Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2021-76 - Holiday Convenience Store & Auto Care World Service Center- Denial of Applications for PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review, Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat - 09/21/2021CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-76 RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATIONS OF R.J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW WITH WAIVERS, SITE PLAN, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED HOLIDAY CONVENIENCE STORE AND AUTO CARE WORLD SERVICE CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, on January 11, 2021, the City of Eden Prairie received from R.J. Ryan Construction (the "Applicant"), a land use development application requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Concept Plan Review, a PUD District Review with waivers, a Site Plan Review, and a Preliminary Plat (the "Applications") for the proposed project known as Holiday and Auto Care World, to be located on approximately 3.96 acres of land at the northwest comer of the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project proposed a 5,200 square foot gas station/convenience store with 16 gas pump stations and car wash and an 11,280 square foot auto repair facility; and WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Neighborhood Commercial ("N-COM") Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Applications on June 14, 2021 and voted unanimously to recommend denial of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan, Aspire Eden Prairie 2040, was adopted on October 1, 2019 ("Comprehensive Plan"); and WHEREAS, Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 11 contains the City's zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40, includes a process and criteria for approval of PUDs; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1, allows a PUD applicant to request a concept review to have the general feasibility of a PUD proposal considered by the Planning Commission and the Council; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.40, Subdivision 11 lists the following findings necessary for approval of a PUD: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. Any exceptions to the standard requirements of this chapter and Chapter 12 of this Code are justified by the design of the development. D. The PUD is of composition and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit, and the PUD shall be consistent with an approved PUD Concept. WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.03 Subdivision 6.E provides standards and provisions that must be evaluated by the City when considering approval of a Site Plan; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 12 contains the City's subdivision ordinance and includes design standards and criteria for evaluating a preliminary plat application; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Design Guidelines on December 6, 2016, which apply to all proposed developments in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Applications for the Project at its meeting on August 17, 2021. The City Council considered all of the information presented by the Applicant before the Planning Commission and the Council, the staff report, and citizen comments submitted prior to and at the public hearings, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact for denial of the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2021, the Applicant submitted a revised site plan to replace the original site plan considered by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2021 and the City Council on August 17, 2021. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the following Findings of Fact and Decision are hereby adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT I. Planned Unit Development Review 1. The purpose of the City's PUD ordinance is to: (1) Encourage a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land in the City; (2) Allow variety in the types of environment available to the people of the City; 2 (3) Encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled common open space through the distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible; and ( 4) Provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 12 (relating to Subd.s) of this Code while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. (City Code § 11.40, subd. 4) Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan 2. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.A, requires that the Council find that the Project is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the plan "seeks to promote balanced growth and retain an appropriate mix of land uses while enhancing housing opportunities and preserving natural areas to ensure that investment and growth is both economically and environmentally sustainable." 3.1. The Project proposes two-auto intensive land uses on the property, a gas station and a vehicle service and repair business. The Project proposes 71 parking stalls, 15 employees, and 10 loaner cars onsite. The design of the Project and expected intensity of use is in conflict with surrounding residential uses and creates issues with traffic volumes and circulation in and around the Project. The Project does not result in appropriate mix of land uses and is in conflict with the overall land-use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The intensity of the Project increases potential negative impacts to the surrounding residential uses, including increased traffic, noise, and safety concerns. 4. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan provides several transportation goals. Transportation Goal 2 is to "[p ]provide a safe and efficient roadway system that balances mobility, access, and the diverse needs of transportation system users." 4.1. The Project is in conflict with Transportation Goal 2 because it does not contain traffic control improvements to accommodate roadway capacity and reduce delays. Applicant's own traffic report identifies and acknowledges that the main entrance into the site is designed such that it is likely to create traffic congestion and queuing issues within the site for the proposed gas station/convenience store, the auto service center, and the existing multi- tenant commercial building. These issues conflict with the access spacing guidelines contained in Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan and will negatively impact the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road and create traffic delays. 