**Note on Speakers:** While the prompt provides a list of City Council members, this transcript is for the **Bloomington Planning Commission**. Based on the dialogue, the members present and speaking are **Chair Jerome Rohman**, **Commissioner Albrecht**, **Commissioner Wilson**, **Commissioner Cookson**, and **Commissioner Goltzman**. Staff members identified include **Nick Johnson** (Planning Manager), **Laney Eck** (Planner), and **Mike Centinario** (Planner). *** [00:00] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Good evening and welcome to the February 16th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is made up of seven volunteer Bloomington residents appointed by the City Council. The Commission advises the City Council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning, and transportation issues. Our work is informed by the city's Comprehensive Plan, various district plans, and the City Code. In some items, the Commission makes a recommendation with the City Council having the final decision-making authority; in other cases, the Planning Commission approves or denies an application, subject to appeal to the City Council. For each action item, there will be a staff report, an opportunity for the public to present, and then time for any member of the public to provide testimony. Our first order of business tonight is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand as you are able. [All: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.] All right. I will ask the Planning Manager to share information about remote testimony. [00:01] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: Chair Rohman and Commissioners, we have two public hearings tonight, and if somebody is watching from home, they can call to testify remotely. What you would do is just call the number on the screen and then enter in the access code. We will have these numbers available during the public hearings on the screen as well. Thank you. [00:02] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Tonight we have four items on the agenda. There are two public hearings and two study items. The first item is a request for a Conditional Use, and Planner Laney Eck has the presentation. [00:02] **Laney Eck (Planner)**: Okay, so the first item tonight is a Conditional Use for an athletic training facility, and this is located at 6401 Cecilia Circle. This aerial shows the proposed site outlined in green off of Cecilia Circle, I-494 to the south. The subject is zoned I-2 Limited Industry with the Planned Development overlay and designated Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. There are office and warehouse uses to the east, office uses to the west, and office warehouse uses to the north in the city of Edina. Here is the floor plan: the applicant proposes to split this area into physical therapy space, athletic training space, and offices. About 2,700 square feet would be a physical therapy space, which is a permitted use, and 5,200 square feet would be an athletic performance training facility, which is a conditional use. The remaining 2,929 square feet would be used as offices, common areas, and bathrooms. The athletic training facility would offer training sessions on weekdays from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. during the school year and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the summer. The physical therapy space would have hours Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The typical number of people in the building would be 8 to 24 at any given time, while the maximum number of people expected could be 37; it's unlikely that that will ever be reached. Here's the site plan that shows where the proposed space will be located—in the southern building. It will occupy 10,829 square feet of the approximate 80,000 square foot southern building. The previous tenant in this space was a conditional use for a golf training facility, and since there are no exterior modifications to the property, no changes in parking lot lighting or landscaping are required. The existing site has 295 parking spaces, whereas 307 spaces are required by City Code. This lower parking level is allowed through a shared parking agreement that was approved March 29, 2018. The agreement demonstrates parking can be shared given that tenants on the site have peak parking demands at varying times of the day. Given the agreement, staff has no concerns about the parking. Additionally, there has been no identification of significant impacts to traffic with this Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, staff was able to make the required findings and recommends approval through the following motion on the screen. [00:04] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? [Pause] Okay. Thank you for the good work on this. Would the applicant like to speak on this item? [00:05] **Applicant**: I can answer anything you'd like to know, but otherwise I'm good. [00:05] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay, this item is a public hearing, so we will open the public hearing. I'm not seeing anyone in the chambers. Do we have anyone online? [00:05] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: Chair Rohman, we have no one online for this item. [00:06] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: All right, seeing that, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [00:06] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Move to close the public hearing. [00:06] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:06] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Thank you. