9, 2023 Page 5
5
area, or 10-22 if applied to the entire building:
City Classification Ratio Retail
only
Total
space
St. Louis Park Retail 1/250 4 22
Minnetonka Gen. Service 3/1000 3 16
Richfield Auto 4 + 2/stall or 1/150 retail
area
5
Bloomington Car Wash 1/375 3 15
Maple Grove Car Wash 10 or 1/employee 10 10
Eden Prairie Service 5/1000 5 27
Customers may purchase car washes and gift certificates from the POS areas, and do not need to walk into the business. A retail parking ratio applied to the “retail” space (offices, breakroom, training, restrooms, etc.) of the building provides a more reasonable parking requirement, given the
uniqueness of the use. The applicant has stated that the 3-5 employees on site during a given shift will either bike, take public transportation, or park on site.
960 sq ft of the building is ‘retail’ space. Applying the retail parking ratio to this space requires 5 spaces (5 spaces per 1000 square feet) which also corresponds to the number of employees expected. The site plan shows 19 spaces, though all 19 have vacuum capability. SUSTAINABILITY
Approximately ½ of the water necessary for each car wash cycle is reused in another car wash cycle. Some storm water is retained in underground cisterns and used for irrigation. No EV charging stations or solar panels are proposed for the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the removal of the canopies. The canopy structures are street ward of the principal structure and unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the site, detract from the landscaping plan, and are not consistent with the City’s design goals.
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
FUTURE 35' BUILDING SETBACK
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
U
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
U
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
ST-1
ST-6
ST-4
ST-12
S-1
11.25'11.25'
12
'
12
'
ST-10
ST-11
S-3
S-2
ST-5
ST-9
13'
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
2
2
P
M
C310 SITE PLAN
300 22-27847 C310
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
28
'
13'
18
'
18'
24'
16
.
5
'
16.5
'
BAIL OUT LANE
WITH GATE
P.O.S. TERMINAL
P.O.S. CANOPY (TYP)
(SEE DETAIL)
PARKING STRIPING (TYP)
DIRECTIONAL
ARROW (TYP)
CONCRETE ROLLED CURB (TYP)
CONCRETE VERTICAL
CURB (TYP)
VACUUM STALL UNIT (TYP)
4' WHITE STRIPE
(TYP)
VACUUM ENCLOSURE
(VERIFY SIZE WITH
ARCHITECTURAL)
CSA HUT
12'
13'
INSTALL SALVAGED RETAINING WALL
FRENCH DRAIN (PRIVATE)
18
'
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
15
'
REFER TO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
R-14 COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY WITH
CONCRETE WALK DETAIL
5'
2'
4'
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCH
MATCH EXISTING SECTION
5'
30'
18
'
6.5'
TRASH ENCLOSURE
(VERIFY SIZE WITH
ARCHITECTURAL)
5'
6'
27847 C3-PROP
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
3
-
P
R
O
P
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
JA
C
L
Y
N
.
T
H
I
S
S
E
N
22-27847
C310
SITE PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
SNOW STORAGE NOTE: SNOW WILL BE TRUCKED
OFF SITE DUE TO LIMITED STORAGE ABILITY
5'
IRRIGATION WET WELL
(DESIGN TBD)
SNOW MELT SYSTEM
(REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS)
SNOW MELT SYSTEM
(REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS)
GRIND 3' CURB TAPER
CONCRETE LANDING WITH
DETECTABLE WARNING
BITUMINOUS WALK
CONCRETE RAMP
CONCRETE RAMP
SIGN POST WITH
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
CISTERN
STORMFILTER
PAVEMENT LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
BITUMINOUS WALK
(CITY PLATE R-16)
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,
COMMERCIAL
(CITY PLATE R-1)
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
CONCRETE WALK
CONCRETE WALK
(CITY PLATE R-16)
CONCRETE CURB AND
GUTTER, B6-12
(CITY PLATE R-9)
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
(PRIVATE)04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 JAT
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 JAT
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 JAT
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 JAT
CONCRETE LANDING WITH
DETECTABLE WARNING
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCH
MATCH EXISTING SECTION
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCH
MATCH EXISTING SECTION
September 06, 2023
Flying Cloud - MN 1616
130 C1 - Elevations and Materials
A23 Studios #23015
2 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
L2
A
T
SE
S
-
M
A
615
C
E
B
F
32 4 7
D
W/D
C
REF. BLW
IR
MW
RP
B
P
WM
GM
BUSINESS
101
CLOSET
102
IT
103
OFFICE
104
BREAKROOM
106
MENRESTROOM
107
WOMENRESTROOM
108
TUNNEL
100
MECHANICAL
109
JANITOR
105
6'-0"12'-0"6'-0"
7'
-
0
"
14
'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
3'
-
4
"
10
'
-
6
"
6'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
28
'
-
0
"
24'-0"
132'-0"
28
'
-
0
"
16'-10"
3'
-
2
"
17
'
-
0
"
6'-0"12'-0"6'-0"
24'-0"30'-8"26'-8"
4'-0"10'-0"2'-8"10'-0"4'-0"
26'-8"
16
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
7'-4"
9'-11"19'-11"
10'-0"2'-7"
11
'
-
0
"
44
'
-
0
"
45
'
-
0
"
46'-8"
9'-4"3'-4"
116'-0"
3'-4"3'-4"3'-4"
26'-8"26'-8"
EQ.4'-2"EQ.6'-1"4'-8"6'-1"
9'-4"2'-0"22'-8"2'-0"7'-4"2'-0"37'-4"10'-8"
A2.1FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH
Project
Date
Scale
Sheet
21103
10.06.21
Noted
Revisionspricing onlynot forconstructionExpires 05.31.22
71
1
E
a
s
t
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Tu
c
s
o
n
,
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
8
5
7
1
9
52
0
.
9
0
3
.
2
3
2
3
p
h
o
n
e
ww
w
.
a
2
3
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
.
c
o
m
NO
T
E
:
TH
E
S
E
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
T
H
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
O
F
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
A
N
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
F
O
R
DE
V
E
L
O
P
I
N
G
A
N
E
G
O
T
I
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
.
Mi
s
t
e
r
C
a
r
W
a
s
h
I
D
1
5
0
9
MI
L
A
N
O
-
1
3
0
.
C
1
48
9
1
N
.
C
o
r
t
o
n
a
W
a
y
Me
r
i
d
a
n
,
I
D
8
3
6
4
6
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
FLOOR PLAN
3/16” = 1’1
North
3 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
EIFS/
PT-9
FINISH LEGENDMATERIAL TAKE OFF
METAL PANEL - CTRMS / PRE-
FINISHED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF / 436B3488
FLUROPON IN THE NAVY
MP-4
METAL PANEL - ALUMABOARD
/ PRE-FINISHED METAL SCREEN
SYSTEM / HAZELNUT BROWN
MP-1
STONE VENEER - ELDORADO /
VANTAGE 30 / WHITE ELMSV-1
WINDOWS & DOORS -
THERMALLY BROKEN ANODIZED
ALUMINUM / CLEARALU
CMU (SMOOTH) - COLOR TO
BE CLOSE TO MORNING FOG
SW6255
CU-2
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / IN THE NAVY SW9178
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / LLAMA WOOL
SW9089
BRICK VENEER - SUMMIT BRICK -
BROWNSTONE
PT-9
PT-7
BR-1
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / MORNING FOG
SW6225
PT-6
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / WALL STREET
SW7665PT-3
EXTERIOR INSULATION
FINISHING SYSTEMEIFS
NORTH - CAR WASH TUNNEL EXIT ELEVATION
EAST - CAR WASH TUNNEL WALL ELEVATION
3/16” = 1’
3/16” = 1’
2
3
MP-4 ALU ALU BR-1MP-1 PT-9 MP-4BR-1 MP-1 BR-1 SV-1EIFS/
PT-9
MP-4PT-9MP-4 MP-1SV-1 BR-1
North Elevation Finishes - 1,265 sqft - 100%
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 830 sqft - 66%
B. (MP-4) Metal Roof Panel - 57 sqft - 4%
C. (MP-1) Metal Wall Panel - 145 sqft - 11%
D. Metal Awning - 12 sqft - 1%
E. Polycarbonate Overhead Doors - 160 sqft - 13%
F. Painted Hollow Metal Doors - 45 sqft - 4%
G. Other - 16 sqft - 1%
MATERIAL TAKE OFF
East Elevation Finishes - 2,816 sqft - 100%
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 1,229 sqft - 44%
B. (MP-1) Metal Wall Panel - 198 sqft - 7%
C. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 408 sqft - 14%
D. (EIFS) EIFS - 112 sqft - 4%
E. (BR-1) Brick Veneer - 684 sqft - 24%
F. (MP-4) Metal Roof Panel - 34 sqft - 1%
G. Metal Awning - 44 sqft - 2%
H. Cornices - 18 sqft - 1%
I. Other - 89 sqft - 3%
SV-1
CLASS - 1 MATERIAL CALC.
Elevation Total: 2,816 sqft | Required: 2,112 sqft
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 1,229 sqft - 44%
B. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 408 sqft - 14%
E. (BR-1) Brick Veneer - 684 sqft - 24%
TOTAL: 2,321 sqft - 82%
CLASS - 1 MATERIAL CALC.
Elevation Total: 1,265 sqft | Required: 949 sqft
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 830 sqft - 66%
E. Polycarbonate Overhead Doors - 160 sqft - 13%
TOTAL: 990 sqft - 78%
ROOF MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNITS
WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW,
INCLUDING FROM FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.
4 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
SOUTH - CAR WASH TUNNEL ENTRANCE
WEST - BUSINESS/ MECHANICAL ELEVATION
3/16” = 1’
3/16” = 1’
4
5
PT-9 SV-1MP-4 MP-4BR-1 SV-1 EIFS/
PT-9
BR-1 SV-1MP-4MP-1 PT-9ALUMP-4 MATERIAL TAKE OFF
South Elevation Finishes - 1,304 sqft - 100%
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 799 sqft - 61%
B. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 105 sqft - 8%
C. (MP-1) Metal Wall Panel - 153 sqft - 12%
D. (MP-4) Metal Roof Panel - 58 sqft - 4%
E. Polycarbonate Overhead Doors - 168 sqft - 13%
F. Metal Awning - 12 sqft - 1%
G. Other - 9 sqft - 1%
MATERIAL TAKE OFF
West Elevation Finishes - 3,557 sqft - 100%
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 1,896 sqft - 53%
B. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 286 sqft - 8%
C. (EIFS) EIFS - 738 sqft - 21%
D. ( MP-1) Alumaboard - 384 sqft - 11%
E. (MP-4) Metal Roof Panel - 95 sqft -3%
F. Metal Awning - 31 sqft - 1%
G. Painted Hollow Metal Doors - 48 sqft - 1%
H. Cornices - 18 sqft - 1%
I. Other - 61 sqft - 1%
J. (BR-1) - Brick Veneer - 761 sqft - 21%
SV-1 MP-1
CLASS - 1 MATERIAL CALC.