3 5. Transportation Goal 6 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "[p]rovide a transportation system that supports the economic vitality and prosperity of the City and the region." 5.1. The Project is in conflict with Transportation Goal 6. The proposed traffic flow from the Property does not support the economic vitality and prosperity of the City because it does not provide for efficient connections to the broader transportation system. The traffic report provided by the Applicant identifies and acknowledges that during the PM peak, the eastbound and westbound movements operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F and queuing is expected to frequently extend from Pioneer Trail beyond the Project's entrance on Hennepin Town Road, which will necessarily force vehicles entering and exiting the Project to wait for adequate gaps in the south-bound traffic flow in order to access into and out of the site. This will impact access to other businesses in the area and exacerbate current traffic issues on Hennepin Town Road, which connects to the broader transportation system in the area. 6. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan states that collector streets are the City's greatest responsibility, as they provide a critical link between local streets, which are designed for property access, and minor arterials, which are designed for mobility. Collector streets have an emphasis on access and mobility. Hennepin Town Road is classified as a collector street. The design of the project intensifies traffic congestion that will impact Hennepin Town Road and hinder mobility to principal and minor arterials. Desirable and Unified Environment 7. To approve a PUD, City Code§ 11.40, subd. 11.B, requires that the Council find that the Project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. 8. The internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the two proposed businesses-the gas station/convenience store and the auto repair facility-is indirect and inefficient due to a retaining wall that separates the buildings. The proposed circulation also requires vehicles to move between uses on the site in a way that conflicts with vehicles that are trying to enter or exit the site. The Project will also provide access to the multi-tenant commercial building on the adjacent property; however, the traffic report identifies and acknowledges that the design of the access will create traffic issues, such as queuing on the site and queuing on Hennepin Town Road, for all three buildings. 9. Neighbors of the proposed Project gave concrete factual testimony about how the Project will exacerbate existing traffic conditions on Hennepin Town Road approaching its intersection with Pioneer Trail. The Council finds that this testimony about the existing traffic conditions is credible and accurate. The primary factual information presented by residents is summarized as follows: 4 • Hennepin Town Road is already heavily trafficked because it is routinely used as an alternative to Highway 169. • Pre-pandemic, southbound Hennepin Town Road along the proposed Project access points backed up beyond Belmont Lane daily during the P.M. Peak hour. • The heavy peak-time traffic already causes significant delays for residents turning to and from Hennepin Town Road to Breezy Way and Belmont Lane. 10. The Applicant's traffic report states that the Project is anticipated to generate 3,489 daily trips, which is nearly double the current daily trips generated by the existing multi-tenant use (671 daily trips) and the Walgreens located across the street from the Project's proposed main access point (1,201 daily trips). Given the existing traffic congestion in the area of the Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail intersection, the Project's generation of 3,489 more daily trips will cause an unacceptable level of increased congestion. 11. According to testimony of a representative of the proposed gas station/convenience store at the Planning Commission hearing, even in a "no build" scenario the traffic Level of Service (LOS) rating for the Hennepin Town Road/Breezy Way intersection is currently an E or F rating. This intensive development will necessarily further degrade the level of service, thereby making traffic conditions much worse. 12. Through an easement, the Project has access rights over Breezy Way and Bridgehill Terrace. Breezy Way services the adjoining residential neighborhood and provides access to Hennepin Town Road. Due to the design of the site and the amount of traffic the uses will generate, access to and from Hennepin Town Road via Breezy Way is proposed by the Applicant to alleviate some of the trips using the main entrance to the site off Hennepin Town Road. Use of Breezy Way as an access point impacts the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing traffic on the private road. 13. Instead of taking Breezy Way directly to and from Hennepin Town Road, it is reasonable to anticipate that traffic will attempt to access the Project via Belmont Lane, a private street that connects with Breezy Way and also leads to Hennepin Town Road. The access easement referenced in Finding 12 does not provide the Project with access rights over Belmont Lane. The Applicant's proposed traffic control measures to limit traffic using Belmont Lane is not sufficient to ensure that no traffic from the Project will use Belmont Lane. 14. Concerns that are not satisfactorily alleviated by the proposed design include safety concerns with commercial traffic in the neighborhood, including gasoline trucks, and long-term maintenance of both private streets given the increase in traffic. Breezy Way and Belmont Lane are not designed to handle increased traffic volumes that will likely result from this development. 5 15. A school bus stop is located at the intersection of Breezy Way and Hennepin Town Road, and there is a daycare across the street. The increased traffic resulting from the Project will pose additional safety issues to children and parents as they pick up and drop off at the bus stop and the daycare. 16. The Project will further have impacts outside of its own boundaries because of the noise that will be generated by the 24-hour gas station and the auto repair business. The proposed auto repair business in particular is located only 60-7 5 feet from homes to the north. Noise from the repair business, including mechanical equipment necessary to service the vehicles, will likely not be contained within the site and will negatively impact the peace and welfare of the neighboring residents. 