Planning Commission - 06/14/2021APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr,
Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette,
William Gooding, Robert Taylor
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Absent was commission member Markos.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of May 24,
2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HOLIDAY CONVENIENCE STORE AND AUTO CARE WORLD
SERVICE CENTER
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.96 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.96 acres
• Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 2 lots on 3.96 acres
Jack Emmerman of Stantec, the civil engineer, displayed a PowerPoint and
detailed the application. This was a joint project with Holiday Stationstore and
Auto Care World. He displayed the initial and revised site plans. The revised site
plan addressed the traffic concerns at Breezy Way, decreased the parking,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 2
removed the spine road, increased the amount of green space, and added
landscape elements. Waivers were being requested for minimum lot size and
width (splitting the lot at the driveway instead of in half), parking lot island size,
parking setback, tree replacement, and the fueling pump canopy. Emmerman
displayed and explained the proposed grading plan along Breezy Way and the
grading limits to the southwest of the site.
Frank Jones of Holiday Companies explained the partnership of Holiday in this
project. Holiday was a local company started in 1928. This was not a partnership
with a “gas station” but with a store offering healthy food and fuel alternatives,
including EV capabilities, and needed conveniences.
Casey Wheaton of Holiday Companies addressed the canopy design. Holiday’s
corporate standard did not include the connected fuel canopy required by Eden
Prairie Code, and this was due to safety and cost. It was also prohibitively
difficult to bring the canopy to the interior of the lot. A “dive-in” or “head-in”
design increased security rather than have the lines parallel to the building. The
pitched roof requirement was not consistent with the other businesses in the area,
which also did not have pitched roofs, and such a design would add mass to the
structure. Grading on the site drove the layout to have the fueling pumps face the
interior, not the exterior, of the site, which would also dissipate the noise.
Mette asked if this station would serve semi-trucks, and Wheaton replied it was
not; it would service local traffic, and delivery trucks and other single-frame box
trucks. Mette asked Wheaton to address the EV potential in this development.
Wheaton replied it was a Holiday standard to prime conduits to support any future
EV development. The intent was to have the infrastructure in place for a quick
and easy future changeout. Mette asked if there was an EV stall in this plan, and
Wheaton replied there would be three.
Taylor asked what analysis was run to determine this was the best location for this
development. Wheaton replied this was a site Holiday had watched for a number
of years. It had a sufficiently high traffic count, and the square footage was
sufficient for the building and to generate revenue. The added lot size and its
irregularity prohibited it from working only as a convenience store; a multi-
business option was better.
DeSanctis asked how this development was communicated to Eden Prairie
residents. Aaron Waller with RJ Ryan Construction replied three separate
neighborhood meetings were held to address community concerns in 2020 and
2021. Farr asked for and received confirmation the gas station and convenience
store would be a 24/7 operation. Farr asked if the two heritage trees set to be lost
on the current plan would be saved. Waller replied one of the two could be saved,
and Jones added some of the trees were in a utility easement and could not be
replaced. Farr asked for a summary of EPA, et cetera, regulations for gas stations.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 3
Wheaton replied gas stations had to follow EPA, MPCA and federal regulations
for vapor recovery (wherein gasses are siphoned from the tanks and returned to
the fueling truck), monthly monitoring checks of the tanks, double-wall fiberglass
tanks with monitors to prevent leakage, line leak detection, and spill overflow
reduction standards. Farr asked if the northernmost retaining wall was on a
neighbor’s property. Jones replied it was not, but was on the development
property.
Kirk asked if the traffic flow onto Breezy Way, which was a private road,
required discussions or an agreement with the property owner for maintenance.
Jones replied the owner of that parcel also owned the road, and the rights were
already existing for this parcel.
Klima presented the staff report. The property was currently zoned commercial
and was guided as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The site plan complied
with the landscape requirements for a parcel of this size and mass of the proposed
buildings. It also met the tree replacement requirements for the trees that would be
removed, but would not fulfill the 705 caliper inches requirement, and staff
recommended denial of this waiver request. Staff recommended approval of the
remaining waivers. Staff recommended a revision of the backside of the car wash
prior to City Council review of the project. Staff received letters and emails from
residents which were attached in the staff report.