Elevation Total: 3,557 sqft | Required: 2,668 sqft
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 1,896 sqft - 53%
B. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 286 sqft - 8%
J. (BR-1) - Brick Veneer - 761 sqft - 21%
TOTAL: 2,943 sqft - 82%
CLASS - 1 MATERIAL CALC.
Elevation Total: 1,304 sqft | Required: 978 sqft
A. (SV-1) Natural Stone (Veneer) - 799 sqft - 61%
B. (ALU) Store Front and Glass - 105 sqft - 8%
E. Polycarbonate Overhead Doors - 168 sqft - 13%
TOTAL: 904 sqft - 82%
MP-1BR-1 BR-1 BR-1
FINISH LEGEND
METAL PANEL - CTRMS / PRE-
FINISHED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF / 436B3488
FLUROPON IN THE NAVY
MP-4
METAL PANEL - ALUMABOARD
/ PRE-FINISHED METAL SCREEN
SYSTEM / HAZELNUT BROWN
MP-1
STONE VENEER - ELDORADO /
VANTAGE 30 / WHITE ELMSV-1
WINDOWS & DOORS -
THERMALLY BROKEN ANODIZED
ALUMINUM / CLEARALU
CMU (SMOOTH) - COLOR TO
BE CLOSE TO MORNING FOG
SW6255
CU-2
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / IN THE NAVY SW9178
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / LLAMA WOOL
SW9089
BRICK VENEER - SUMMIT BRICK -
BROWNSTONE
PT-9
PT-7
BR-1
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / MORNING FOG
SW6225
PT-6
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / WALL STREET
SW7665PT-3
EXTERIOR INSULATION
FINISHING SYSTEMEIFS
ROOF MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNITS
WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW,
INCLUDING FROM FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.
5 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
POS CANOPY SIDE ELEVATION
1/2” = 1’6
POS CANOPY FRONT ELEVATION
1/2” = 1’7
PT-9PT-7 SV-1 ALU
PT-9PT-7SV-1ALU
BR-1
BR-1
FINISH LEGEND
METAL PANEL - CTRMS / PRE-
FINISHED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF / 436B3488
FLUROPON IN THE NAVY
MP-4
METAL PANEL - ALUMABOARD
/ PRE-FINISHED METAL SCREEN
SYSTEM / HAZELNUT BROWN
MP-1
STONE VENEER - ELDORADO /
VANTAGE 30 / WHITE ELMSV-1
WINDOWS & DOORS -
THERMALLY BROKEN ANODIZED
ALUMINUM / CLEARALU
CMU (SMOOTH) - COLOR TO
BE CLOSE TO MORNING FOG
SW6255
CU-2
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / IN THE NAVY SW9178
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / LLAMA WOOL
SW9089
BRICK VENEER - SUMMIT BRICK -
BROWNSTONE
PT-9
PT-7
BR-1
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / MORNING FOG
SW6225
PT-6
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / WALL STREET
SW7665PT-3
EXTERIOR INSULATION
FINISHING SYSTEMEIFS
6 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
ATTENDANT SHELTER PLAN
3/4” = 1’8 ATTENDANT SHELTER SIDE ELEVATION
3/4” = 1’9
ATTENDANT SHELTER FRONT ELEVATION
3/4” = 1’10 ATTENDANT SHELTER SIDE ELEVATION
3/4” = 1’11 ATTENDANT SHELTER READ ELEVATION
3/4” = 1’12
SV-1ALUMP-4
SV-1ALU SV-1ALU SV-1ALU
BR-1
BR-1 BR-1MP-4 BR-1
FINISH LEGEND
METAL PANEL - CTRMS / PRE-
FINISHED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF / 436B3488
FLUROPON IN THE NAVY
MP-4
METAL PANEL - ALUMABOARD
/ PRE-FINISHED METAL SCREEN
SYSTEM / HAZELNUT BROWN
MP-1
STONE VENEER - ELDORADO /
VANTAGE 30 / WHITE ELMSV-1
WINDOWS & DOORS -
THERMALLY BROKEN ANODIZED
ALUMINUM / CLEARALU
CMU (SMOOTH) - COLOR TO
BE CLOSE TO MORNING FOG
SW6255
CU-2
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / IN THE NAVY SW9178
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / LLAMA WOOL
SW9089
BRICK VENEER - SUMMIT BRICK -
BROWNSTONE
PT-9
PT-7
BR-1
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / MORNING FOG
SW6225
PT-6
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / WALL STREET
SW7665PT-3
EXTERIOR INSULATION
FINISHING SYSTEMEIFS
7 OF 7
MISTER CAR WASH
COMBINED TRASH AND VACUUM EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE PLAN
3/4” = 1’13
COMBINED TRASH AND VACUUM EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS
3/4” = 1’14
PT-9 BR-1 BR-1
FINISH LEGEND
METAL PANEL - CTRMS / PRE-
FINISHED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF / 436B3488
FLUROPON IN THE NAVY
MP-4
METAL PANEL - ALUMABOARD
/ PRE-FINISHED METAL SCREEN
SYSTEM / HAZELNUT BROWN
MP-1
STONE VENEER - ELDORADO /
VANTAGE 30 / WHITE ELMSV-1
WINDOWS & DOORS -
THERMALLY BROKEN ANODIZED
ALUMINUM / CLEARALU
CMU (SMOOTH) - COLOR TO
BE CLOSE TO MORNING FOG
SW6255
CU-2
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / IN THE NAVY SW9178
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / LLAMA WOOL
SW9089
BRICK VENEER - SUMMIT BRICK -
100% BROWNSTONE
PT-9
PT-7
BR-1
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / MORNING FOG
SW6225
PT-6
EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS / WALL STREET
SW7665PT-3
EXTERIOR INSULATION
FINISHING SYSTEMEIFS
a.23 STUDIOS || 711 E 9TH ST., TUCSON, AZ 85719 | A23 #23015
MCW FLYING CLOUD MN1616
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
Beth Novak-Krebs
City Planning Development
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
bnovakkrebs@edenprairie.org
7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Bloomington, MN 55425
952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning
RE: PROJECT NARRATIVE
MISTER CAR WASH – 8340 CRYSTAL VIEW RD., EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
City Planning Department,
Thank you for taking time to review the following Narrative being submitted on behalf of Mister Car Wash, Flying Cloud. The site
for the proposed development currently holds a zoning classification of C Regional Service, which a car wash is a permitted use.
We are currently requesting a PUD waiver for the building setback on Flying Cloud drive, due to the inability to make the site
work without encroaching on the setback. The development plans will show the building at a 25 ft setback on Flying Cloud, while
current city code requires 35 ft. The waiver for the 10 ft of setback is to allow for the commercial development to be designed to
Mister Car Wash’s standards and be able to fully accommodate its customers adequately within the site.
The previous/existing land use is for a dine in and drive thru fast-food establishment that Mister Car Wash is in the process of
purchasing for development. Mister Car Wash is proposing the construction of a new state-of-the-art car wash facility of
approximately 5,460 SF. The facility will provide car wash and vacuuming services. The site is being designed to provide ample
queuing and maneuverability throughout the site to accommodate the anticipated traffic, parking, and operational needs of
customers.
Mister Car Wash’s transportation capacity, impact on public roads, and peak volume information can be found within the Trip
Generation Memo that has been submitted with the formal site plan review. Eighty percent of Mister Car Wash’s customer base
is part of their Unlimited Wash Club subscriber program. With this program a barcode sticker is present on the subscribers’
vehicles which is read at the pay stations by RFID scanners. The scanners read the barcode and auto open the gate through to
the tunnel, minimizing the customer’s wait time to just 2-3 seconds. This greatly optimizes flow and provides an expedited user
experience of approximately 2-3 minutes from the pay stations to exiting the carwash tunnel.
Additionally, water usage and recycling are an important piece of Mister Car Wash’s business. Each car wash uses 24 gallons of
reclaimed water and 23.30 gallons of city water. There is approximately 3.5 gallons of fall off or evaporation and 19.8 gallons is
discharged to the sewer.
It is understood that the Climate Action Plan in the city of Eden Prairie is an especially important and development should
demonstrate how the proposal supports this city goal. While this carwash development will not meet the size requirements for
an Energy Design Assistance Program, we understand the importance of an energy efficient building and LEED style designs.
Mister Car Wash has previously investigated EV ready parking stalls and revisions to roof structures for solar ready purposes on
other project sites. For the Flying Cloud site specifically, EV charging stations may not be feasible, as 2% of parking spaces (19
total spaces on site) would equal less than one half of a parking space. Currently, Mister is unsure if they have the infrastructure
to install solar panels.
Employee parking is unique for each site as there are 3 – 5 employees present at any given time during operations: with some
employees utilizing biking or public transportation to and from work, while others drive. Since this site would include 19 parking
stalls, Mister Car Wash may have employees park in vacuum stalls as needed, which has worked with other sites in the past.
Page 2 of 2 952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
In accordance with City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 6.A, the proposed site design considered all twelve green infrastructure
techniques. Given the small site and nature of the business operation, the design was able to accommodate five of the twelve
green infrastructure options.
Natural vegetation was preserved to the maximum extent possibly, primarily on the southern portion of the site. Approximately
3,000 square feet will remain undisturbed. The property is only 1.23 acres; however, the compact design of the facility reduced
the impervious area to the maximum extent practical. The goal was to maintain the footprint of the existing parking lot. The
stormwater management system will utilize a cistern and water reuse system to capture impervious area runoff and reuse it for
irrigation. Areas disturbed that will return to pervious area will utilize soil quality restoration to reduce compaction. The Snow
Management note, “Snow Storage: Snow will be trucked off site due to limited storage ability”, can be found on Site Planting
plan sheet C511.