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? The public hearing is closed. Discussion on the proposed Conditional Use Permit? Commissioner Albrecht. [00:07] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Thank you, Chair. I think this is a great use for what was a golf training facility to move into a hockey training facility. I do also appreciate that it's going to be a dual use and it's pretty straightforward. So, I am in support. If no others, I will make a motion. In case PL2023-2, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for an athletic training facility at 6401 Cecilia Circle, subject to conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. [00:08] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:08] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Thank you. We have a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit at the subject property. Any further discussion? All those in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? The motion prevails. This is a final decision unless an appeal is received by 4:30 on February 22nd. Thank you both. The second item is another hearing. This item is for a rezoning and preliminary and final development plans to expand an existing motor vehicle sales facility. Planner Mike Centinario joins us for the presentation. [00:09] **Mike Centinario (Planner)**: Okay, thank you. Good evening. The second item on tonight's agenda is a couple of different zoning entitlements for Luther Hyundai on American Boulevard West, just south of Interstate 494. Those are: rezoning the base zoning district from B-5, which is frankly an antiquated zoning district that is slowly being phased out, to C-1, which is really the intended zoning district for motor vehicle sales facilities. And then in addition to that, preliminary and final development plans for an expansion to the north and the south of the building. So here we have the site—we've all driven by it—looking just immediately south of American Boulevard West, a highly visible site along Interstate 494. Obviously, we have the interstate to the north; to the west, we have another motor vehicle sales facility; to the east/southeast, there's an office flex building; and then to the south of that are some single-family homes. Again, just a slightly closer image of the site. Here's a quick graphic on the zoning: existing and proposed. Again, the B-5 district has a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) maximum, but in our zoning code, we actually have a 0.4 minimum for motor vehicle sales facilities. So obviously, you can see a conflict there between the existing zoning and where we feel we should be going for future development within the city. That's one of the reasons why the C-1 district was deemed the appropriate zoning district, and the applicant is requesting that. One significant difference: between the B-5 and the C-1, there is no Conditional Use Permit requirement for motor vehicle sales facilities. So that's why in your application tonight we have the rezoning request and the development plans, but we did not need to review a Conditional Use Permit. Turning the camera 180 degrees, towards the bottom of the screen is the entrance. You can see the building occupies the northwestern part of the site, and the eastern half is pretty much entirely customer and service parking, as well as inventory. Here is an image from about a year ago from street view; you can see the existing facility looking east towards the entrance. We'll see momentarily in some images how what they are proposing to do is really expand and create a more prominent front building facade with more glass than what's there today. Another image: I'll touch on this briefly in my landscaping comments, but there's quite a few trees along the perimeter of the site along Roxborough and American Boulevard, but we're really missing a lot of shrubs. We have trees, but we're missing that parking lot screen that is a code requirement, and that's something we'll be looking for the applicant to work on as we finalize a landscaping plan. Here you can see the freestanding sign that is visible from the local street as well as the interstate. Next image is the site plan. I've highlighted in blue the areas that are proposed for the addition. On the north end of the site, you have a building sliver that would be added on to the existing facility to create that new storefront. Then there's a small rectangle in the middle of the building that expands the service drive-in area. Then on the south end of the building is their service facility expansion to their auto body operations. In terms of square footage, the service expansion is the biggest; in terms of visual change, it's definitely the showroom additions. There will need to be some revisions to the landscaping plan based on land disturbance. This is a very large site, well over seven acres, so if we took the entire site and calculated the landscaping requirement, it would be a very large number. The site as it sits today doesn't meet that standard. The code tells us to go by land disturbance, so you're adding a proportional amount of landscaping based on the project disturbance, and that's what we're proposing to do with the applicant. One of those comments relates to parking islands. The code requires a deciduous tree to be located within each parking island. I've circled seven parking islands that are either new or modified, and a tree will have to be located within each of those. There was a small expansion in 2011 for a car wash and some service work; that is a good starting point to work with the applicant on a revised plan. Oftentimes over the years, shrubs die and are replaced with turf or rock; this is a chance to fix that. I want to touch briefly on the floor plan. On the