Gooding asked if a traffic study had been done. Rue replied traffic studies were
done in this area previously. Traffic volumes included the Breezy Way connection
and previous pandemic traffic counts (from 2016) with a forecast to 2020 and
2023, with and without the development. There was an issue with the access on
Hennepin Town Road being at capacity with this development in peak hours, so
the Breezy Way connection was added. Gooding observed the sightlines on
Hennepin Town Road toward Breezy Way were limited as he drove and observed
the road. Rue replied trees could be trimmed, and Gooding stated some of the
sightline obstacles were due to the curve in the road. Rue replied that would have
to be resolved whether or not this development was approved. Gooding added
Breezy Way was private and asked if it could handle the extra traffic. Rue replied
when this was developed in 1999 there was an accommodation for a commercial
development that was never built and for subsequent proposals, so the additional
traffic had been planned. Only a maintenance agreement remained to be
implemented.
Mette asked the status of the existing condition of the intersection of Hennepin
Town Road and Breezy Way. Rue replied the east and west approach to this
access would be there. The City had expectations that any improvements needed
by the applicant and approved by MnDOT would need to be implemented. There
would also need to be a three-quarter access put in if traffic returned to pre-
pandemic levels, and that was a condition of approval for this development. Mette
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 4
asked if a gas station could come up with a design without waivers, it would be
allowed. Klima replied both a gas station and an automotive repair business
would be allowed, and a PUD would not be necessary if it met zoning code
requirements, but a Preliminary Plat and a Site Review would be.
Mette asked for more details of the operations at the automotive service station.
Steven Renner, owner of Auto Care World and Eden Prairie resident, stated he
and his wife looked at over 60 properties before deciding on their current home.
Mike Schofner, partner in Auto Care World, stated it would have a 10 bay facility
with the ability to repair 20 automobiles daily, of all makes and models, including
EV vehicles. It would employ ASE certified and qualified auto technicians and
experienced managers and service writers to run a smooth operation. It would
purchase parts from local suppliers and hire local residents and businesses,
maintain a high standard of cleanliness, with the vehicles kept clean and groomed
and stored inside. The service bay doors would be shut during operating hours to
limit noise pollution, and electric impacts and tools would also be used. Rooftop
screening would block view of the utilities, and there were plans to install an EV
charging station in the future. This was an owner-operated business, not a
corporate business or a franchise, and Schofner would be onsite daily. He had 25
years of experience and his and Renner’s intent was to create a facility used and
appreciated by the community.
Mette asked the need for 70 stalls if there was no vehicle outside storage.
Schofner replied there would be 15 employees, 10 loaner cars onsite, and at least
25-35 spots for traffic in and out. DeSanctis asked if the MPCA regulated the
disbursement of pollutants in the vicinity of the filling stations, if there had been
modeling done with carbon monoxide and dioxide during peak traffic times.
Wheaton replied modeling had been done, and the EPA and MPCA had
regulations on this, but he would have to get back with specific metrics. Renner
added the carbon monoxide would be mitigated via tubes running through the
ventilation system when the bay doors were closed.
Taylor asked the percentage of traffic increase was anticipated. Jones apologized
that the traffic engineer was unable to attend, but the numbers were available in
the traffic report submitted with the application. He added even in a no-build
scenario this intersection would be an E and F rating. Taylor asked if there was
any data on accidents between Breezy Way and Hennepin Town Road. Rue
replied this was not in the traffic study, and he had no data on that.
Higgins asked how snow removal would be handled. Schofner replied he had no
specific plan but there were areas onsite to push the snow; otherwise it could be
trucked out.
Farr asked if the loss of parking to the south in a lot not on the property would be
handled. Klima replied there were several previous development proposals
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 5
reviewed by the City Council but never constructed. The parking requirements
were verified for the current and future uses, but she could not speak to any
discussions between property owners. Farr asked for clarification of permitted
uses in this zoning district for automotive repair. Klima explained the City Code
provided for two types of auto repair: the first was minor repairs—oil changes,
engine work, new tires and windshield wiper blades, et cetera—and major repairs
which included body work. Minor auto repair as stated in the application was
allowed in this commercial zoning district. Farr asked if the heritage tree in the
utility easement was a danger to the underground utilities. Rue replied it was, and
the City wanted no trees planted in utility easement due to the danger of roots.
