Planning Commission - 11/13/2023APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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, Manager of Parks and
Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording
Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission member Pieper was absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the minutes of October 23,
2023. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CREW CARWASH
Request for
• Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 1.35 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.35 acres
• Site Plan Review on 1.35 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 13, 2023
Page 2
Jake Stien with Larkin-Hoffman presented a PowerPoint and detailed the
application. This was a family-owned business with 45 locations around the
Midwest. Due to technical difficulties he could not play a short, 25-second video
introducing the business. The business offered both an exterior and interior wash,
with 3-5 minutes average wash time. The building would be a standard brick
façade and uniform signage. The interior wash added 10 minutes on average to
the wash. He displayed the site design showing the movement throughout the site
and handed out an example of the brick. The application asked for PUD flexibility
regarding the impervious surface area, which though was less than the original 64
percent, was still greater than 30 percent, requiring the waiver. The application
also requested a parking setback waiver, and a side-yard setback which would co-
locate the trash enclosure with Starbucks’ trash enclosure.
The application also requested a pylon sign, which had historically been there,
and was currently moved to interior of site due to code setbacks. Stien argued this
sign was critical for visibility and directional purposes. A future interchange was
a possibility at this site. The applicant was working with both Hennepin County
and City of Eden Prairie to address easement and future Right-of-Way needs.
Mette asked describe the staffing levels. Catherine Reiner, of Crew Carwash’s
real estate team, replied there would be 25-30 staff for exterior and 10 more for
the interior service. The intention was to hire within community anywhere from
high school to grad students. Typical applicants ranged from 16-35 years of age.
There would be two-to-three team members working at the exterior, and five-to-
eight working in the interior at one time. Mette asked for and received
confirmation there was adequate parking for staff.
Taylor asked what percentage would be full time, and Reiner replied there were
16-18 full timers for the exterior wash, as the car wash needed people all seven
days of week, day and night, and also nighttime cleanup.
Mette asked if the right-of-way could change the impervious surface calculation,
and asked why pervious pavers/asphalt was not considered. Reiner replied the site
utilized floor heat. This required heavy duty concrete to heat the floor of facilities
to avoid ice and snow issues, as this was year-round business in the water
industry.
Farr asked for a summary of the traffic report. Jerry Jones, engineer, presented the
traffic study comparing the previous Burger King on the site to the carwash. The
result was similar to the previous 92 fewer trips in morning and four fewer trips in
the afternoon. Weber asked what month and day this study was conducted and
Jones replied it was on a Saturday in the spring, at their Maple Grove site. The
numbers were comparable, and the study had compared the peak times between
the Burger King and the carwash. Reiner said these peak times were 10:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 13, 2023
Page 3
Farr asked if the stormwater management, and the reduction of the impervious
surface by a small amount, would comply with all Watershed requirements. Jones
stated the applicant had already submitted documents to and received conditional
approval from Riley Creek Watershed. Farr site asked why the lighting plan
showed three very bright, triple-headed fixtures. Reiner replied there was lighting
throughout the property due to safety, to prevent accidents, based on other site
experience, since the business was open very early and late, and also handling
point of sale with cash and credit card, and also to illuminate queuing and merge
lane, and delivery activities. Stien stated the brighter lights were intentionally
located at the interior to keep lighting low at the perimeter of the site.
Sivilay asked how many parking spaces were requested. Reiner replied there were
three to five stalls. This was a very automated business, with sometimes only two
managers on the property at a time. Taylor asked what percentage of water runoff
would be treated, and Reiner replied the car wash would reuse 35 percent of the
water, which was the norm for all their locations.
Barnhart presented the staff report. The application was a request for an
automated carwash, with three waivers, one increasing the impervious surface
from 30 to 61 percent (the Burger King had been approved at 64 percent).
Another was for a south side setback for the trash enclosure, and this was
supported by staff because it would blend in with the Starbucks’ trash area. The
third waiver was a parking setback waiver of 8 feet rather than 10 feet, also
supported by staff due to the access drive being a unique situation, serving
another property. Staff and the applicant worked together closely, and there was
only one remaining issue: the signage. The challenge was the overall aim of the
Sign Code versus the letter of the Code compliance. He displayed the proposed
pylon and the building sign. At least two wall signs and one freestanding sign
would be seen from nearly all angles at all times, leading to an excess of visible
signage. He recommended removal, relocation of the pylon sign to the southern
side of the building, or modification of the tower signage.
Staff recommended approval of the application subject to those comments.
Weber wanted traffic numbers at this specific site. Schulze stated the point of the
traffic study was to look at the trip generation at their site and compare to the
Burger King, which was on the site previously, with almost the same traffic
generation, at peak times that coincided with their traffic study prototype in
Maple Gove. Weber stated this did not really answer his question. Kirk asked
Schulze to comment on the queuing. Schulze stated there was ample space for
queuing for a carwash and there was no concern on his end.
Farr noted the exterior wash would be pulled through by a chain, with presumably
no ability to stop the cars being discharged, and asked if there could be instances
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 13, 2023
Page 4
of backup of cars exiting the Dairy Queen or Starbucks. Schulze replied signal
timing was generous at that intersection, preventing congestion. Farr asked for
and received confirmation the signal could detect a backup. Internal traffic would
merge or take turns with interior customers. Reiner added the interior wash
building would be on a large conveyor belt, and after the wash the customer
would re-enter the vehicle and drive out under their own power. Both tunnels
have technology that would shut down the belts simultaneously. She had never
seen a problem causing such a shutdown in eight years. Mette asked if conveyor
belt went all the way to the end of the building. Reiner replied this would be more
like a roll-out, ending before the garage doors.