Please contact me at 952.426.0699 or via email at Andrea.Rand@ISGInc.com or Eli Abnet at Eli.Abnet@ISGInc.com with any
questions or if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea Rand, AICP
Project Coordinator
Eli Abnet
Project Manager
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
T/C=844.24
EX CB
EX HHU
EX STM MH
T/C=845.51
I=837.91 (RCP) NE recessed
I=830.71 NW recessed
I=830.70 SE recessed
T/C=845.22
EX CB
T/C=845.04
EX CB
EX HH
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
EX E
L
E
C
M
H
EX GGV
T/C=849.01
EX CB
EX GGV
EX H
H
EX HH
EX ELEC MH
T/C=852.81
EX CB
U
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
FBO
FBO FBO FBO FBO
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G
UTL UTL UTL
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
G
FBO FBO
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
ROW
ROW
RO
W
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
6"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
6" WATERMAIN
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
EX SAN MH
R=846.02
I=836.62 (6" PVC) riser
I=824.82 flow line E/W
G
G
G
G G G
G >>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
IIIIIII
I
I
IIIII
I
UE
UE
UE
UE
UEUE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
EXSP-1 (6")
P
-
1
2
(
1
2
"
)
P-8 (8")
P-4 (12")
SP-3 93'x6" @ 5.53%
P-11 (12")
P-2 (18")
P-10 (12")
P-1
(
1
8
"
)
ST-6
R=848.28
I=844.09 (8'') P-7
I=843.59 (12'') P-6
ST-4
R=846.98
I=842.54 (15'') P-9
I=842.64 (15'') P-5
I=842.54 (12'') P-4
ST-12
R=849.63
I=845.46 (4'') TRENCH DRAIN
I=844.74 (12'') P-12
S-1
R=850.21
I=837.13 (6'') SP-2
I=837.03 (6'') EXSP-1 S-3
R=848.64
I=843.25 (6'') SP-3
ST-11
R=848.54
I=844.22 (12'') P-12
I=844.22 (12'') P-11
ST-10
R=846.85
I=843.40 (12'') P-11
I=843.14 (12'') P-10
ST-1
R=850.23
I=835.40 (18'') P-2
I=835.40 (18'') P-1
S-2
R=848.66
I=838.09 (6'') SP-3
I=838.09 (6'') SP-2
SP-2
2
6
'
x
6
"
@
3
.
6
6
%
ST-7
R=850.28
I=844.92 (8'') P-8
I=844.92 (8'') P-7
P-
7
(
8
"
)
P-9 (15")
P-5 (15")
ST-5
R=847.14
I=843.38 (12'') P-6
I=842.88 (15'') P-5P-6 (12")
P-3 (12")
ST-9
R=846.68
I=842.93 (12'') P-10
I=842.68 (15'') P-9
EXST-1
STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE
NO.
ST-1
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7
ST-9
ST-10
ST-11
ST-12
STRUCTURE
TYPE
MnDOT 4020
MnDOT 4020
MnDOT 4020 WITH JELLYFISH FILTER
MnDOT 4020
NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN
MnDOT 4020 WITH JELLYFISH FILTER
MnDOT 4020
NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN
NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN
STRUCTURE
SIZE (IN)
48 Ø
48 Ø
48 Ø
48 Ø
10 Ø
48 Ø
48 Ø
15 Ø
12 Ø
STRUCTURE
MATERIAL
RC
RC
RC
RC
PVC
RC
RC
PVC
PVC
CASTING
NEENAH R-1733 "STORM SEWER" ON COVER
NEENAH R-1733 "STORM SEWER" ON COVER
NEENAH R-1733 "STORM SEWER" ON COVER
NEENAH R-3067 TYPE VB
SOLID
NEENAH R-1733 "STORM SEWER" ON COVER
NEENAH R-3067 TYPE VB
SOLID
SOLID
PAY HEIGHT
(LN FT)
14.83
4.44
4.26
4.69
5.36
4.00
3.71
4.32
4.89
* TOP OF CASTING
ELEVATION
850.23
846.98
847.14
848.28
850.28
846.68
846.85
848.54
849.63
OUTLET
INVERT
835.40
842.54
842.88
843.59
844.92
842.68
843.14
844.22
844.74
OUTLET
PIPE
P-1
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-12
STORM DRAIN PIPE SCHEDULE
PIPE
NO.
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-12
DRAIN
FROM
ST-1
CISTERN OUTLET
STORMFILTER OUTLET
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7
ROOF LEADER
ST-9
ST-10
ST-11
ST-12
INLET
ELEVATION
835.40
835.58
839.50
842.54
842.88
843.59
844.92
845.00
842.68
843.14
844.22
844.74
DRAIN
TO
EXST-1
ST-1
CISTERN INLET
STORMFILTER INLET
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7
ST-4
ST-9
ST-10
ST-11
OUTLET
ELEVATION
834.87
835.40
839.31
842.50
842.64
843.38
844.09
844.92
842.54
842.93
843.40
844.22
PIPE
SIZE (IN)
18
18
12
12
15
12
8
8
15
12
12
12
MATERIAL
PVC
PVC
PVC
RCP
RCP
RCP
PVC
PVC
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
PIPE
CLASS
PVC
PVC
PVC
RCP
RCP
RCP
PVC
PVC
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
PIPE
GRADE
1.00%
1.00%
1.26%
0.29%
2.25%
2.00%
0.98%
1.60%
1.48%
2.00%
0.50%
0.66%
PIPE
LENGTH (FT)
53
18
15
13
10
11
85
5
10
11
164
79
SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE
NO.
S-1
S-2
S-3
STRUCTURE
TYPE
MnDOT 4007C
MnDOT 4007C
MnDOT 4007C
STRUCTURE
SIZE (IN)
48 Ø
48 Ø
48 Ø
STRUCTURE
MATERIAL
RC
RC
RC
CASTING
NEENAH R1733 "SANITARY SEWER" STAMP SELF CLEANING PICK HOLES
NEENAH R-1733 "SANITARY SEWER" STAMP SELF CLEANING PICK HOLES
NEENAH R1733 "SANITARY SEWER" STAMP SELF CLEANING PICK HOLES
PAY HEIGHT
(LN FT)
13.18
10.56
5.39
TOP OF CASTING
ELEVATION
850.21
848.66
848.64
INVERT
ELEVATION
837.03
838.09
843.25
OUTLET
PIPE
EXSP-1
SP-2
SP-3
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
2
2
P
M
300 22-27847 C320
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
6" PERFORATED SUBDRAIN
CONNECT 6" SUBDRAIN
TO CATCH BASIN
FRENCH DRAIN (PRIVATE)
UTILITY LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED
STORM DRAIN
SANITARY SEWER
SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN
WATER MAIN
GAS
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND TV
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND UTILITY
FIBER OPTIC
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES.
>>>>
>>
<II II>
I I
G G
OE OE
UE UE
UT UT
UTV
OHL
UTL
FBO
CLEANOUT
6" WET-TAP & VALVE BOX
TRANSFORMER (COORDINATE
LOCATION AND SIZE WITH ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTOR)
143 LF 6" DIP WATER SERVICE
CONNECT GAS SERVICE TO
EXISTING GAS MAIN
(CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE,
DEPTH, AND LOCATION
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
CONNECT TO EXISTING EXSP-1 SANITARY SERVICE
(CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, DEPTH,
AND LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
2.2' VERTICAL
SEPARATION
27847 C3-PROP
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
3
-
P
R
O
P
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
JA
C
L
Y
N
.
T
H
I
S
S
E
N
22-27847
C320
UTILITY PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
2" IRRIGATION LINE
2" IRRIGATION SERVICE
6" WATER SERVICE
CLEANOUT
IRRIGATION WET WELL
(DESIGN TBD)
6" SUBDRAIN
WATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM
(REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS)
VERIFY 7.5' MINIMUM COVER OVER
WATERMAIN. PROVIDE INSULATION
IF LESS THAN 7.5'.
INSPECTION PORT
SAND/OIL
INTERCEPTOR
6"x45° BEND
TRENCH DRAIN
(NEENAH R-4990-CX)
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
CISTERN
STORMFILTER
INSPECTION
PORT
CONNECT TO EXISTING EXST-1 STORM SEWER
(CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, DEPTH,
AND LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 JAT
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 JAT
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 JAT
04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 JAT
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
SB-1
SB-2
SB-3
SB-4
SB-5
SB-6
SB-7
SB-8
SB-9
SB-10
EX HHU
EX HH
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
EX E
L
E
C
M
H
EX GGV
EX GGV
EX H
H
EX HH
EX ELEC MH
U
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
FBO
FBO FBO FBO FBO
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G
UTL UTL UTL
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
G
FBO FBO
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
ROW
ROW
RO
W
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' UT
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
8
4
8
84
9
84
9
8
4
8
8
4
7
8
4
7
8
4
7
846
84
5
84
6
84
7
84
8
848
847
849
846
84
5
848
847
846
845
844
846
84
7
845
846
847
848
848
847
848
84
9
850
84
9
848
85
1
85
2
85
485
3
85
5
85
6
85
7
855
8
4
9
8
4
8
84
7
846
850
851
855
852 85
3
854
8
5
6856
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
847
84
8
84
8
847
85
3
85
2
84
8
847
8
4
7
8
4
9
84
8
85
0
850
ST-4
R=846.98
ST-6
R=848.28
ST-1
R=850.23
ST-10
R=846.85
ST-11
R=848.54
ST-12
R=849.63
847.91
850.42
849.28
8
4
8
.
1
4
849.27
850.17
850
.
3
6
849.3
3
850.09
849.63
8
4
9
.
0
8
849.
6
5
849.24
850.83 T/W
850.81
B/W
849.65
847.75
847.67
8
4
8
.
4
7
846
.
8
4
847.88
848.66
850.11
850.67
849.82
849.
4
7
847.48
849.10
848.6
5
848.4
7
846.8
1
847.
4
0
848.
2
3
848.6
7
847.
6
4
849.
1
8
8
4
8
.
9
1
848.53
849.91 849.9
4
849.7
2
849.6
7
849.9
4
850.2
6
84
9
.
1
9
848.83
849.8
3
847.48
847.7
6
847
.
2
5
84
7
.
8
6
84
8
.
4
7
84
8
.
7
2
84
9
.
