Planning Commission - 10/14/2019APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2019 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette, Balu Iyer
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Matt Bourne, Parks and 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 DeSanctis and Weber were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Iyer to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of September 9, 2019.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
COSTCO FUEL FACILITY EXPANSION (CONTINUED ITEM))
Request for:
Planning Unit Development Concept Review on 18.18 acres
Planning Unit Development District Amendment with Waivers on 18.18
acres
Site Plan Review on 18.18 acres
Julie Anderson, project planner of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, displayed a
PowerPoint and explained the application. The project called for a PUD
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 14, 2019
Page 2
amendment and a site plan review for the expansion of the Costco gas station at
the eastern edge of the facility and on the north of the development. Four new
multi-product dispensers, coming to a total of 8 new fueling stations, an expanded
canopy, one new 40,000-gallon UST and a new controller enclosure would be
constructed to reduce vehicles queues, improve circulation, and produce a more
fuel-efficient purchasing experience. The expansion would be in keeping with the
existing fuel facility, the Costco warehouse, and the surrounding area. The
applicant would abide by the conditions of the staff report.
Mette asked if the attendant station would be completely reconstructed. Anderson
replied this was more of a mechanical equipment enclosure and it would be
constructed and the existing one demolished. Mette noted the new one would
have steel panels, whereas the existing was brick in a style that matched the
pillars under the gas station awning. She urged the applicant to maintain the
current architectural style. Anderson stated the new design was Costco’s current
standard, but the applicant was willing to reevaluate if the City Council found an
issue.
Villarreal asked if the transformer was being moved or expanded and if the site
was amenable to a larger transformer. Anderson replied the transformer would not
be expanded. Villarreal noted this site was across from a large substation that
could accommodate other types of fueling sources, such as DC fast charging, and
it would not be a bad idea to prepare for that. Anderson replied Costco had not
considered that; current plans showed the site remaining a gas station offering
regular, unleaded, and premium gas. Costco had no plans for piloting electric
fueling. Higgins asked if circulation would be improved to avoid vehicles being
lined up without egress in conflict with cross traffic. Anderson replied there
would be no circulation issues to her or Costco’s knowledge due to this redesign;
the intent was to have members stop before exiting the fuel facility.
Pieper asked for metrics for wait times and busy times. Anderson introduced
Costco’s traffic consultant, Chris Teasler of Kittleson and Associates. Teasler
stated there was no planned change in configuration for egress. Pavement
markings would indicate traffic should stop for cross traffic. This was a common
setup for Costco across the fleet. Regarding traffic volume, Costco was a
members-only fuel service, and so no straight line growth in audience would
result. There would be only a nominal increase increased traffic due to increased
demand. Members likely would shop instead of waiting if there was a queue.
Costco envisioned increasing the processing capacity by 50 percent. The average
wait times were variable; traffic analysis looked queues at two peak periods.
Costco anticipated a 30-50 percent decrease in queue length which translated into
30-50 percent decrease in wait time with this proposal.
Mette expressed concern about the layout moving from two- to three-stalls deep
which could cause delays. Teasler replied the design was set up to provide
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 14, 2019
Page 3
additional space of five feet between the second and third dispensers, allowing
cars to pull in and out. Costco adopted a new system for stalls over two deep: an
LED board detects the presence of a car and a symbol turns to green from red
when a stall becomes empty. This plus the presence of gas station attendants
should address this concern. Mette commended the design.
Klima presented the staff report. The Costco Fuel Facility Expansion project was
initially scheduled for the August 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant requested a continuance to September 9, 2019 in order to address staff
concerns regarding internal traffic flow on the east driveway. The applicant
requested a second continuance to October 14, 2019 Planning Commission
meeting. The applicant proposed a fuel facility expansion of the canopy and
addition of four new pump dispensers. There will be no alterations to the principal
Costco building. The applicant addressed the internal traffic flow concern with a
revised plan without altering the east driveway and provided a traffic analysis
report supporting the new fuel facility layout. The applicant was seeking a PUD
amendment with waivers to construct this project and there would be some
parking removal, but the parking exceeded the required number of stalls. Staff
recommended approval.