17. The Project is not designed in such a manner to form a desirable and uniform environment within its own boundaries because it presents unavoidable impacts to neighboring residential uses, including negative impacts related to traffic, noise, pollution, and safety. Justifications for Exceptions to Standard Requirements 18. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.C, requires that the Council find that any exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 are justified by the design of the development. 19. The proposed Project requests waivers to the following standard requirements of Chapter 11: A. Minimum Lot Size: City Code § 11.03, subd. 2.B (Table 4) requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres in the N-COM District. The proposed lot for the auto service garage is 1.84 acres. The Applicant requests a waiver to allow the 1.84 acre lot. B. Minimum Lot Width: City Code § 11.03, subd. 2.B (Table 4) requires a minimum lot width at the right-of-way line of 200 feet in the N-COM District. The Applicant requests a waiver to allow the proposed lot for the auto service garage to have 160 feet of lot width along Hennepin Town Road. C. Parking Setback: City Code§ 11.03, subd. 3.H.5(b) requires a 10-foot parking setback from side and rear lot lines. The Applicant requests a waiver (i) to reduce the setback across from the auto service garage to 2.5 feet from the side lot line; and (ii) to reduce the setback for the parallel parking stalls on the north side of the convenience store to 5 feet from the lot line. D. Fueling Pump Canopy -Location: For gasoline/convenience stores in the N-COM District, City Code§ 11.03, subd. 2.A.14(b) requires that "[p]ump canopies shall be connected with the primary store structure. Pump 6 canopies shall be located behind the store and oriented away from adjoining residential areas. Canopy ceiling should be textured or have a flat finish." The Applicant requests a waiver to allow the fuel pump canopy to be separated from the primary store structure and located in front of the building. E. Fueling Pump Canopy-Roof: For gasoline/convenience stores in the N- COM District, City Code § 11.03, subd. 2.A.14(a) requires that "[a]ll buildings and pump canopies shall have peaked roofs and relate architecturally in scale, proportion, materials and detail, and color with the building." The Applicant requests a waiver to allow the building and fuel pump canopy to have flat roofs. 20. These requested waivers to the gasoline/convenience store standards in City Code establish that the Project is not designed in compliance with those standards, which were adopted to minimize the impact of convenience stores and gas stations adjacent to residential areas. The requested waivers would result in the building not relating architecturally with the neighboring residential or commercial development. The building and the pump canopy do not have peaked roofs. The neighboring commercial buildings have peaked roofs or parapets that simulate a peaked roof. The canopy will not be connected to the primary store structure, which increases the footprint and the visual impact of the gas station use. These requested waivers to Code requirements are not justified by the design of the development and do not serve or enhance the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. 21. The other waivers sought by Applicant request flexibility from lot size, width, and setback performance standards contained in City Code. The design of the development does not justify the requested waivers. The requested waivers do not promote creativity in the design. The design does not provide for efficient circulation in and around the site, promote vehicular safety, or provide for a smooth transition between the uses and the residential neighborhood. Granting the waivers and flexibility from the performance standards does not provide public benefit to justify granting the request. Composition and Arrangement of PUD 22. Applicant seeks PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.D, requires that the Council find that the PUD is of composition and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence on any subsequent unit, and the PUD is consistent with an approved PUD Concept. 23. The PUD is not of composition and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence on any subsequent unit. The Project cannot accommodate traffic and site circulation in a manner that will not create conflicts with adjacent properties. The layout of the site does not 7 take into consideration or mm1m1ze the adverse impacts to the neighboring residential properties. The Project depends on Breezy Way for access and to alleviate traffic circulation concerns. Breezy Way is a residential street that is not built to standards necessary to accommodate the commercial traffic that is reasonably expected to use the gas station and auto service center. 24. For the various reasons stated above in these findings, the PUD Concept for the Property is not approved. The PUD is therefore not consistent with an approved PUD Concept. Compliance with Underlying Zoning District Standards 25. City Code § 11.40, subd. 8, provides that a PUD must comply with "[a ]11 standards and provisions relating to an original district" as set forth in Chapters 11 and 12, unless waived through the PUD process. 26. The land on which the Project is proposed to be located is within the City's N-COM Zoning District. The purposes of the N-COM District are to "provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices and personal service establishments patronized by residents of the immediate neighborhood area" and to "permit development of neighborhood shops and related office uses . . . according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." (City Code § 11.25, subd. 1.A) 27. The Project does not support the special purposes of the N-COM Zoning District. The proposed uses are regional in nature rather than serving the immediate neighborhood area. The intensity of the two uses is in conflict with the surrounding neighborhood. The gas station, which is proposed to be open 24 hours per day, would be one of the largest gas stations in the City. The uses create significant peak hour traffic that is projected to traffic congestion in and around the Project, which is in conflict with the purposes of the N-COM District. II. Site Plan 28. City Code § 11.03, subdivision 6.E, contains standards and provisions applicable to the City's evaluation of site plan and architectural design review application, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances, transitions between differing land uses, provision for safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and compliance with the City Design Guidelines. 