upper part of the screen, you're seeing the new showroom. You have your showroom vehicles and your sales consultants front and center. Then you have your back-of-house operations and your service department. You can see the service drive-in, which virtually all auto dealers are going to now. Here is the south expansion, which is significantly expanding their service capabilities. We do parking requirements for auto dealers, which can be tricky because there are different ratios for major auto repair, minor auto repair, car wash, office, and warehouse. Suffice to say, auto dealers have plenty of parking on site; it's just a matter of allocating a certain amount for customers, employees, and service to make sure the entire lot isn't taken up by inventory so that if you're trying to shop for a car, you have somewhere to go. The applicant's numbers were very close to what we came up with. You can see the front building expansion: much more significant presence, glass, new metal panel band with a unique AC composite panel. I made a couple of comments on materials: for a small portion of the building, there was some EIFS or synthetic stucco being proposed, and our recommendation is that that be replaced with something permitted by right, whether that's traditional stucco, brick, or metal panels. The existing building is predominantly a brick building, and that would be maintained. That top color is precast concrete, which does require flexibility, but in this context, we think it is a quality material and is pretty common for auto dealerships. So, with that, we are recommending approval. I have the two motions below. [00:15] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Wilson. [00:15] **Commissioner Wilson**: Thanks, Chair. One question I have is regarding the properties to the south of this proposal. I do see that there is a small pond and single-family homes. Can you talk about what impact this project will have on either the water quality or the single-family homes directly to the south? [00:16] **Mike Centinario (Planner)**: Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. We don't feel that there is a significant impact to the single-family homes to the south. One of the elements of an expansion like this is they have to do some level of stormwater management above and beyond what's there today. Before permits are issued, our engineering staff would review their stormwater management plan for conformance with City Code. Likely, that means the stormwater management is better than it is today. There are quite a few trees between this site and that water feature. In the summer that's very lush, and in the winter it still provides a visual barrier. Further, the height of the proposed building wouldn't impact views like a multilevel parking structure might. Also, the distance—it's about 500 feet between the edge of the building and the single-family property boundary. [00:17] **Commissioner Wilson**: Great. Thank you. [00:17] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Other questions for staff? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak on this item? [00:18] **Applicant (Luther Representative)**: Thank you. Good evening. [Name] for Professional Services here with Linda McGinty from Luther. Mike’s introduction was to the point; we agree and acknowledge the conditions in the staff report and will work with staff to address the landscaping plan deficiencies. Regarding stormwater management, this expansion requires that we meet City and Watershed rules. Because we are disturbing less than half of the site, we are only obligated to bring the portion we are disturbing into compliance, but it is still a significant portion, so there will be water benefits. Additionally, the expansion to the shop will be air-conditioned. Because of that, the doors will be closed during the summer months, so noise will be minimized for the neighbors to the south. Also, the existing vegetation to the south will largely be undisturbed. Lastly, we intend to incorporate electric vehicle charging on this site as well. We'll stand for any additional questions. [00:20] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Wilson. [00:20] **Commissioner Wilson**: Thanks, Chair. One quick question: with the expansion, are you looking to hire additional employees to staff this increased capacity? [00:21] **Applicant (Luther Representative)**: Yes, definitely. There's an additional six bays, which will require additional technicians. This is growth for an already successful property. [00:21] **Commissioner Wilson**: Great. Thank you. [00:21] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Other questions for the applicant? Thank you. This item is a public hearing. I don't see anyone in the chambers. Chair Rohman, do we have anyone online? [00:21] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: Chair Rohman, we have no callers tonight. [00:22] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: All right. Having opened the public hearing, we would look for a motion to close it. [00:22] **Commissioner Albrecht**: So moved. [00:22] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:22] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion? All in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? The public hearing is closed. Discussion on the proposal? Commissioner Cookson? [00:22] **Commissioner Cookson**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Centinario, you discussed the floor area ratio a little bit and that the City Code currently has a specific carve-out for auto dealerships and minimum floor area ratio. Could you discuss that further and maybe where that started from? [00:23] **Mike Centinario (Planner)**: I’d