Farr asked for a clear definition of the proposed (future) three-quarter intersection
design. Rue replied it would be a three-quarter access (left-in, right-in, but no left-
out) off the main entrance at the intersection between Breezy Way and Pioneer
Trail. The design had not been determined and would have to be worked out with
Hennepin County. Farr encouraged the use of a flashing yellow turn sign.
Beth Butell, of 9090 Lee Drive, Jay Stankiewicz, of 10016 Shadow Pond Drive,
and Alicia Reeves, of 9673 Belmont Lane, spoke against the application, stating
they had met each other because of the proposed development. Stankowitz stated
he had submitted a detailed statement objecting to the application. He thanked
staff for their professionalism and courtesy. He added neighbors fully welcomed a
commercial business that enhanced the local community, conserved the
environment, and ensured the safety and well being of the residents, but this
development did not do that. Ten bays with a 24/7 gas station and a car wash was
a large development for this location, which could not support it and had
townhomes within 70 feet, and the waivers and the alternative entrance bore that
out. It was also not needed with a Walgreens within walking distance, and two
others nearby gas stations, and a service center near four other options within a
five-minute drive. What was missing was a consideration of what the residents in
the area needed: service for residents in the immediate area with minimal impact
and consideration of safety, and mitigation of existing traffic congestion. The
owner was not a neighbor, and the immediate residents were not the targeted
customers of this development.
Butell added she was a 30-year resident opposed to this development. She stated
she had not received noticed of the public outreach meetings. Another gas station
was proposed in the past, but was denied, and she envisioned a bank or a coffee
shop instead, as her home would face this development. The developer had
minimized the traffic and safety issues, and she was not sure the nearby seniors
were aware of this development, many of whom were pedestrians. She opposed
approval of any waivers. She considered a rental-retail mix to be more appropriate
for the location.
Reeves stated she also served on her Association condo and master boards and
was an 18-year resident of Eden Prairie. She wished to conserve her community,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 6
the privacy, the environment with the wildlife and the trees, and the safety. She
was concerned about traffic in the area which also had two bus stops and a nearby
day care. She considered this development too large for its context.
Tricia Maher, of 9778 Belmont Lane, stated this development might make her
leave her home. She stated the traffic would come up the private road into her
development and bring gasoline trucks with it. She feared for the deterioration of
their neighborhood atmosphere and the burden of maintaining that private road.
Bruce Baron, of 9781 Belmont Lane, stated he had 30 years of experience in the
City of Minneapolis Paving Department, with 20 years as a supervisor. There was
a program to repave every street in Minneapolis and never in 30 years had he or
his crew put a driveway onto a commercial street from a residential property,
unless it had been grandfathered in. Breezy Way was a class five residential road,
whereas Hennepin Town Road was a commercial road. Heavy truck traffic would
destroy Breezy Way. Holiday was now owned by Circle-K (which also owned 7-
11) and was no longer a local business owned by the Erickson family, and Circle-
K wanted to take business away from Speedway, a local business. This
development was not needed.
Amina Mirza, of 9704 Belmont Lane, also expressed concern for safety due to
traffic in the vicinity of children, some less than five years old, playing in yards
along these roads that had no sidewalks. She also believed the private road would
be damaged, a road for which residents already paid $350.00 to $360.00 in HOA
dues. She also feared pollution would affect the children.
Gerry Martin, of 9853 Lee Drive, said she believed Eden Prairie was well planned
and well zoned, and thanked the commissioners and staff for their work. She
found the intensity of this development, with its 10 bays, out of keeping with
those approved in the past. Also, none previous had a commercial development
abutting a residential area. The residences predated this development and all
previous on this location that had been denied.
Margaret Reed, 11404 Creek Ridge Drive, stated she lived a mile away from this
development. Her children played outside at the nearby day care and she feared
for their safety, as well as for the other children who attended in the summer and
who took trips to the park. She was afraid those trips could be canceled and
wanted to ensure the safety of her children while she and her husband were at
work. She urged the commission to rethink the size and scope of the development
in this community.
Jeff and Paula La Frenierre, of 9682 Belmont Lane, expressed concern about the
safety of moving from Breezy Way and Belmont Lane onto Hennepin Town
Road. These were difficult left turns. They agreed the sightlines were obscured,
and added speeders on Hennepin Town Road were dangerous at Belmont Lane or
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 7
Breezy Way. There was the risk of increased traffic accidents. They found it
problematic to approve this application before this question was considered. Their
residential area did not have sidewalks, so pedestrians and children walked and
rode bikes in the streets.
