Loading...
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.