have to rely on Glen on the history, as he was the primary author of those standards. I believe the proposal tonight is about 0.16 FAR. It's a 9,200 square foot addition. If this were a scrape-and-rebuild, it would not be compliant because it wouldn't meet that 0.4 FAR minimum. However, there is a specific exception for existing motor sales facilities where they are permitted to increase area even if it does not meet the minimum FAR. Glen, are you able to provide history? [00:24] **Glen Markegard (Planning Director)**: Chair Rohman and Commissioner Cookson, that standard dates back to around 1996. The City prepared an auto dealer study looking at concerns that a lot of the land along 494 was being converted to dealerships. The concern was that there was less activity and less tax base in terms of building size. One way to address that is for dealerships to go vertical, using less land area for the same amount of activity. A new district was created—the C-1 district—that has minimum floor area ratios to encourage auto dealers to adopt a more vertical format over time. We've noticed the market is heading in that direction anyway. [00:25] **Commissioner Cookson**: Thank you. [00:25] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Other discussion? Commissioner Goltzman. [00:25] **Commissioner Goltzman**: Thanks, Chair. Overall, I think the application is straightforward. I was pleasantly surprised that the water impact would be positive and there is minimal impact to the single-family homes to the south. I also like that they're looking to expand the employment base here in Bloomington. I’ll be supporting the application. [00:26] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: I, too, am happy with the proposal. We've seen this applicant before and they've continued to do a good job of reinvesting in the community. It puts forward a good image of the city as you're passing through on 494. Any further discussion or a motion? [00:26] **Commissioner Albrecht**: In case PL2023-3, I move to recommend the Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 4801 American Boulevard West from B-5 PD to C-1 PD Freeway Office and Service Planned Development. [00:27] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:27] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Motion and a second to recommend rezoning. All those in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? Motion carries. And we have a second motion. [00:27] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Thank you, Chair. In case PL2023-3, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend City Council approve major revisions to preliminary and final development plans for an approximately 9,200 square foot expansion of the Luther Hyundai facility located at 4801 American Boulevard West, subject to conditions and code requirements. [00:28] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:28] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval. Any further discussion? All those in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? The motion passes. These items will appear on the March 20th City Council meeting as a public hearing. Thank you. Item number three is to consider approval of two Planning Commission synopses. We will do them separately. For the first item, Commissioners Goltzman and Albrecht were not present, so I will entertain a motion from anyone else. Commissioner Cookson. [00:29] **Commissioner Cookson**: I move to approve the draft synopsis for December 22nd, 2022. [00:29] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:29] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? Abstentions? [Albrecht and Goltzman: Abstain.] Motion passes. The next item is the January 12th synopsis. I was not present, nor was Commissioner Korman or Abdi. I entertain a motion from the other three. Mr. Albrecht. [00:29] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Thank you, Chair. I move to approve the draft January 12th, 2023 Planning Commission synopsis. [00:30] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [00:30] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Motion and second. All those in favor say "Aye." [Commissioners: Aye.] Opposed? Abstain? [Chair Rohman: Abstain.] Motion passes. Item number four is the Planning Commission policy and update. [00:30] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: Chair Rohman and Commissioners, we have another commission meeting next Thursday night. We have a master sign application for Bloomington Central Station and the introduction of a new employee, Holly Masek, who will be the new Port Authority Administrator. After that, on March 9th, we have a privately initiated City Code amendment regarding K-12 schools in the ITTA zoning district. Looking further out to March 23rd, we have a Conditional Use Permit for a pet services facility at 5111 West 90th Street. [00:31] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: I just want to clarify for anyone watching—your paper says March 5th, but it's March 9th. March 5th is a Sunday. I won't be here on the beach for that! Any other items for discussion? [00:31] **Commissioner Wilson**: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. Regarding the last application and the floor area ratio (FAR): the 1996 study seems like a long time ago. The market has changed. I request that staff give some consideration to whether we want to go back and look at that study. I wonder if we’re missing out on development opportunities by allowing these lower levels of density for existing facilities. I'll leave it to staff's judgment. [00:32] **Chair Jerome Rohman**: Any other items? All right, seeing none, we are adjourned until February 23rd.