4
3
8
4
9
.
7
6
849.9
0
848.87
848.85
850.4
5
850.67
8
4
9
.
7
5
B/
W
8
4
9
.
0
0
B/
W
8
4
9
.
7
5
B/
W
850.86
B/W
S-3
S-1
8
5
0
8
4
9
EO
F
84
6
.
8
5
E
O
F
8
4
8
.
2
8
8
5
0
849
850
847
84
9
84
8
848
849
847
855
8
5
0
8
4
9
85
1
8
5
1
84
8
849.39
8
4
8
.
3
7
8
4
8
.
7
5
8
4
9
.
0
4
849.57
849.6
5
847.2
8
846.6
8 846.
7
6
847.0
4847.0
4
8
4
7
.
2
2
8
4
7
.
2
7
8
4
7
.
4
1
847.15
845.2
1
845.23
845
.
6
7
845
.
3
0
845
.
7
1
84
5
.
8
5
8
4
5
.
3
5
845.
3
6
84
5
.
8
2
845.7
5
845.34
846.9
9
846.3
0
847.07
846.41
847.35
848.07
8
4
8
.
0
2
8
4
7
.
6
8
847.76
848
850
847
8
4
7
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
2
3
P
M
C410 SITE GRADING PLAN
300 22-27847 C410
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
LIMITS
OF DISTURBANCE
27847 C4-GRADE
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
4
-
G
R
A
D
E
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
JA
C
L
Y
N
.
T
H
I
S
S
E
N
22-27847
C410
SITE GRADING
PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 JAT
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 JAT
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 JAT
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 JAT
GRADING LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR (MINOR INTERVAL)
EXISTING CONTOUR (MAJOR INTERVAL)
PROPOSED CONTOUR (MINOR INTERVAL)
PROPOSED CONTOUR (MAJOR INTERVAL)
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED TOP BACK OF CURB SPOT ELEVATION
GENERAL GRADING NOTES
PROPOSED CONTOURS SHOW FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. BUILDING PAD AND PAVEMENT HOLD
DOWNS ARE NOT INCLUDED. WHEN CONSTRUCTING BUILDING PADS WITH A HOLD DOWN, GRADE
AREAS TO ENSURE POSITIVE BUILDING PAD DRAINAGE.
101
100
101
100
XXX
.
X
X
XX
X
.
X
X
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
EX HHU
EX HH
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
EX E
L
E
C
M
H
EX GGV
EX GGV
EX H
H
EX HH
EX ELEC MH
U
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
FBO
FBO FBO FBO FBO
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G
UTL UTL UTL
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
G
FBO FBO
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
6"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
6" WATERMAIN
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G
G >>
>>
>
>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
IIIIIII
I
I
IIIII
I
UE
UE
UE
UE
UEUE
>
>
>
>>
>
>
(2) CR(2) CR(2) CR
(42) PH
(49) PN2(9) PA-V(5) JS
(14) JS
(9) PA-V
(11) PH (11) PP
(6) JS
(4) TG2
(3) JC
(8) PP
(8) TG2
(7) PN2
TREE
UPLIGHT
(4) PP
(7) SS
(14) PH
(21) DL
(34) PH
(1) GI
(6) AB2
(4) JS
(10) AM
(10) AM
(7) PP
(14) NW
(10) NW
(20) PP(32) SL2
(26) SH
(37) PN2
(12) TG2
(5) AB2
(7) TG2
(1) CA
(6) PP
(1) GI
(1) GI
(1) GI
(2) PD
(13) PP
(2) PW
(2) AB
(20) JC
(21) TG2
(15) JC
(11) CR
(12) CO-M
(1) GI
(11) TG2
(8) JS
(1) GI
(7) TB
(1) GD (21) PP (1) GD
(13) AB2
(12) AB2
(11) PH-O
(37) PH-O
(8) DL
(14) DL
(20) JS
(14) DL
EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AB 2 ABIES BALSAMEA
BALSAM FIR 8` HT MIN B & B
PD 2 PICEA GLAUCA 'DENSATA'
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6` HT MIN B & B
PW 2 PINUS CEMBRA 'HERMAN' TM
PRAIRIE STATESMAN SWISS STONE PINE 6` HT MIN B & B
OVERSTORY TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
GI 6 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM
SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 3" CAL B & B
GD 2 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA 'ESPRESSO'
KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 3" CAL B & B
UNDERSTORY TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
CA 1 CORNUS ALTERNIFOLIA
PAGODA DOGWOOD 2.5" CAL B & B
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
CO-M 12 CORNUS RACEMOSA `MUSZAM` TM
MUSKINGUM GRAY DOGWOOD 5 GAL CONT
CR 17 CORNUS SERICEA
RED TWIG DOGWOOD 5 GAL CONT
DL 57 DIERVILLA SESSILIFOLIA
BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 5 GAL B & B
PH-O 48 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DONNA MAY` TM
LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK 5 GAL CONT
SS 7 SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM`
SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA 5 GAL CONT
EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AB2 36 ABIES BALSAMEA 'NANA'
DWARF BALSAM FIR 5 GAL CONT
JC 38 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `SEA GREEN`
SEA GREEN JUNIPER 5 GAL CONT
JS 57 JUNIPERUS SQUAMATA `BLUE STAR`
BLUE STAR JUNIPER 5 GAL CONT
TB 7 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `BAILJOHN`
TECHNITO ARBORVITAE 5 GAL CONT
TG2 63 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `GOLDEN GLOBE`
GOLDEN GLOBE CEDAR 5 GAL CONT
GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
PA-V 18 PANICUM VIRGATUM
SWITCH GRASS 3 GAL CONT
PN2 93 PANICUM VIRGATUM `NORTHWIND`
NORTHWIND SWITCH GRASS 3 GAL CONT
PH 101 PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDES 'HAMELN'
HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS 2 GAL CONT
SL2 32 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM
LITTLE BLUESTEM 2 GAL CONT
PP 90 SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS
AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 2 GAL CONT
SH 26 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS
PRAIRIE DROPSEED 2 GAL CONT
PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AM 20 ALLIUM X 'MILLENIUM'
MILLENIUM ORNAMENTAL ONION 2 GAL CONT
NW 24 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW'
WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 2 GAL CONT
PLANT SCHEDULE
BOULDERS QTY DESCRIPTION
18 3' x 2' x 1.5' PROPOSED BOULDERS (SEE DETAIL)
SUBMIT PICTURES & DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
41 2' x 1.5' x 1' PROPOSED BOULDERS (SEE DETAIL)
SUBMIT PICTURES & DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
LIGHTING QTY DESCRIPTION
16 TREE UP-LIGHT BY LUMINAIRE MODEL KG-3LED-SB
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
7
/
2
0
2
3
8
:
2
7
A
M
C511 SITE PLANTING PLAN
300 22-27847 C511
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
TOTAL CALIPER INCHES REQUIRED:
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF CALIPER INCHES OF TREES REQUIRED SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE
TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING BY 320 SF.
·TOTAL GROSS FOOTAGE BUILDING 5,460 SF / 320 SF = 17" CALIPERS REQUIRED / 19" PROVIDED
·TOTAL CALIPER INCHES FROM TREES: 2 TREES X 2.5" = 5" CALIPERS
·SHRUB REPLACEMENT: 25 SHRUBS = 12" CALIPERS
PLANTING REQUIREMENTS:
·NO MORE THAN 80% OF TREES MAY BE A MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT.
·CONIFEROUS TREES MAY BE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT TO OVERSTORY TREES BY DIVIDING THE HEIGHT OF
CONIFEROUS TREES BY 2.4 TO DETERMINE EQUIVALENT CALIPER IN INCHES.
·UNDERSTORY TREES MAY MAKE UP NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL TREE CALIPER INCHES REQUIRED.
·SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, OR PLANTING BEDS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR TREES ACCORDING TO THE
FOLLOWING LIMIT: NOT LESS THAN 10% AND NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL TREE CALIPER INCHES
REQUIRED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS.
·FOR SHRUB SUBSTITUTION A REPLACEMENT RATIO OF 6 SHRUBS MAY REPLACE A 3" CALIPER TREE
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS:
·ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE GROUND SHALL BE SCREENED.
·SCREENING SHALL CONSIST OF ANY COMBINATION PF THE FOLLOWING: EARTH MOUNDS, FENCES, SHRUBS,
COMPACT EVERGREEN TREES OR DECIDUOUS HEDGES.
·HEDGE MATERIALS MUST BE AT LEAST 3 FEET IN HEIGHT AT PLANTING.
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING:
·DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY PLANTING = A MINIMUM OF 2.5" CALIPER & A MAXIMUM OF 5" CALIPER
·DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES =A MINIMUM OF 1.5' CALIPER & A MAXIMUM OF 5" CALIPER
·CONIFEROUS TREES = A MINIMUM OF 6' IN HEIGHT & A MAXIMUM OF 10' IN HEIGHT
·SHRUBS = 5 GALLON CONTAINER
·PERENNIAL GRASSES = 1 GALLON CONTAINER
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
TREE REPLACEMENT:
HERITAGE TREES ON SITE: 0 TREES
SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE: 6 TREES (5 TREES BEING REMOVED)
TOTAL TREES ON SITE: 7 TREES
SIGNIFICANT TREE REPLACEMENT FORMULA: [(A/B)x0.5]xA = D
CALCULATION: [(88/101)x0.5]x88 = 39"
(A)TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES LOST = 88"
(B)TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TEES ON SITE = 101"
(C)TREE REPLACEMENT CONSTANT = 0.5
(D)TOTAL INCHES OF CALIPERS REQUIRED = 39"
·CALIPER INCHES PROVIDED = 39"
·REPLACEMENT TREES ARE MARKED WITH A RED ON PLANTING PLAN
TOTAL CALIPER INCHES ON SITE = 56"
REFFER TO SHEET C5-20 FOR TREE SIZES. SEE SHEET C2-10 FOR EXISTING
TREE LOCATIONS
R
27847 C5 - LAND
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
5
-
L
A
N
D
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
AL
I
N
A
.