29. The site plan for the Project is not consistent with the land use and transportation goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As identified in the findings above, the Project does not promote an appropriate mix of land uses or a safe and efficient transportation system. 8 30. The site plan for the Project is not consistent with the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances because it requires waivers from the standard requirements and provisions of those ordinances. 31. The Project does not provide for smooth transitions between the proposed gas station/convenience store and auto repair facility and the neighboring residential uses. The car wash associated with the gas station/convenience store and the auto repair facility are proposed to be located directly adjacent to neighboring residential property with no transition or buffering provided, creating noise impacts and visual impacts on the neighboring property. 32. The Project does not make adequate provision for safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The proposed main access point with Hennepin Town Road will lead to traffic queuing and have a negative impact on traffic at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road. The secondary access point onto Breezy Way creates noise and traffic impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhood. The Breezy Way access point also creates the potential that customers will use Belmont Way, a private street, to access the Project from or to Hennepin Town Road. The Applicant has not established that the Project has any easement or other legal right to use Belmont Way. 33. The Project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Design Guidelines. The Project does not relate well to the surrounding context. The Project is located close to the existing residential development without landscape screening to provide a quality transition between uses. The buildings do not complement the surrounding residential or commercial development. The site is auto-oriented and is not designed to the human scale. Functionally the Project is not of high quality because the design of the Project creates traffic problems, the pedestrian and vehicular connection between the businesses is inefficient, and the buildings are distinct and separate and do not bear a positive physical or visual relationship to one another. III. Preliminary Plat 34. City Code§ 12.04, subd. 5.C, provides that a preliminary plat may not be approved if the Council makes any of the following findings (among other factors): that the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations; that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; or that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. 35. As noted above in Findings 2-6, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. 36. The Project site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The location of the site adjacent to a residential development and configuration of 9 the site is not physically suitable for a large gas station/convenience store with 16 gas pumps and a car wash, and an auto repair business with ten service bays. The gas station/convenience store would have more pumps than any other combination gas station/convenience store in the City, and would be larger than any other gas stations in the N-COM district. The Project proposes a high intensity of use that does not fit in the surrounding neighborhood. 37. The design of the proposed subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. As discussed above, the intensity of the Project in a residential neighborhood is not suitable and is not in the best interests of the City. The negative impacts on traffic, noise, and safety that can reasonably be anticipated to result from the Project have a detrimental impact on the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents surrounding the Project as well as the community as a whole. IV. Revised Site Plan Submittal 38. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan on August 26, 2021 to replace the original site plan. The revised site plan makes significant changes to the original site plan and purportedly removes the need for two of the requested PUD waivers. 39. Because the revised site plan makes significant changes to and is intended to replace the original site plan, City staff informed the Applicant that, once the revised application is deemed complete, the revised site plan and PUD application must go through the full review process required by City Code, including neighborhood outreach, staff review, Planning Commission, and City Council review. 40. On September 17, 2021, the Applicant submitted updated civil engineering, architectural, and landscape plans. Staff has not had adequate time to review the updated plans and determine whether the revised application is complete, including whether a revised preliminary plat is necessary. The Applicant has declined to grant the City an extension of the time limit for review of the application necessary to comply with the review process required by the City Code. The City is unable to complete the review process required by City Code under the current review time line. 41. City Code § 11.03, subd. 6.F provides that "a Site Plan and Architectural Design shall not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date it has been referred to the Planning Commission for its study and report." Further, the Council must also hold a public hearing for which notice has been given to neighboring property owners. Id. 42. City Code§ 11.40, subd. 10.A provides that "[a]n application for a PUD ... may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date ofreferral 10 to the Planning Commission." Public hearings on a PUD application must be "held before both the Planning Commission and the Council." Id., subd. 10. 43. There is not sufficient time under the existing review period to complete Planning Commission and City Council review and the applicant has declined to provide an extension. Because the Council has not received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Code prohibits the Council from acting on the revised site plan or PUD application. The Council will not review or act on the revised application. DECISION Based upon the above findings of fact, the Council hereby denies the Applications for PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review, Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat for the Holiday and Auto Care World Project. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 21st day of September, 2021. Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST 11