Loading...
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.