E
L
T
A
M
I
M
I
22-27847
C511
SITE
RESTORATION
AND PLANTING
PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
SNOW STORAGE NOTE: SNOW WILL BE TRUCKED
OFF SITE DUE TO LIMITED STORAGE ABILITY
R
R
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 AET
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 AET
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 AET
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 AET
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
PROPOSED EASEMEN
T
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
EX HHU
EX HH
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
EX E
L
E
C
M
H
EX GGV
EX GGV
EX H
H
EX HH
EX ELEC MH
U
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
FBO
FBO FBO FBO FBO
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FBO
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
F
B
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
FB
O
F
B
O
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G
UTL UTL UTL
UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL UTL
G
FBO FBO
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
6"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
6" WATERMAIN
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G
G >>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
IIIIIII
I
I
IIIII
I
UE
UE
UE
UE
UEUE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(2) CR(2) CR(2) CR
(42) PH
(49) PN2(9) PA-V(5) JS
(14) JS
(9) PA-V
(11) PH (11) PP
(6) JS
(4) TG2
(3) JC
(8) PP
(8) TG2
(7) PN2
TREE
UPLIGHT
(4) PP
(7) SS
(14) PH
(21) DL
(34) PH
(1) GI
(6) AB2
(4) JS
(10) AM
(10) AM
(7) PP
(14) NW
(10) NW
(20) PP(32) SL2
(26) SH
(37) PN2
(12) TG2
(5) AB2
(7) TG2
(1) CA
(6) PP
(1) GI
(1) GI
(1) GI
(2) PD
(13) PP
(2) PW
(2) AB
(20) JC
(21) TG2
(15) JC
(11) CR
(12) CO-M
(1) GI
(11) TG2
(8) JS
(1) GI
(7) TB
(1) GD (21) PP (1) GD
(13) AB2
(12) AB2
(11) PH-O
(37) PH-O
(8) DL
(14) DL
(20) JS
(14) DL
EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AB 2 ABIES BALSAMEA
BALSAM FIR 8` HT MIN B & B
PD 2 PICEA GLAUCA 'DENSATA'
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6` HT MIN B & B
PW 2 PINUS CEMBRA 'HERMAN' TM
PRAIRIE STATESMAN SWISS STONE PINE 6` HT MIN B & B
OVERSTORY TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
GI 6 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM
SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 3" CAL B & B
GD 2 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA 'ESPRESSO'
KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 3" CAL B & B
UNDERSTORY TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
CA 1 CORNUS ALTERNIFOLIA
PAGODA DOGWOOD 2.5" CAL B & B
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
CO-M 12 CORNUS RACEMOSA `MUSZAM` TM
MUSKINGUM GRAY DOGWOOD 5 GAL CONT
CR 17 CORNUS SERICEA
RED TWIG DOGWOOD 5 GAL CONT
DL 57 DIERVILLA SESSILIFOLIA
BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 5 GAL B & B
PH-O 48 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DONNA MAY` TM
LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK 5 GAL CONT
SS 7 SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM`
SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA 5 GAL CONT
EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AB2 36 ABIES BALSAMEA 'NANA'
DWARF BALSAM FIR 5 GAL CONT
JC 38 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `SEA GREEN`
SEA GREEN JUNIPER 5 GAL CONT
JS 57 JUNIPERUS SQUAMATA `BLUE STAR`
BLUE STAR JUNIPER 5 GAL CONT
TB 7 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `BAILJOHN`
TECHNITO ARBORVITAE 5 GAL CONT
TG2 63 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `GOLDEN GLOBE`
GOLDEN GLOBE CEDAR 5 GAL CONT
GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
PA-V 18 PANICUM VIRGATUM
SWITCH GRASS 3 GAL CONT
PN2 93 PANICUM VIRGATUM `NORTHWIND`
NORTHWIND SWITCH GRASS 3 GAL CONT
PH 101 PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDES 'HAMELN'
HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS 2 GAL CONT
SL2 32 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM
LITTLE BLUESTEM 2 GAL CONT
PP 90 SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS
AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 2 GAL CONT
SH 26 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS
PRAIRIE DROPSEED 2 GAL CONT
PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT
AM 20 ALLIUM X 'MILLENIUM'
MILLENIUM ORNAMENTAL ONION 2 GAL CONT
NW 24 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW'
WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 2 GAL CONT
PLANT SCHEDULE
BOULDERS QTY DESCRIPTION
18 3' x 2' x 1.5' PROPOSED BOULDERS (SEE DETAIL)
SUBMIT PICTURES & DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
41 2' x 1.5' x 1' PROPOSED BOULDERS (SEE DETAIL)
SUBMIT PICTURES & DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
LIGHTING QTY DESCRIPTION
16 TREE UP-LIGHT BY LUMINAIRE MODEL KG-3LED-SB
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
2
4
P
M
C511 SITE PLANTING PLAN
300 22-27847 C511
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
TOTAL CALIPER INCHES REQUIRED:
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF CALIPER INCHES OF TREES REQUIRED SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE
TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING BY 320 SF.
·TOTAL GROSS FOOTAGE BUILDING 5,460 SF / 320 SF = 17" CALIPERS REQUIRED / 19" PROVIDED
·TOTAL CALIPER INCHES FROM TREES: 2 TREES X 2.5" = 5" CALIPERS
·SHRUB REPLACEMENT: 25 SHRUBS = 12" CALIPERS
PLANTING REQUIREMENTS:
·NO MORE THAN 80% OF TREES MAY BE A MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT.
·CONIFEROUS TREES MAY BE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT TO OVERSTORY TREES BY DIVIDING THE HEIGHT OF
CONIFEROUS TREES BY 2.4 TO DETERMINE EQUIVALENT CALIPER IN INCHES.
·UNDERSTORY TREES MAY MAKE UP NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL TREE CALIPER INCHES REQUIRED.
·SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, OR PLANTING BEDS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR TREES ACCORDING TO THE
FOLLOWING LIMIT: NOT LESS THAN 10% AND NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL TREE CALIPER INCHES
REQUIRED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS.
·FOR SHRUB SUBSTITUTION A REPLACEMENT RATIO OF 6 SHRUBS MAY REPLACE A 3" CALIPER TREE
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS:
·ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE GROUND SHALL BE SCREENED.
·SCREENING SHALL CONSIST OF ANY COMBINATION PF THE FOLLOWING: EARTH MOUNDS, FENCES, SHRUBS,
COMPACT EVERGREEN TREES OR DECIDUOUS HEDGES.
·HEDGE MATERIALS MUST BE AT LEAST 3 FEET IN HEIGHT AT PLANTING.
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING:
·DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY PLANTING = A MINIMUM OF 2.5" CALIPER & A MAXIMUM OF 5" CALIPER
·DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES =A MINIMUM OF 1.5' CALIPER & A MAXIMUM OF 5" CALIPER
·CONIFEROUS TREES = A MINIMUM OF 6' IN HEIGHT & A MAXIMUM OF 10' IN HEIGHT
·SHRUBS = 5 GALLON CONTAINER
·PERENNIAL GRASSES = 1 GALLON CONTAINER
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
TREE REPLACEMENT:
HERITAGE TREES ON SITE: 0 TREES
SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE: 6 TREES (5 TREES BEING REMOVED)
TOTAL TREES ON SITE: 7 TREES
SIGNIFICANT TREE REPLACEMENT FORMULA: [(A/B)x0.5]xA = D
CALCULATION: [(88/101)x0.5]x88 = 39"
(A)TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES LOST = 88"
(B)TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TEES ON SITE = 101"
(C)TREE REPLACEMENT CONSTANT = 0.5
(D)TOTAL INCHES OF CALIPERS REQUIRED = 39"
·CALIPER INCHES PROVIDED = 39"
·REPLACEMENT TREES ARE MARKED WITH A RED ON PLANTING PLAN
TOTAL CALIPER INCHES ON SITE = 56"
REFFER TO SHEET C5-20 FOR TREE SIZES. SEE SHEET C2-10 FOR EXISTING
TREE LOCATIONS
R
27847 C5 - LAND
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
5
-
L
A
N
D
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
AL
I
N
A
.
E
L
T
A
M
I
M
I
22-27847
C511
SITE PLANTING
PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
SNOW STORAGE NOTE: SNOW WILL BE TRUCKED
OFF SITE DUE TO LIMITED STORAGE ABILITY
R
R
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 AET
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 AET
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 AET
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 AET
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
FUTURE 35' BUILDING SETBACK
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MISTER CARWASH
(VERIFY SIZE WITH ARCHITECTURAL)
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTRANCE FFE = 850.17'
EXIT FFE = 850.42'
FFE = 850.67'FFE = 850.50'
U
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
U
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
9/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
2
1
P
M
C028 SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
300 22-27847 C028
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
27847 C0 T-MOVE
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
ISSUE SCHEDULE
C0-10 TITLE
---- ---- C0-10
DW
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
0
T
-
M
O
V
E
.
D
W
G
S
A
V
E
D
B
Y
:
JA
C
L
Y
N
.
T
H
I
S
S
E
N
22-27847
C028
SITE CIRCULATION
PLAN
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
JAT
JAT
ART
TURNING MOVEMENTSSTANDARD FULL
SIZE TRUCK
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
04/18/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 1 JAT
06/28/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 2 JAT
08/03/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 3 JAT
09/06/23 CITY SUBMITTAL 4 JAT
MISTER CAR WASH TRIP GENERATION MEMORANDUM
Prepared For:
Mister Car Wash
Submitted To:
City of Eden Prairie
June 6th, 2023
Project No. 22-27847
FROM:
ISG
Whitney Behny, PE
7900 International Drive, Suite 550
Minneapolis, MN 55425
952.426.0699
Whitney.Behny@ISGInc.com
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 1 of 3
INTRODUCTION
This Trip Generation Memorandum has been provided due to the nature of the proposed redevelopment and potential impact on
the area roadway network. The subject development is proposed to be a redevelopment of an existing quick service restaurant to
a Mister Car Wash. The memorandum was requested by the City to better understand operational use of the facility and queuing
that may occur.
PROPOSED SITE ANALYSIS
Proposed Trip Generation
The ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th edition) was used to approximate generated traffic for the redeveloped site. Two (2) uses
were used to approximate the total generated trips based on function of the site, car wash and cleaning stations. Proposed trips
were analyzed for Weekday and Saturday PM Peak Hour of Generation and summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summarized Trip Generation for Mister Car Wash during PM Peak Hour.
No. of
Generated
Trips
Entering
No. of
Generated
Trips
Exiting
Total No.
of
Generated
Trips
Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator 87 87 174
Saturday, Peak Hour of Generation 111 114 224
A detailed account of the uses and trips associated can be found within Appendix A.