Paul Gherity, of 9796 Belmont Lane, stated the road easements were planned in
1999 but there were no access roads to the commercial lot. Both roads were
maintained by the residents who exclusively used it for 21 years; commercial
developments did not pay for it. Behind the proposed car repair shop there was a
tall hill surrounded by trees and shrubs which he feared would be impacted.
Carving out the hill and taking out the foliage could make the road unstable.
Mario Cocchiarella, of 1128 Harmon Place and owner of Maplewood
Development and Construction, stated his company had put in over 10,000
developments and had a lot of experience. He stated this property was purchased
by him and paid all the past unpaid taxes. He stated the neighborhood should not
regard this development as a surprise. There were similar waivers as requested
today for the structures and developments of the surrounding residences. This site
had not been developed in 20 years and was in disrepair without one credible
tenant. Because someone was the first to live in an area did not give that person or
persons the right to set the future. There was always something in the area before
someone else arrived; there were trees removed for the houses of the residents
who came tonight, and these were tough and unpopular decisions. This was the
third gas station/convenience store proposed for this site in 20 years.
James Sillery, of 9676 Belmont Lane, stated he found the developers to be
arrogant and uncommunicative, and not interested in responding at the public
meetings. The developer did not reach out to the housing developments and was
not interested in what the residents had to say. He thanked the commission for
listening to the residents.
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
Kirk stated Mayor Case wrote a letter on the City’s webpage of the responsibility
of the City on development, and he read part of it aloud for the public. Kirk added
it was important to understand the commission didn’t necessarily “want” a
development but had to judge whether or not it was a good fit. Everyone on the
commission was a volunteer. He urged passionate residents to run for commission
seats and get involved.
DeSanctis stated he was not satisfied with the applicant’s answer to outreach
efforts and heard tonight the community did not think it had been listened to. He
urged more dialogue between commercial developments and the community.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 8
Mette stated this was a difficult decision. By right, a gas station and a repair shop
were both allowed, but the intent was to minimize the impact on adjoining
residential uses, and she found the impact to be negative. This was not a
neighborhood commercial use in her opinion, and if this was not approved this
location would eventually be developed. A restaurant, which would be more
popular for residents, could also be a traffic concern, however. Any use could
incur more traffic and there was no great solution to this. She was concerned
about the proximity of the automotive repair shop to the townhomes, and perhaps
also noise from the car wash. Ultimately, she did have to ask if the use was
appropriate.
Taylor stated the commission heard about traffic studies and traffic modeling, but
after hearing from the residents he had not heard any studies on pedestrian safety.
He wanted more information about pedestrian safety modeling.
Gooding stated the traffic issue was unique in this case, because of the rights to tie
into Breezy Way rather than City streets. This opened up the private road of
Belmont Lane as well, and he struggled with that. He also did not see a good
solution.
Higgins stated the commission needed to be mindful of what was already in place,
such as the nearby senior residence and other housing being proposed in the area.
Her concern was for the residential quality of life but this site needed
development and was eventually going to be developed.
Kirk added in Eden Prairie everything that was easy to develop had been
developed, and only difficult decisions remained. He had no problem with the
proposed use, except for the traffic issue. The reality was this land would cause
more traffic, but the problem of Breezy Way and Belmont Lane was a problem
for him.
DeSanctis noted a number of threads in the discussion: there was no gathering
place for this community. A gas stations created movement of anonymous people
with no vested interest in the area. The future was not internal combustion
engines, and he saw no investment in green technology other than a future EV
charging station. He thought a line needed to be drawn.
Mette asked if staff knew what kind of access agreement the developer had. Rue
replied the easement agreement included only Breezy Way and Bridge Hill
Terrace, not Belmont Lane.
Farr stated there was a traffic problem in this area that was not caused by this
developer. There was no strong mitigation plan as a part of this proposal. A gas
station was a permitted use and could fit in a neighborhood-commercial zone, but
this type of station was not neighborhood-oriented. This was marketed poorly in
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 9
this case. The convenience store could be a good amenity and competition with
the Walgreens was fine, and it was still possible to make a profit selling gas. He
did not believe a 24/7 operation was consistent with a neighborhood. The
automotive repair and the car wash were also a use that fit, but the car wash could
contribute noise to the neighborhood. He understood the safety concerns and
wished to be proactive on this. He did not think the City had improperly zoned
this parcel, but the intensity of this development was a problem. He also did not
favor taking down heritage trees and stated he was torn on this application. He
saw no traffic solution yet that was a good plan.