Farr noted two aerial photos showing the current and original construction and
asked for the timeline. Klima replied to the best of staff’s knowledge there was
not a public hearing on the first expansion and the addition of those pumps. Farr
asked if Costco was not increasing impervious area why the easement was
required. Rue replied this was a Watershed District requirement rather than a City
one. The original station could have been built before the Watershed regulations
went in. Farr asked if the second parking reduction met the City Code minimum,
and Klima replied the parking still exceeded Code requirements.
Mette added she took a quick look at the Code, and all buildings were required to
meet the architectural materials of Class One materials, but this redesign did not
follow that. Klima replied the Code did require a 75:25 ratio of Class I to Class II
materials, but for an accessory structure of this type, the building materials would
need to be consistent and complementary to those materials used in the primary
structure. Staff would continue to work with the applicant to increase the Class I
materials such as brick. Mette reiterated the continuation of the brick as a
preference for this redesign.
MOTION: Iyer moved, seconded by Farr to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
Farr agreed with Mette on having a brick-clad enclosure, urging an oak color to
match the brick. He also underscored Villarreal’s suggestion regarding preparing
for electrical charging stations; Costco should move toward embracing this. Farr
urged the applicant to take this idea back to management and show leadership on
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 14, 2019
Page 4
this question. Villarreal thanked Farr for supporting his suggestion, and agreed
with Farr and Mette on using Class I materials. He explained the difference
between DC-fast charging (seven minutes or less) and conventional charging (up
to 45 minutes). Pieper also urged the applicant to keep the materials as similar to
the current structure as possible.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the
Planning Unit Development Concept Review on 18.18 acres, the Planning Unit
Development District Amendment with Waivers on 18.18 acres, and the Site Plan
Review on 18.18 acres based on plans stamp dated September 23, 2019 and the
information contained in the staff report dated October 3, 2019. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
B. NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING
ADDITION (2019-17)
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.31 acres
Planned Unit Development District Amendment with Waivers on 5.31
acres
Site Plan Review on 5.31 acres
Randy Anhorn, Administrator of Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, presented a
PowerPoint and detailed the application. The land in question, in the northwest
quadrant between Highway 494 and Valley View Road was donated in 2011. The
building’s setback would be 350 feet from Gerard Drive and be open to the
public. The use and development of the land would be limited due to an
agreement between the City and the Minnesota Land Trust. He did not anticipate
further increases in the future. The style attempted to be a Prairie Style/Frank
Lloyd Wright design, in keeping with the architectural integrity of the existing
home, and there was a landscape plan including a rain garden, a cistern for rain
water, screening plantings, buckthorn removal and permeable pavers
accompanying the parking design. A neighborhood meeting was held to explain
the development; one resident attended.
Kirk noted there seemed to be minimal traffic impact with this design. There were
no neighbors in attendance tonight.
Klima presented the planner’s report. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
proposed to construct a 486 square foot addition onto the northwest corner of the
existing building, on the property located at 12800 Gerard Drive just west of
Gordon Drive. The proposed building addition included three office spaces for
existing staff. This project did not include increases to staff or meetings. The
applicant proposed the same building architecture and materials so the addition
would match the existing building. An existing raingarden in the location of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 14, 2019
Page 5
addition would be relocated to the north and east sides of the addition. Staff
recommended approval with conditions.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Villarreal to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Farr commended this low-impact, environmentally sensitive project and
encouraged commissioners and the public to visit the area, called “Discovery
Point.” Mette stated the waiver was well justified as the building would not be
visible from the street. Villarreal noted there was roughly 480 square feet left in
the allowance and asked if there would be new additions. Anhorn replied there
were no specific plans for future additions. He could not put constraints on future
boards but there were no plans for future changes to his knowledge.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Villarreal to recommend approval Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 5.31 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Amendment with Waivers on 5.31 acres, and Site Plan Review on 5.31
acres based on plans stamp dated September 23, 2019 and information contained
in the staff report dated October 3, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Iyer moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.