Turning Movement Analysis
Turning movements analysis for the access has been evaluated based on the projected trip generation listed within the Proposed
Trip Generation section of this report. No growth rates are applied to the site as the owner has no plan to expand or modify the
site at the time of this report. Utilizing the Peak Hour volume, the trips were assigned entering and exiting the site through the
one (1) access to the surrounding roadway network.
Based on previous conversations from City Staff, circulation of the internal site, specifically queueing, were requested to be
evaluated further. Per the two (2) functional uses of the facility, trips were assigned to enter through the primary access and
either route to the kiosk for the car wash or to the self-service cleaning stations. Additional information on site circulation can be
provided upon request. The site and turning movement analysis were then modeled in Synchro 11 and SimTraffic to model
queueing of vehicles are three locations.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 2 of 3
Figure 1 is provided below as a visual aid to illustrate where queuing was evaluated:
• Location 1 – Location of kiosks.
o Potential concern evaluated: stacking extending beyond the storage lanes of the kiosk to the entering traffic at
the primary access.
• Location 2 – Entrance of car wash.
o Potential concern evaluated: stacking extending beyond the storage provided.
Figure 1: Site locations of where queueing was evulated.
Delays were applied at Locations 1 and 2 of 2 and 2.5 minutes respectfully. The delay time of 2 minutes was used at Location 1
based on a conservative value for a driver to clear a kiosk. The delay time of 2.5 minutes was used as an average based on
historical data from other locations. Additionally, at Location 1 there are three (3) thru-lanes for queuing. It should be noted that
the northern-most lane is used for memberships only. These members have a RFID tag for entrance and are unlikely to experience
queuing. It is assumed that non-membership vehicles entering the site will likely turn to the center lane, denoted as “Lane 1”, due
to ease and will use the southern-most lane when stacking occurs, denoted as “Lane 2”.
Using Synchro version 11, multiple delay computation methods are available, including the Percentile Delay Method, the Highway
Capacity Manual 10th Edition methodology, Highway Capacity Manual 2020 Edition methodology, and Highway Capacity Manual
2000 Edition methodology. Observed queue lengths were evaluated using the 95th percentile queue lengths provided by
SimTraffic. Please note, in many cases the 95th percentile queue may not be experienced based on upstream metering.
1
2
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 3 of 3
Based on the analysis completed, the following reported queuing is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue for Redeveloped Site.
Weekday, PM Peak Hour
Queue (No. of Vehicles)
Saturday, Peak Hour
Queue (No. of Vehicles)
Location 1 Lane 1: 3
Lane 2: 0
Lane 1: 5
Lane 2: 1
Location 2 2 3
Exhibits of the reported queuing has been provided in Appendix B to illustrate the 95th percentile queuing that may occur
internally on the site.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed redevelopment is unlikely to cause internal conflict which limits the customer experience and sufficient storage
space for the reported queuing is provided.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix A
Appendix A: Trip Generation
MISTER CAR WASH
ITE Code 948 1.0
Average Rate / Fitted Curve
Equation
No. of
Generated
Trips
%
Entering % Exiting
No. of
Generated
Trips
Entering
No. of
Generated
Trips Exiting
No. of
New Trips
Entering
No. of
New Trips
Exiting
Standard
Deviation
No. of
Studies
Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 to 6 PM 77.5 78 50%50%39 39 39 39 33.07 1
Saturday, Peak Hour of Generation 41 41 46%54%19 22 19 22 NA 1
MISTER CAR WASH
ITE Code 947 12.0
Average Rate / Fitted Curve
Equation
No. of
Generated
Trips
%
Entering % Exiting
No. of
Generated
Trips
Entering
No. of
Generated
Trips Exiting
No. of
New Trips
Entering
No. of
New Trips
Exiting
Standard
Deviation
No. of
Studies
Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator 8 96 50%50%48 48 48 48 NA 1
Saturday, Peak Hour of Generation 15.25 183 50%50%92 92 92 92 NA 1
Automated Car Wash Wash Stalls
Note: Sums may not add as expected due to rounding. Utilized Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Self-Service Car Wash Wash Stalls
Note: Sums may not add as expected due to rounding. Utilized Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix B
Appendix B: Queuing Exhibits
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
FUTURE 35' BUILDING SETBACK
FUTURE ROW
MISTER CARWASH
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTERANCE FFE = 849.42'
EXIT FFE = 849.67'
FFE = 849.92'FFE = 849.75'
U
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
U
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
11.25'12.5'10.75'
12
'
12
'
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
6/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9
:
5
7
A
M
27847 C3-PROP
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE
DRAWN BY
CLIENT PROJECT NO.
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
FIL
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
3
-
P
R
O
P
.
D
W
G
-
22-27847
--/--/--
C3-10
SITE PLAN
C3-10 SITE PLAN
300 22-27847 C3-10
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
JAT
JAT
ART
30
'
13'
18
'
18'
24'
16
.
5
'
17'
BAIL OUT LANE
WITH GATE
P.O.S. TERMINAL
P.O.S. CANOPY
(SEE DETAIL)
PARKING STRIPING (TYP)
DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP)
CONCRETE ROLLED CURB (TYP)
CONCRETE
VERTICAL
CURB (TYP)
VACUUM STALL UNIT (TYP)
4' WHITE STRIPE (TYP)
VACUUM
ENCLOSURE
CSA HUT
12'
13'
RETAINING WALL EXTENSION
FRENCH DRAIN
18
'
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
15
'
PAVEMENT LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CONCRETE WALK
REFER TO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
R-14 COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY WITH
CONCRETE WALK DETAIL
5'
2'
6'
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCH
MATCH EXISTING SECTION
5'
33'
18
'
6.5'
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
5'
6'
EXHIBIT
WEEKDAY PM
PEAK HOURQUEUE
FUTURE 10' TRAIL EASEMENT
FUTURE 35' BUILDING SETBACK
FUTURE ROW
MISTER CARWASH
5,460 SQ. FT.
ENTERANCE FFE = 849.42'
EXIT FFE = 849.67'
FFE = 849.92'FFE = 849.75'
U
EX SIGNAL
EX SIGNAL
U
CRYSTAL VIEW RD
FLYING CLOUD DR
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
35' BUILDING SETBACK
ROW
ROW
RO
W
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
35' BUILDING SETBACK
165' N
.
S
.
P
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
35
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
0
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5' TRAIL EASEMENT
11.25'12.5'10.75'
12
'
12
'
EDEN PRAIRIE
MISTER CAR
WASH
LIC. NO.DATE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
NOTE:
THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND
UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES
NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN
MISINTERPRETATION.
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
6/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9
:
5
7
A
M
27847 C3-PROP
DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PROJECT
TITLE
SHEET
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE
DRAWN BY
CLIENT PROJECT NO.
REVIEWED BY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,
FIL
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
S:\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
7
0
0
0
P
R
O
J
\
2
7
8
0
0
-
2
7
8
9
9
\
2
7
8
4
7
M
I
S
T
E
R
C
A
R
W
A
S
H
-
1
6
1
6
F
L
Y
I
N
G
C
L
O
U
D
-
E
D
E
N
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
M
N
\
2
7
8
4
7
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
I
L
E
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
I
V
I
L
3
D
\
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
W
G
S
\
2
7
8
4
7
C
3
-
P
R
O
P
.
D
W
G
-
22-27847
--/--/--
C3-10
SITE PLAN
C3-10 SITE PLAN
300 22-27847 C3-10
MINNESOTAEDEN PRAIRIE
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
JAT
JAT
ART
30
'
13'
18
'
18'
24'
16
.
5
'
17'
BAIL OUT LANE
WITH GATE
P.O.S. TERMINAL
P.O.S. CANOPY
(SEE DETAIL)
PARKING STRIPING (TYP)
DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP)
CONCRETE ROLLED CURB (TYP)
CONCRETE
VERTICAL
CURB (TYP)
VACUUM STALL UNIT (TYP)
4' WHITE STRIPE (TYP)
VACUUM
ENCLOSURE
CSA HUT
12'
13'
RETAINING WALL EXTENSION
FRENCH DRAIN
18
'
FOR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY:
15
'
PAVEMENT LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CONCRETE WALK
REFER TO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
R-14 COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY WITH
CONCRETE WALK DETAIL
5'
2'
6'
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCH
MATCH EXISTING SECTION
5'
33'
18
'
6.5'
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
5'
6'
EXHIBIT
SATURDAY
PM PEAKHOUR QUEUE
AUGUST 2, 2023
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485
jbarnhart@edenprairie.org
7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Bloomington, MN 55425
952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning
RE: SUSTAINABLE FEATURES ANALYSIS
ENTITY – MCW FLYING CLOUD,
In accordance with City Code, the proposed development considered all eight sustainable features in accordance with the
Climate Action Plan. Given the small site and nature of the business operation, the design was able to accommodate five of the
eight sustainability feature options.
Item #1: Energy Design Assistance Program: Free, comprehensive service to identify energy and cost savings strategies in new
construction projects 20,000 SF and larger.
Response: N/A – this does not apply as our proposed building falls well below the 20,000 SF.
Item #2: Energy Efficient Buildings: Free efficiency design review for new construction projects 20,000 SF and smaller.
Response: Noted.
Item #3: Green Building Guidelines: Use LEED, B3 Guidelines, or other similar standard as a design tool to assess proposed
building performance. Calculate and report predicted EUI (energy use intensity) for the project.
Response: Noted.
Item #4: Electric Vehicle Charging: Accommodate EV charging in 2% of parking spaces, either through installation at
construction or building to an EV-ready standard. Xcel Energy offers design assistance for new/increased service panel capacity
to support EV charging infrastructure for building occupants.
Response: Mister has previously investigated EV ready parking stalls and revisions to roof structures for solar ready purposes
on other project sites. For the Flying Cloud site specifically, EV charging stations may not be feasible, as 2% of parking spaces
(19 total spaces on site) would equal less than one half of a parking space.
Item #5: Solar-Ready Construction: Consider installing solar at time of construction to offset building energy use. Design and
construction of building should make it feasible to install rooftop solar in the future if not done during construction. Xcel Energy
provides incentives to support installation. MinnPACE offers financing for new construction and existing buildings.
Response: Currently, Mister is unsure if they have the infrastructure to install solar panels.