Pieper stated he could echo many of the commission members’ comments. He
was concerned about the automotive repair shop. When he visited the site he saw
how easy it was to move too fast into the turn. Kirk stated there needed to be a
traffic solution before he could support this development. Farr commented on the
stacking queue near Kowalski’s and another Walgreens and asked if a stop light
and crosswalks could be put into this development. He also preferred to have a
firm traffic plan for this application. Otherwise he was firmly in favor of this plan.
Mette concurred with Farr’s comments that it was not the use, but the intensity of
it, that made commission members hesitate.
DeSanctis stated he was not enthusiastic about this project and urged reorienting
developments around sustainability. Gooding stated he shared DeSanctis’s
remarks about involving the community. There could be changes to the traffic that
the community could get behind. He could not vote for the total package tonight.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend denial of the Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 3.96 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 3.96 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres,
Preliminary Plat of two lots on 3.96 acres based on plans stamped dated April 16,
2021 and the staff report dated June 11, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
B. CROSSTOWN CORE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.0 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres
• Zoning Change from OFC, Rural and C-HWY to Industrial on 5.0 acres
• Site Plan Review on 5.0 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 2 parcels into 1 lot on 5.0 acres
Eric Miller, civil engineer for Sambatek, and Ben Krsnak, of Hempel Real Estate,
displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The project was located in
the Golden Triangle between Highways 62, 212, and 169 in a current overflow
parking lot, as a former restaurant site. The site plan called for a 62,024 square
foot building with 147 parking stalls, and a setback waiver along Flying Cloud
Drive was requested. The primary entrances to the building would be along the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 10
southeast and southwest corners. A robust landscape plan included the planting of
shade, ornamental and evergreen trees and shrubs, and a waiver was requested for
this due to the planting density on site. Miller displayed the elevations and
explained the architecture and materials.
DeSanctis asked if the City arborist had been consulted, and Miller replied he had;
several large trees were being saved. DeSanctis expressed concern that the
evergreens might not survive; he suggested a drought-tolerant species instead.
Taylor asked what engineering controls were in place around the docking bays for
safety. Miller replied the project would have to comply with building codes but he
knew of no specific measures; he offered to look into this. Farr asked why the
driveway widths varied. Miller replied the 25-foot drive would be reviewed as it
was probably too narrow. Pieper asked how close this project was to the light rail
stop, and Krsnak replied it was a half-mile. There were no sidewalks, but a bike
trail might go in.
Klima presented the staff report. The project would construct a 62,024 square foot
speculative industrial building at 10250 Crosstown Circle and 6534 Flying Cloud
Drive on parcels totaling five acres: one including a vacant restaurant and the
second including a surface parking lot. The property was currently zoned Office,
Rural, and Highway Commercial, and the applicant requested approval to rezone
the property to Industrial (I-2), consistent with the guiding in the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicant anticipated a mix of uses including manufacturing, warehouse
and office. Tree replacement requirements were being met. Staff supported the
landscape waiver and recommended approval of the application.
DeSanctis asked the future plan for Flying Cloud Drive, which was a sinuous
route without sidewalks. Rue replied it was planned to be reconstructed in the
2020s but was pushed back to the 2030s. Mette asked what parking setback had
previously been approved for United Properties, and Klima replied that setback
was 30-35 feet. There were similar setbacks along Flying Cloud Drive and this
was not out of character. Farr speculated the mechanical room was also an
electrical room and suggested this be screened.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
Taylor stated the City was still required to maintain the area, but the current
location of the restaurant had become a dumping ground. Miller replied his firm
had security patrolling the site but it had to constantly remove refuse from the
site. The fire department turned down their request to have the building burned
down as a training. Breaking ground soon would help solve the problem.
DeSanctis commended this plan to revitalize this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2021
Page 11
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 5 acres, Zoning Change from OFC,
Rural and C-HWY to Industrial on 5.0 acres, Site Plan Review on 5 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 2 parcels into 1 lot on 5.0 acres based on plans stamp dated
June 3, 2021 and the staff report dated June 10, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.