Grote asked if enhancements to the intersection in the future could affect this
development. Schulze replied there could be a full separated interchange. Mette
asked for and received confirmation the canopy would be conforming, and
attached to the building.
Farr asked for and receive confirmation the landscaping was of sufficient height
to shield car headlights. Barnhart added staff did not support trees along Highway
5 due to existing utilities. Farr asked for and received confirmation the proposed
companion shed attached to the trash enclosure would not set a precedent with an
outbuilding which was not presently allowed by Code. Barnhart explained this
was not exterior storage for the facility, but a fully enclosed building, and would
match the facility. Farr asked how the pylon sign should be handled by the
commission. Barnhart replied staff recommended the applicant remove that from
the site plan before going to the City Council for review, but the commission
could also give a recommendation regarding this in its motion. The issue was its
proximity to other signage on the site.
Jim Maki, resident at Terry Pine Drive for 20 years, stated the neighboring Dairy
Queen was busy and the nearby cul-de-sac was often backed up. Also, people
going north on Fuller often went through the red light, and his wife and neighbors
saw many traffic problems, and thus were worried about the intersection
becoming even more busy.
Farr stated for the record there was an email from a resident at Topview Road
concerned about possible increase in traffic at the intersection at Terry Pine and
Highway 4 as well.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
Mette stated she supported the waivers, despite her concerns. Kirk found the
waivers to be reasonable. Farr summarized the issue of the pylon signage. Kirk
agreed the pylon signage should be discussed. He understood its present location
was to be visible from Highway 5, and he was conflicted about its possible move
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 13, 2023
Page 5
to the south end of the site, as it was conforming, but Eden Prairie had always
fought “sign proliferation.” Farr agreed, and noted two sides of the tower were
visible from any angle, and perhaps this could be where signage was reduced.
Sherwood and Taylor agreed there was too much signage. Grote suggested
moving the tower to the entrance. Mette stated she agreed with the staff report
that the issue was this sign’s proximity to the other signs, and she suggested that
the applicant work with staff to find a solution, either moving the pylon or the
tower. Kirk replied this could be an arbitrary decision on the commission’s part,
yet this sign was conforming. Mette asked for staff’s guidance on this issue as to
whether or not the signage conformed to the Code.
Barnhart’s reply was two-fold: Each ordinance has a stated purpose and intent,
and regulations intended to mesh and support the goals and intent of the Code.
This was a situation where they did not. Eden Prairie’s maximum free standing
limit was 20 feet, but there was no height limit for a wall sign. The tower signage
is at 35 feet, and in close proximity to the freestanding sign. Wall signage on the
tower plus the free standing sign was the disconnect. The goal of the sign
regulation was “the public was not in danger, annoyed, nor distracted by unsafe,
disorderly, indiscriminate, or unnecessary” signage. In staff’s view, three signs on
the tower plus the free standing pylon sign created a distraction. The simplest
solution was to relocate the freestanding sign. There was limited space at the
southern part of the site, so he understood the challenge.
Farr took a straw poll: 7-1 (Kirk) found there was sufficient signage on the
property and the pylon had to be addressed.
Sivilay asked what the staffing minimum for shifts is. Reiner replied the
minimum for the exterior service was two, and the minimum for the interior work
was five. Sivilay asked for comparables with parking, as he was concerned about
how much parking was required, and Reiner replied the Wayzata location had less
than six parking spaces. She added employees often did not have cars, and cycled
to work, or were dropped off, so staff parking was not an issue. Travis Smith
clarified the vacuums might show up on the maps as parking spots but were not;
there would be no vacuum stalls in this design. Farr stated he suspected if the
applicant were required to provide a proof of parking plan, this would entail
placing a parking space in one of the multiple drive-in lanes, if there were three
lanes available, or between the buildings in the stacking lanes to avoid creating
street parking. Stien replied the site had reduced from four to three lanes. There
were a number of different solutions if there should be a need for more staff
parking, and the applicant would work with their engineering team on a drop-off
site and shuttle, for example. He stated the applicant would work with staff. Mette
stated there was a loading lane which could possibly be used for employee
parking overflow. She had no huge concerns; there was ample loading within the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 13, 2023
Page 6
site, and it was probably the Dairy Queen’s queuing that was overloading the cul-
de-sac. She did not foresee greater problems than Burger King had caused.
Farr stated he wished to acknowledge the residents’ concerns, and stressed that
the green timing on the intersection be a part of the mitigation. He asked for and
received confirmation from Schulte that a long queue waiting at the green light
would not be an issue. Discussion followed on traffic at the corner, primarily
caused by the Dairy Queen. Farr advised the applicant to utilize signage to
distinguish this business from the Starbucks. Kirk and Farr commended the
project, as did Mette.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval for a
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.35 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 1.35 acres; and a Site Plan Review
on 1.35 acres as represented in the November 13, 2023 staff report including
pylon signage resolution to be addressed with staff and based on plans stamp
dated November 13, 2023. Motion carried 8-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
Barnhart stated he had distributed the tentative Planning Commission calendar,
subject to the City Council’s approval of the calendar in January. He added the
second meeting in May had been shifted to Tuesday due to the Memorial Day
holiday, and with only one meeting planned in November and in December, 2024.
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.