Item #6: Efficient Appliances/Fixtures: Utilize Energy Star appliances and WaterSense certified fixtures in design.
Response: N/A, as there will be no commercial kitchen appliances within this development.
Item #7: Low VOC Materials: Use low-VOC paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, and carpet in construction.
Response: Noted
Page 2 of 2 952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
Item #8: Waste Disposal: Hennepin County requires businesses to provide recycling service, pair recycling bins with trash bins,
and label bins.
Response: Noted.
Please contact me at 952.426.0699 or via email at Jeana.Kedrowski@ISGInc.com with any questions or if there is any
additional information we can provide in support of this project.
Sincerely,
Jeana Kedrowski
Project Coordinator
Jeana.Kedrowski@ISGInc.com
Eli Abnet
Project Manager
Eli.Abnet@ISGInc.com
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Fierce, Sustainability Coordinator
DATE: October 9, 2023 SUBJECT: Sustainability Building Standards
REQUEST: Update on Sustainability Initiatives
BACKGROUND The City of Eden Prairie adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2020. The CAP established a goal of zero GHG emissions communitywide by 2050. One of the largest contributors of GHG comes from residential and commercial building emissions. The CAP identified strategies of adopting a green
building policy, encouraging LEED and Net Zero certification, requiring newly constructed buildings
to be solar ready, and requiring new developments to install charging stations or be EV ready to help reduce GHG from residential and commercial buildings. The Sustainable Building Standard implements all these strategies.
The City Council approved the Sustainable Building Standard at the September 19, 2023 meeting.
SUMMARY The Sustainable Building Standard (SBS) aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from newly constructed residential and commercial buildings. New commercial and multifamily
construction projects over 2,000 SF, and additions over 10,000 SF, that are seeking financial or land
use incentives from the City will need to meet third-party green building rating system standards as well as City specific requirements for GHG predicted emissions, electric vehicle charging, and solar installation or readiness.
Single family development projects seeking financial or land use incentive from the City would not
need to meet third-party green building rating system standards but would be required to provide electric vehicle charging capabilities and solar readiness. The SBS will be effective for any development application deemed complete or submitted after
January 1, 2024.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. Information provided as an update only.
VISION AND PURPOSE
The Eden Prairie community is dedicated to building a sustainable environment where
current and future generations benefit from climate and community resiliency as reflected
in the City’s Climate Action Plan, which includes the goal of being a carbon neutral city by
2050. Since the built environment is a significant contributor to Eden Prairie’s carbon
footprint, it is important that new developments minimize emissions and environmental
impact during construction and operations. The Climate Action Plan has the established
following goals related specifically to development:
• 5% of new construction is net zero energy by 2030, 80% by 2040, 100% by
2050.
• 5% of electricity load met with on-site solar by 2025, 10% by 2030.
• 30% of passenger vehicles are EV by 2030, 50% by 2040, 100% by 2050.
For developments that seek City financial or zoning incentives, it is reasonable that they
meet set sustainability requirements in service to those goals. As such, the City of Eden
Prairie adopts the following Sustainable Building Standard.
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Standard, the following words and phrases shall have the following
meanings:
1. “Coordinator” means the Sustainability Coordinator or their designee.
2. “Developer” means the entity, whether public or private, that undertakes New
Construction projects, and to whom the provisions of this Standard apply.
3. “EV-Capable” means the presence of electrical panel capacity with dedicated branch circuit
and a continuous raceway from the panel to the future electric vehicle parking spot.
4. “EV-Installed” means the presence of Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations.
5. “EV-Ready” means the presence of electrical panel capacity with dedicated branch circuit
and a continuous raceway with conduit terminating a junction box or 240-volt charging
outlet at the future electric vehicle parking spot.
6. “Level 2” electric vehicle charging capability is considered medium charging and means
chargers with voltage greater than 120 and includes 240.
7. “New Construction” means the planning, design, construction, and commissioning of a new
building 2,000 square feet or greater (gross), or an addition of at least 10,000 square feet
(gross) to an existing building if such addition requires installation of new mechanical,
ventilation, or cooling systems.
Sustainable Building Standard
8. “Solar-Ready” means designed and built to facilitate future installation of solar systems on
the building’s rooftop to significantly improve the economics of the investment as defined
by the selected Sustainable Building Rating System guidelines. For One-Family Residential,
or Multi-Family Residential with Two to Four Dwelling Units, use the ICC International
Residential Code (IRC) Solar-Ready Provisions for most recent version.
APPLICABILITY
This Standard applies to all New Construction projects as follows:
1. Public buildings owned or operated by the City of Eden Prairie or the HRA.
2. Private buildings rezoned with Planned Unit Development (PUD) District zoning.
a. Private buildings rezoned with PUD zoning that only request a density waiver
and no additional waivers are not subject to this Standard.
3. Private buildings receiving Financial Assistance.
a. Financial Assistance means funds for New Construction projects provided by
agreement from the City of Eden Prairie or HRA, including:
i. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
ii. Conduit Bonds
iii. Met Council LCA
iv. Hennepin County Grants
v. Other funds that are available to the City of Eden Prairie and HRA
4. All other private development is not subject to the Sustainable Building Standard.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
For Multi-Family Residential (5 or More Dwelling Units), Office, Commercial, Town Center,
Transit Oriented Development, Mixed Use, Flex Service, or Industrial Developments
New Construction projects to which this standard applies are required to 1) be certified
under an eligible Sustainable Building Rating System at the listed rating level, and 2) must
meet the standards set forth in the Eden Prairie Overlay.
1. Sustainable Building Rating System means any of the following:
a. LEED Building Design and Construction (LEED BD+C) or LEED Residential BD+C
Multifamily
i. Certified Silver, Gold, or Platinum
b. State of Minnesota B3 Guidelines
i. Certified Complaint
ii. Projects with <20,000 gross square feet can utilize B3 Small Buildings
Method where applicable.
c. Enterprise Green Communities (with MN Housing Overlay where applicable)
i. Certification or Certification Plus
d. Equivalent rating system with prior approval from the Coordinator.
The most recent or current iteration of the rating system in existence at the time of
development application must be utilized.
2. The Eden Prairie Overlay are specific measurable standards that New Construction
projects must include regardless of the Sustainable Building Rating System selected.
The Eden Prairie Overlay requires:
a. Building greenhouse gas emission predictions
i. Calculated and reported, using an agreed upon methodology.
b. Electric vehicle charging capability
i. The percentage of parking spaces required at each level of capability
based on the type of development are as follows:
Type of Land Use EV-Installed (Fully
Operational Day 1)
EV-Ready EV-Capable
Multi-Family Residential *^ 5% 20% 20%
Commercial* 1% 2% 2%
Office/Industrial* 2% 5% 5%
* Allow substitution of up to 5 Level 2 Chargers with 1 direct current fast charger installation.
*Minimum of one EV-Installed space shall be accessible.
^Nursing homes, assisted living, memory care, or convalescent care must install 1 accessible
electric vehicle charger for visitor/staff use but are otherwise exempt.
c. Renewable energy
i. At a minimum, project must meet Solar-Ready guidelines.
ii. Conduct an economic and technical evaluation of providing up to 5%
of building energy load with on-site renewables.
iii. Install if cost-effective using a simple payback for 15 years. Cost
calculations must be shared with Coordinator if exceeds 15-year
payback.
For One-Family Residential, or Multi-Family Residential with Two to Four Dwelling Units
1. New Construction projects to which this standard applies are required to 1) install
one EV-Ready parking space per dwelling unit, and 2) build roof to meet Solar-Ready
guidelines.
COMPLIANCE
1. For any projects to which this Standard applies, compliance must be a condition of
the receipt of Financial Assistance and/or Planned Unit Development approval.
2. Buildings will not advance to the next stage of construction or operation, including
necessary permit issuance, without demonstrated ongoing compliance with this
Standard.
3. The requirements of this Standard may be modified by the Coordinator only for
reasons of hardship. Hardship includes the inability to physically achieve the
standard due to circumstances unique to the property. Economic reasons alone do
not constitute a hardship. Approved modifications must result in the project
remaining in harmony with the intent of the Sustainable Building Standard to the
maximum extent practicable. Maximum extent practicable means the highest level
of efficacy that can be achieved considering the effectiveness, engineering feasibility,
commercial availability, safety, and cost of the measures. Decisions on modification
of the Standard by the Coordinator may be appealed to the City Council. This
Standard may be amended or discontinued without prior notice.
Approved by the City Council on September 19, 2023
October 9, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie, MN
Project Team Introduction
Proposed Mister Car Wash – Eden Prairie, MN
Prabhs Matharoo| Mister Car Wash Development
pmatharoo@mistercarwash.com | 520-615-4000
Luke Kittley| Mister Car Wash Operations
lkittley@mistercarwash.com | 520-615-4000
Eli Abnet | ISG, Inc
eli.abnet@isginc.com | 952-426-0699
Amanda Thomas| ISG, Inc
amanda.thomas@isginc.com | 952-426-0699
Benjamin Myers| ISG, Inc
benjamin.myers@isginc.com | 952-426-0699
Andrea Rand| ISG, Inc
andrea.rand@isginc.com | 952-426-0699
Mister Car Wash Overview
25 locations across Minnesota
Largest Car Wash Operator in the United States
•All locations are corporately owned and operated – No
franchises
•Express car wash – Customers stay in their vehicle with option
to self-vacuum
Publicly traded
on the NYSE
450+ Sites
21 States
2.06mm
Unlimited Wash
Club® Members
~90mm
Cars Washed
Annually
Reducing and Recycling Water Through the Wash Process
We take water conservation seriously with state-of-the-art technologies
50%
Recycled
Water1
Reducing Freshwater Usage Through Recycling
1)On average, during the wash process for New Build construction
2)RO: Reverse Osmosis process of filtering water and removing total dissolved solids to create soft water.
Freshwater Use Reduced
•Freshwater usage reduced by
25% by our water system design
•50% of water, on average,is
recycled during the wash
process
•Sophisticated water filtration
and storing systems that enable
us to recycle and reuse water
through the wash process
Environmentally Friendly
•All of our cleaning products are
free of dyes
•Concentrated proprietary
chemistry reduces plastic usage
in chemical storage
•Industry leader with installation
of air gates on blower systems to
reduce energy pull during the
drying process
It’s not just about washing cars. It’s about how we wash them.
We are focused on finding smarter ways to reduce our
environmental impact and be more efficient in energy usage.
2
Site Location and Overall Plan
Proposed Mister Car Wash – 8340 Crystal View Rd, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Proposed
Aerial image of property Site and Landscape Plan
Site Plan
Compliance and Waiver Request
Inspiring People to Shine extends
beyond the car wash tunnel into our
communities through the various
programs we participate in. Part of
being a conscious neighbor is looking for
ways to improve and provide a brighter
future for everyone.
Freshwater Use Reduced1.Shifted and reduced scale of POS Canopies
2.Shifted trash+vacuum enclosure to adjoin
with the building
3.Add pedestrian ramps at NW and SW
corners of the property to maintain ADA
compliance
4.Requesting waiver to allow for better
circulation
Mister Car Wash has served the Eden Prairie
community since 1999 and are looking
forward to expand our ability to best serve
their needs
The existing location recycles up to 10% and
our new models recycle 50% per wash
Larger sites allow for better circulation and
less congestion, and our systems have faster
processing times
Architecture – Building Elevations
Entrance and Business/Mechanical Elevation
Inspiring People to Shine extends
beyond the car wash tunnel into our
communities through the various
programs we participate in. Part of
being a conscious neighbor is looking for
ways to improve and provide a brighter
future for everyone.
Architecture – Building Elevations
Exit and Tunnel Wall Elevation
Inspiring People to Shine extends
beyond the car wash tunnel into our
communities through the various
programs we participate in. Part of
being a conscious neighbor is looking for
ways to improve and provide a brighter
future for everyone.
Architecture – POS Canopy and CSA Hut Elevations
POS Canopy and Customer Service Attendant (CSA) Hut
Architecture – CSA Hut Elevations
Customer Service Attendant (CSA) Hut
Renderings
View from vacuum aisle
Renderings
View from site entry
Renderings
View from Flying Cloud Drive
Renderings
Aerial overview
Sustainable
Building
Standard
Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2023
Sustainable Building Standard
October 9, 2023 2
Where triggered by funding or land use incentives, a Sustainable Building Standard
establishes minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for
new construction or significantly renovated developments.
Also known as: green building policies, green building standards.
Why a Sustainable Building
Standard?
Overall goal of community-wide carbon
neutrality by 2050.
Subgoals:
•5% new construction net zero by
2030, 80% by 2040, 100% by 2050
•5% electricity load met with on-site
solar by 2025, 10% by 2030
•30% of passenger vehicles are EV by
2030, 50% by 2040, 100% by 2050
October 9, 2023 3
Why a Sustainable Building
Standard?
Specific related actions identified in
CAP
•Adopt a green building policy
•Require new development to
install EV charging stations
•Require new construction to be
“solar ready”
•Support statewide building
energy code updates/stretch
code
October 9, 2023 4
Planned
Emissions
Reduction
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
tonnes CO2e
Commercial/Industrial Efficiency
Residential Efficiency
Electric Grid Mix
Fuel Switching
Travel Strategies
Waste Reduction & Diversion
October 9, 2023 5
Cities with a Standard in MN
Duluth Edina
Maplewood
Northfield
Rochester
St. Louis
Park
Saint Paul
6October 9, 2023
Sustainable Building Standard
October 9, 2023 7
•
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sustainable Building Standard Make Up
8
Third-party green building rating system
City Specific Requirements
Eden PrairieSustainable Building Standard
October 9, 2023
Why use a third-party ratings system?
Enables third-party verification of compliance
All go above and beyond existing building code
9
Third party systems are familiar to architects and engineers
October 9, 2023
Third-Party Green Rating System Options
Commercial/
Mixed-Use
Silver LEED +
B3 Guidelines
Multi-family
Silver LEED +
B3 Guidelines
Green Communities
10October 9, 2023
Average
Upfront Cost
Increase for
LEED
Certified
Projects
Certified Silver Gold Platinum Average
0.0% - 1.0%2.0% – 2.5%1.4% - 8.0%6.0% - 9.5%2.0%
11
Sources: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate,
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
October 9, 2023
Market and
Investment
Value of
LEED
Certified
Projects
12
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Green is Good Series
Commercial Buildings
•LEED Certified Buildings have 11.1% higher rent than non-LEED
Buildings since 2015.
•LEED-Certified assets had a 21.4% higher average market sales price
per sf since 2018.
•LEED-Certified Class A suburban office sales generated a 40.9% price
per sf premium over non-certified assets.
Multifamily Buildings
•LEED-Certified buildings have a 3.1% rent premium vs. non-certified
buildings.
•Slightly higher vacancy rate but is offset by rent premium.
•LEED-Certified buildings sold for a 9.4% premium over non-certified
buildings from 2012 – 2021.
October 9, 2023
Operating
Costs of
LEED
Certified
Projects -
DC Example
13
Source: District of Columbia Office of Revenue Analysis
October 9, 2023
City Specific Requirements
14
Third-party green building rating system
City Specific
Requirements
Eden PrairieSustainable Building Policy
October 9, 2023
City Specific Requirement
Apply to a triggered project regardless of rating system selected
Are established to ensure city sustainability priorities are met
City must determine a verification method
October 9, 2023 15
City Specific Requirements
Predicted GHG Emissions
Built in Electric Vehicle Charging Capability
Built in Solar Energy Capability
16October 9, 2023
Electric Vehicle Charging Capability
October 9, 2023 17
Electric
Vehicle
Charging
Capability
18
Type of Land Use EV-Installed (Fully
Operational Day 1) EV-Ready EV-Capable
One to Four Family
Dwelling 0 1 0
Multi-Family
Residential *^5%20%20%
Commercial*1%2%2%
Office/Industrial*2%5%5%
* Allow substitution of up to 5 Level 2 Chargers with 1 DC fast charger.
^ Nursing homes, assisted living, or memory care must install 1 accessible
electric vehicle charger for visitor/staff use but are otherwise exempt.
October 9, 2023
Why an EV Universal Standard?
EV charging across rating systems is
inconsistent.
B3
• 5 to 50 spaces - 20% EV Capable
• 50+ spaces - 10 spaces + 10% of spaces over 50
LEED
• 2-4% EV Installed OR 6-12% EV Ready
•Not required element, points-based system
Green Communities
• 5 to 50 spaces - 20% EV Capable or Installed
•50+ spaces - 10 spaces + 10% of spaces over 50
•Not a required element, points-based system
October 9, 2023 20
Solar
Energy
Capability
21
•Build to solar-ready standard
• Roof layout/material
• Electrical conduit/space for meter
•Evaluate feasibility of sourcing up to 5% of energy
•Install if cost-effective using a payback of 15 years
October 9, 2023
Why an Solar Universal Standard?
Solar requirements across rating systems
are inconsistent.
B3
• Solar-ready design
•2% energy use, 12-year payback
LEED
• Option for on-site, off-site, REC purchase
•Not required element, points-based system
Green Communities
• Varies by size, height
•Not a required element, points-based system
October 9, 2023 22
What would trigger application of the
Sustainable Building Standard in a project?
• Any new construction project of 2,000 SF or more
requesting a financial or land use incentive.
•Any major addition over 10,000 SF requesting a financial or
land use incentive.
•Sustainable Building Standard would NOT apply to any
other projects.
23October 9, 2023
Types of Financial or Land Use Incentives
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE
•Tax Increment Financing
•Conduit Bonds
•Met Council LCA Grant
•Hennepin County Grants
•Other funds available to City
LAND USE INCENTIVE
•Planned Unit Development Zoning
(exemption for density waiver)
24October 9, 2023
Sustainable Building Standard Implementation
Timeline
• September 19, 2023 Policy Adoption
•January 1, 2024 – Implemented for Development
Applications
26October 9, 2023
Questions?
AUGUST 2, 2023
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485
jbarnhart@edenprairie.org
7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Bloomington, MN 55425
952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning
RE: SUSTAINABLE FEATURES ANALYSIS
ENTITY – MCW FLYING CLOUD,
In accordance with City Code, the proposed development considered all eight sustainable features in accordance with the
Climate Action Plan. Given the small site and nature of the business operation, the design was able to accommodate five of the
eight sustainability feature options.
Item #1: Energy Design Assistance Program: Free, comprehensive service to identify energy and cost savings strategies in new
construction projects 20,000 SF and larger.
Response: N/A – this does not apply as our proposed building falls well below the 20,000 SF.
Item #2: Energy Efficient Buildings: Free efficiency design review for new construction projects 20,000 SF and smaller.
Response: Noted.
Item #3: Green Building Guidelines: Use LEED, B3 Guidelines, or other similar standard as a design tool to assess proposed
building performance. Calculate and report predicted EUI (energy use intensity) for the project.
Response: Noted.
Item #4: Electric Vehicle Charging: Accommodate EV charging in 2% of parking spaces, either through installation at
construction or building to an EV-ready standard. Xcel Energy offers design assistance for new/increased service panel capacity
to support EV charging infrastructure for building occupants.
Response: Mister has previously investigated EV ready parking stalls and revisions to roof structures for solar ready purposes
on other project sites. For the Flying Cloud site specifically, EV charging stations may not be feasible, as 2% of parking spaces
(19 total spaces on site) would equal less than one half of a parking space.
Item #5: Solar-Ready Construction: Consider installing solar at time of construction to offset building energy use. Design and
construction of building should make it feasible to install rooftop solar in the future if not done during construction. Xcel Energy
provides incentives to support installation. MinnPACE offers financing for new construction and existing buildings.
Response: Currently, Mister is unsure if they have the infrastructure to install solar panels.
Item #6: Efficient Appliances/Fixtures: Utilize Energy Star appliances and WaterSense certified fixtures in design.
Response: N/A, as there will be no commercial kitchen appliances within this development.
Item #7: Low VOC Materials: Use low-VOC paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, and carpet in construction.
Response: Noted
Page 2 of 2 952.426.0699 + ISGInc.com
Item #8: Waste Disposal: Hennepin County requires businesses to provide recycling service, pair recycling bins with trash bins,
and label bins.
Response: Noted.
Please contact me at 952.426.0699 or via email at Jeana.Kedrowski@ISGInc.com with any questions or if there is any
additional information we can provide in support of this project.
Sincerely,
Jeana Kedrowski
Project Coordinator
Jeana.Kedrowski@ISGInc.com
Eli Abnet
Project Manager
Eli.Abnet@ISGInc.com